Project #121236 - Organizational Leadership A3

 
 

Assignment 3

Purpose:

In assignment 3, the saga of Joseph Dunn’s leadership at Dunn’s Ski Emporium and The Deli continues.  George Aitkins is getting ready to retire and Dunn has prepared for a clean transition. Dunn has hired you as a consultant to help create the transition organization. 

Students will analyze the case study and then write a consultancy report applying concepts and ideas learned throughout the course.  Students are expected to effectively use a wide range of the course readings in completing the paper, which means the course readings are used to support ideas and reasoning rather than as stand-alone statements.   

The purpose of this assignment is two-fold.  First, students will learn how to write a consultancy report and second, students will link the concepts of Dunn as a social architect, change agent, and individual to Dunn as a relationship builder. Use the Outline for Consultancy Report to assist you with the format of the report: OutlineConsultancyReport.docx

 Outcomes Met:

  •          develop and implement methods for establishing a constructive organizational structure and culture that fosters positive employee and employer relationships
  •          assess the interactions between the external environment and the organization to foster responsible and effective leadership and organizational practices

 Perspective:

 Students will act as a consultant hired to help Dunn address his role as a relationship builder.  Interface the plan you created in Assignment #1- The Role of a Leader, with Dunn’s need to address the potential threats to workforce harmony.  Emphasize his role as leader and what he can do to build a relationship with his employees so that he empowers his managers and workforce to implement his vision for the company.  Students are expected to be realistic in applying the concepts from the course to expand Dunn’s environment and leadership role. Remember that in order to determine strategic direction, the leader must look inward, outward, forward and beyond.

 Instructions:

Step 1:  Review “How to Analyze a Case Study” under Week 4 Content.

Step 2:  Create a Word or Rich Text Format (RTF) document that is single-spaced, double spaced between paragraphs, 12-point font.  The final product will be between 6-8 pages in length excluding the title page and the reference page.

Step 3:  Review the assignment grading rubric.

Step 4:  Follow this format:

  1.       Title page with title, your name, the course, the instructor’s name;
  2.       Use the following format found in this document:
  3.       Use headings such as those provided in this Outline for Consultancy Report.

Step 5:  In writing a case study, the writing is in the third person.  What this means is that there are no words such as “I, me, my, we, or us” (first person writing), nor is there use of “you or your” (second person writing).  If uncertain how to write in the third person, view this link:  http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/first-second-and-third-person

Step 6:  In writing this assignment, students are asked to support the reasoning using in-text citations and a reference list.  A reference within a reference list cannot exist without an associated in-text citation and vice versa.  View the sample APA paper under Week 1 content.

Step 7:  In writing this assignment, students are expected to paraphrase and not use direct quotes.  Learn to paraphrase by reviewing this link:  https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_paraphrase2.html

Step 8:  Read critically and analyze the scenario provided under Week 8 Content. 

Step 9:  Jot down or highlight key facts from the scenario.  Consider making an outline to capture key points in the paper. 

Step 10:  In your paper, respond to the following elements of leadership and plan design:

In your paper, respond to the following elements of the consultant’s report:

  •          Discuss the history of the companies before and after the merger to the present (including discussion of present status of businesses);
  •          Identify and discuss the consultant’s observations regarding Dunn’s role as social architect in the business’ future;   
  •          Identify and discuss the consultant’s observations regarding Dunn’s 21st century leadership challenges (change, diversity, knowledge management etc.) currently in the business; 
  •          Have the consultant draw conclusions based on the case facts and readings from the observations of Dunn’s role as social architect; 
  •          Have the consultant draw conclusions based on the case facts and readings from the observations Dunn’s leadership challenges;
  •          Make recommendations for Dunn on both areas based on the conclusions as to how Dunn can meet his social architect role and leadership challenges; 

Step 11:  Using the grading rubric as a comparison, read through the paper to ensure all required elements are presented.

Step 12: Proofread the paper for spelling and grammatical issues, and third person writing. 

  •          Use the spell and grammar check in Word as a first measure;
  •          Have someone who has excellent English skills to proof the paper;
  •          Consider submitting the paper to the Effective Writing Center (EWC).  The EWC will provide 4-6 areas that may need improvement.

 Step 13:  Submit the paper in the Assignment Folder.

 

 

Rubric Name: Assignment #3

 
Criteria

Comprehensively discussed the history including a detailed discussion of the current status.

(1.35 - 1.5)

Sufficiently discussed the history but did not detail the current status sufficiently

 

(1.2 - 1.34)

Generally discussed the history but missed  a few important facts and only mentions current status. 

 

(1.05 - 1.19)

Attempted to discuss the history but was imprecise, vague and contained mistakes or fact and did not include current details of the company.

(0.9 - 1.04)

Failed to discuss the history of the Companies in any meaningful way.

(0 - 0.89)

Identified and discussed all of the major observations  with sufficient detail.

(1.62 - 1.8)

Identified and discussed most of the major observations with sufficient detail.

(1.44 - 1.61)

Identified and discussed a few of the major observations but the discussion was missing some key ideas.

(1.26 - 1.43)

Identified and discussed only a few observations which were of  minor importance to the facts.

(1.08 - 1.16)

Failed to Identify and discuss the observations for consultant- social architect in any meaningful way.

(0 - 1.07)

Identified and discussed all of the major observations with sufficient detail.

(1.62 - 1.8)

Identified and discussed most of the major observations with sufficient detail.

(1.44 - 1.61)

Identified and discussed a few of the major observations but the discussion was missing some key ideas.

(1.26 - 1.43)

Identified and discussed only a few observations which were of  minor importance to the facts.

(1.08 - 1.16)

Failed to identify and discuss the observations for consultant on the subject of leadership challenges in any meaningful way.

(0 - 1.07)

Identified and discussed all of the major conclusions with sufficient detail; related the conclusions to the observations.

(1.62 - 1.8)

Identified and discussed most of the major conclusions with sufficient detail; sufficiently related the conclusions to the observations.

(1.44 - 1.61)

Identified and discussed a few of the major conclusions but the discussion was missing some key ideas; attempted to relate the conclusions to the observations.

(1.26 - 1.43)

Identified and discussed only a few conclusions which were of minor importance to the facts; did not relate the conclusions to the observations.

(1.08 - 1.16)

Failed to identify and discuss the consultants conclusions on the subject of social architect in any meaningful way.

(0 - 1.07)

Drew and discussed all of the major conclusions with sufficient detail; sufficiently related the conclusions to the observations.

(1.62 - 1.8)

Drew and discussed  most of the major conclusions but the discussion was still missing some detail; sufficiently related the conclusions to the observations.

(1.44 - 1.61)

Drew and discussed  several conclusions but the discussion was missing some key ideas; attempted to relate the conclusions to the observations.

(1.26 - 1.43)

Drew and discussed only a few conclusions which were of  minor importance to the facts; did not relate the conclusions to the observations.

(1.08 - 1.16)

Failed to Draw and discussed conclusions as to leadership challenges in any meaningful way.

(0 - 1.07)

Drew and discussed all of the major recommendations based on conclusions with in-depth detail.

(1.62 - 1.8)

Drew most major recommendations for both areas based on the conclusions with sufficient detail.

(1.44 - 1.61)

Drew several major recommendations for both areas based on the conclusions with some detail.

(1.26 - 1.43)

Drew a few specific recommendations for both areas based on the conclusions but needed detail.

(1.08 - 1.16)

Failed to Draw and discuss specific recommendations based on the conclusions for in any meaningful way.

(0 - 1.07)

Concepts and ideas are fully developed. Thinking is consistent in accurately interpreting questions and material/provides solid assumptions, reasoning and evaluation with sound conclusions. Reader can easily follow the author's logic and reasoning.

(5.4 - 6)

Concepts and ideas are developed. Thinking is mostly consistent in accurately interpreting questions and material/ provides good assumptions, reasoning and evaluation with sound conclusions. Reader can easily follow the author's logic and reasoning. 

(4.8 - 5.39 )

 

Concepts and ideas are mostly developed but may need clarification on some aspects of thinking, reasoning or evaluation.   Conclusions are drawn.  Reader follows the author’s logic but occasionally there are areas that are unclear.

(4.2 - 4.79)

Concepts and ideas are not cohesive.   Misinterprets questions or material; ignores or superficially evaluates, justifies little and seldom explains reasoning; draws unwarranted conclusions.  At times, the reader must attempt to determine the author's train of thought. 

  (3.6 - 4.19)

Concepts and ideas are not fully developed or presented in a cohesive manner. Misinterprets questions or material.

(0 – 3.59)

Arguments or positions are well-supported with evidence from the readings/experience; ideas go beyond the course material and recognize implications and extensions of the material and concepts.

(5.4 - 6)

Arguments or positions are mostly supported by evidence from the readings and course content; ideas presented demonstrate understanding of the material and concepts.

(4.8 - 5.39)

Arguments are more often based on opinion or unclear views than on position grounded in the readings of material or external sources of material.

(4.2 - 4.79)

Arguments are frequently illogical and unsubstantiated; Limited use of facts in case study and essential information presented in resources; May resort to ad hominem attacks on the author instead of making meaningful application of the material.

(3.6 - 4.19)   

Arguments lack meaningful explanation or support of ideas.  Does not provide facts presented in case study.

(0 – 3.59)

demonstrated full understanding of requirements responded to each aspect of assignment

(2.7 - 3)

demonstrated understanding of requirements; missed one minor aspect of assignment

(2.4 - 2.69)

demonstrated some understanding of requirements; missed a key element or two minor aspects of assignment

(2.1 - 2.39)

failed to show a firm understanding of requirements; missed two key elements or several minor aspects of assignment

(1.8 - 2.09)

did not demonstrate understanding of assignment requirements

(0 – 1.79)

Strictly adheres to standard usage rules of written English, including but not limited to capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.  No errors found.  No jargon used.

(2.7 - 3)

Adheres to standard usage of mechanics:  conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.  One to three errors found.

(2.4 - 2.69 )

Minimally adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics:  conventions of English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.  Four to 10 errors found.

(2.1 - 2.39)

Does not adhere to standard usage rules of mechanics:  conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.  More than 10 errors found.

(1.8 - 2.09)

Does not adhere to standard usage rules of mechanics:  conventions of written English largely incomprehensible and errors are too plentiful to count.

(0 – 1.79)

No APA style errors; Proper citation of source material is used throughout paper.  Reference titles follow APA with only the first word, the first word after a colon and proper nouns capitalized.

 

(1.35 - 1.5)

Attempts in-text citations and reference list but one or two APA style errors noted.

(1.2 - 1.34)

Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; APA style errors are noted; inconsistencies in citation usage are noted throughout document.

(1.05 - 1.19)

Attempts either in-text citations or reference list but omits the other.

(0.9 - 1.04)

No APA style errors including all places throughout paper that source material is used is properly cited.  Reference titles follow APA with only the first word, the first word after a colon and proper nouns capitalized.

(0 – 0.89)

Overall Score
           

Subject Business
Due By (Pacific Time) 04/16/2016 12:00 pm
Report DMCA
TutorRating
pallavi

Chat Now!

out of 1971 reviews
More..
amosmm

Chat Now!

out of 766 reviews
More..
PhyzKyd

Chat Now!

out of 1164 reviews
More..
rajdeep77

Chat Now!

out of 721 reviews
More..
sctys

Chat Now!

out of 1600 reviews
More..
sharadgreen

Chat Now!

out of 770 reviews
More..
topnotcher

Chat Now!

out of 766 reviews
More..
XXXIAO

Chat Now!

out of 680 reviews
More..
All Rights Reserved. Copyright by AceMyHW.com - Copyright Policy