Contemporary Organization Evaluation

RUBRIC

Contemporary Organization Evaluation - Rubric

Collapse All

Contemporary Organization (Description of Organization and Responding to Change)

20 points

Criteria Description

Contemporary Organization (Description of Organization and Responding to Change)

5. Excellent

20 points

A detailed description of a contemporary organization is presented; all relevant details are included and description provides insight into the organization. The description of the current change to which the organization is responding is well developed and contains relevant detail.

4. Good

17.4 points

A description of a contemporary organization is presented; all major details are included. A description of the change to which the organization is responding is current and accurately represented. 

3. Satisfactory

15.8 points

A cursory description of a contemporary organization is presented; most major details are included. A general description of the change to which the organization is responding is presented, but contains some inaccuracies or lacks some relevant details; the change to which the organization is responding is not a current event.

2. Less than Satisfactory

14.8 points

A partial description of the organization is presented; major relevant details are missing. A description of the change to which the organization is responding is cursory and incomplete. The organization and change issue are not contemporary or current.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Description of a contemporary organization responding to change is not provided.

Effects of Change (Discusses Effects of Change, Organizational Response and Strategies Utilized)

20 points

Criteria Description

Effects of Change (Discusses Effects of Change, Organizational Response and Strategies Utilized)

5. Excellent

20 points

A well-rounded discussion on the effects of change on the organization and its response to the change is presented. The discussion is detailed and strongly supported by documented facts.

4. Good

17.4 points

A discussion on the effects of change on the organization and its response to the change is presented. The discussion is supported by relevant and documented facts.

3. Satisfactory

15.8 points

A general discussion on the effects of change on the organization is presented. The response of the organization to the change is presented, but it does not include a clear evaluation of the strategies of the organization. The discussion lacks relevant details, facts, and support. 

2. Less than Satisfactory

14.8 points

An incomplete discussion on the effects of change on the organization is presented. The response of the organization is not discussed. 

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The effects of change on the organization and the response of the organization to change are not discussed. 

Stakeholders (Determine Effects of Change and Response to Change)

20 points

Criteria Description

Stakeholders (Determine Effects of Change and Response to Change)

5. Excellent

20 points

The effect of change on stakeholders is discussed in detail. Stakeholder response/resistance to change is presented with accurate and relevant examples. Well-developed recommendations are provided in responding to stakeholder resistance. Strong evidence or rationale is provided for claims made, and strategies relevant to the organization and stakeholders are offered to help stakeholders overcome resistance.

4. Good

17.4 points

The effect of change on stakeholders is discussed. Stakeholder response/resistance to change is presented. Suggestions are provided in responding to stakeholder resistance. Evidence or rationale is provided for claims made. Some evidence is provided to support statements, and common strategies are offered to help stakeholders overcome resistance. 

3. Satisfactory

15.8 points

The effect of change on stakeholders is discussed, but little evidence or rationale is provided for claims made. Stakeholder response/resistance to change is generally presented, but it is lacking in detail. Cursory suggestions are provided in responding to stakeholder resistance, but these strategies are incomplete and lack support for validity.

2. Less than Satisfactory

14.8 points

The effect of change on stakeholders is briefly considered, but no evidence or rationale is provided for claims made. Stakeholder response/resistance to change is not presented. No suggestions are provided in responding to stakeholder resistance. 

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The effect of change on the stakeholders is not addressed.

Effects of Change on Interdepartmental Collaboration

20 points

Criteria Description

Effects of Change on Interdepartmental Collaboration

5. Excellent

20 points

A detailed evaluation of the effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration for the organization is presented and provides insight into the situation. The evaluation is supported with strong detail, facts, support, and rationale. 

4. Good

17.4 points

An evaluation of the effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration for the organization is presented. The evaluation is supported with some detail, facts, support, or rationale.

3. Satisfactory

15.8 points

A superficial evaluation of the effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration for the organization is presented. The evaluation lacks detail, facts, support, or rationale.

2. Less than Satisfactory

14.8 points

General effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration are discussed, but the specific effects for the departments within the organization are not included.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration are not evaluated.

Evaluation of the Response of the Leaders to Change and the Strategies Presented by Leaders

30 points

Criteria Description

Evaluation of the Response of the Leaders to Change and the Strategies Presented by Leaders

5. Excellent

30 points

Evaluation of the response of the leaders to change is presented with sufficient detail and supporting information vital to understanding the involvement of the leaders. Strategies presented by leaders in response to change are clearly addressed and provide insight into the outcomes the organization experienced in responding to change. Overall, leadership response to change is clear and contains significant information or details that describe the extent of leadership involvement and the degree to which leadership involvement was influential.

4. Good

26.1 points

Evaluation of the response of the leaders to change is presented, but it lacks detail or information vital to understanding the involvement of the leaders. Strategies presented by leaders in response to change are generally addressed. Overall, it is apparent that the leaders were responsive to change, but significant information or details are missing to discern the actual extent of leadership involvement or the degree to which leadership involvement was influential.

3. Satisfactory

23.7 points

Evaluation of the response of the leaders to change is presented, but it lacks detail or information vital to understanding the actual involvement of the leaders. Strategies presented by leaders in response to change are generally addressed. Overall, it is apparent that the leaders were responsive to change, but significant information or details are missing to discern the actual extent of leadership involvement or the degree to which leadership involvement was influential.

2. Less than Satisfactory

22.2 points

A clear evaluation of the response of the leaders to change is not addressed, and strategies presented by leaders are referenced, but not formally addressed. Overall, the involvement of leadership in response to change is unclear.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Evaluation response of the leaders to change is not addressed, and strategies presented by leaders are not referenced.

Recommendations (Suggestions to Better Address Change Dynamics, Additional Strategies)

30 points

Criteria Description

Recommendations (Suggestions to Better Address Change Dynamics, Additional Strategies)

5. Excellent

30 points

Well-supported recommendations to address change dynamics are clearly presented. Additional strategies are offered, with strong rationale or a clear plan to illustrate that the recommendations are relevant and would indeed support a better change option in response to change.

4. Good

26.1 points

Recommendations to address change dynamics are presented. Additional strategies are offered, with appropriate rationale or a clear plan to illustrate that the recommendations are relevant and would support a better change option in response to change.

3. Satisfactory

23.7 points

General recommendations to address change dynamics are presented. Additional strategies are offered, but lack detail, rationale, or a clear plan to illustrate that the recommendations are relevant and would support a better change option in response to change.

2. Less than Satisfactory

22.2 points

Recommendations to address change dynamics or for additional strategies are incomplete. Recommendations do not contain substantial rationale or support and do not seem relevant to the organization or circumstances. 

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

No recommendations are made.

Thesis Development and Purpose

14 points

Criteria Description

Thesis Development and Purpose

5. Excellent

14 points

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

4. Good

12.18 points

Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

3. Satisfactory

11.06 points

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

2. Less than Satisfactory

10.36 points

Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Argument Logic and Construction

16 points

Criteria Description

Argument Logic and Construction

5. Excellent

16 points

Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

4. Good

13.92 points

Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

3. Satisfactory

12.64 points

Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. 

2. Less than Satisfactory

11.84 points

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)

10 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)

5. Excellent

10 points

The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. Good

8.7 points

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.

3. Satisfactory

7.9 points

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.

2. Less than Satisfactory

7.4 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

10 points

Criteria Description

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

5. Excellent

10 points

All format elements are correct. 

4. Good

8.7 points

Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

3. Satisfactory

7.9 points

Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. 

2. Less than Satisfactory

7.4 points

Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.

Documentation of Sources

10 points

Criteria Description

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)

5. Excellent

10 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

4. Good

8.7 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. 

3. Satisfactory

7.9 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

2. Less than Satisfactory

7.4 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Sources are not documented.