APA

Performance Appraisals: Aligning Strategic Goals to People Development -

Rubric

Current Appraisal Methods 24 points

Criteria Description

Description in paper includes appraisal method covering required elements and

examples.

5. Target 24 points

The description includes a comprehensive appraisal method to include all required

elements within the assignment with at least one example of current practices.

4. Acceptable 20.88 points

The description includes a detailed current appraisal method and identifies roles

and performance ratings of employees with at least one example of current

practices.

3. Approaching 18.96 points

The description includes the current appraisal method and briefly identifies roles

and performance ratings of employees.

2. Insufficient 17.76 points

The description includes the current appraisal method but it is incomplete or lacks

details.

Changes or Strategies 30 points

Criteria Description

Description in paper includes changes or strategies for the company to implement for

its performance appraisal practices, including examples.

5. Target 30 points

The description includes detailed and innovative changes or strategies for the

company to implement for its performance appraisal practices and includes at least

one example of the change.

4. Acceptable 26.1 points

Collapse All

The description includes detailed changes or strategies for the company to

implement for its performance appraisal practices and includes at least one

example of the change.

3. Approaching 23.7 points

The description includes changes or strategies for the company to implement for its

performance appraisal practices.

2. Insufficient 22.2 points

The description includes some changes or strategies for the company but they are

incomplete or lack details.

Appraisal Tool and Appraisal Interview 18 points

Criteria Description

Description in paper includes suggestions for and a discussion of the advantages and

disadvantages benefits from both the proposed appraisal tool and an appraisal

interview method, and how it would align with the performance appraisal practices of

the organization.

5. Target 18 points

The description includes thorough suggestions for both an appraisal tool and an

appraisal interview method to include in the performance appraisal practices of the

organization. In addition, the description addresses the benefit of using the

appraisal tool and interview method as a part of the performance appraisal

practice.

4. Acceptable 15.66 points

The description includes detailed suggestions for both an appraisal tool and an

appraisal interview method to include in the performance appraisal practices of the

organization.

3. Approaching 14.22 points

The description includes mention of both an appraisal tool and an appraisal

interview method to include in the performance appraisal practices of the

organization.

2. Insufficient 13.32 points

The description includes either the appraisal tool or the appraisal interview

method but it is incomplete or lacks details

Recommendations to Company Leadership 12 points

Criteria Description

Paper includes two or more recommendations to company leadership that would meet

the performance appraisal expectations of fair and realistic criterion, and professional

development and motivation of the employees.

5. Target 12 points

Two or more exemplary recommendations to company leadership are made that

would meet the performance appraisal expectations of fair and realistic criterion,

and professional development and motivation of the employees.

4. Acceptable 10.44 points

Two or more appropriate recommendations to company leadership are made that

would meet the performance appraisal expectations of fair and realistic criterion,

and professional development and motivation of the employees.

3. Approaching 9.48 points

Two or more recommendations to company leadership are made that would meet

the performance appraisal expectations of fair and realistic criterion, and

professional development and motivation of the employees.

2. Insufficient 8.88 points

Two or more recommendations to company leadership are made but the

recommendations are incomplete or irrelevant.

Thesis, Position, or Purpose 8.4 points

Criteria Description

Communicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience.

5. Target 8.4 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is persuasively developed throughout and skillfully

directed to a specific audience.

4. Acceptable 7.31 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly

directed to a specific audience.

3. Approaching 6.64 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately developed. An awareness of the

appropriate audience is demonstrated.

2. Insufficient 6.22 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally

weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience.

Development, Structure, and Conclusion 9.6 points

Criteria Description

Development, Structure, and Conclusion Advances position or purpose throughout

writing; conclusion aligns to and evolves from development.

5. Target 9.6 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is coherently and cohesively advanced throughout.

The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A convincing and unambiguous

conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

4. Acceptable 8.35 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression

of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and plausible conclusion aligns to the

development of the purpose.

3. Approaching 7.58 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on

each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

2. Insufficient 7.1 points

Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are

inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic

and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Evidence 6 points

Criteria Description

Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose; considers

other perspectives.

5. Target 6 points

Comprehensive and compelling evidence is included. Multiple other perspectives

are integrated effectively.

4. Acceptable 5.22 points

Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Other perspectives are integrated.

3. Approaching 4.74 points

Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used.

2. Insufficient 4.44 points

Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or

integration of other perspectives is present.

Mechanics of Writing 6 points

Criteria Description

Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence

structure, etc.

5. Target 6 points

No mechanical errors are present. Skilled control of language choice and sentence

structure are used throughout.

4. Acceptable 5.22 points

Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence

structure are used.

3. Approaching 4.74 points

Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally

appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.

2. Insufficient 4.44 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language

choice or sentence structure are recurrent.

Format/Documentation 6 points

Criteria Description

Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level;

documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc.,

appropriate to assignment and discipline.

5. Target 6 points

No errors in formatting or documentation are present. Selectivity in the use of

direct quotations and synthesis of sources is demonstrated.

4. Acceptable 5.22 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.

3. Approaching 4.74 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious

errors.

2. Insufficient 4.44 points

Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors

in documentation of sources are evident.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points Total 120 points