Module Objective 5.3: Students will develop the first draft of the Critical Assignment.
Module Objective 5.3: Students will develop the first draft of the Critical Assignment.
Module Objective 5.3: Students will develop the first draft of the Critical Assignment.
The Critical Assignment Draft is an opportunity to get initial feedback on the upcoming critical assignment. The case describes the dilemma of a compelling leadership failure/poor decision/poor implementation issue derived from the student’s workplace or sector.
Utilizing the research-based organizational and administrative leadership styles and approaches learned from the course, students will develop a critical theory-based solution to this issue by identifying their strengths, discussing potential leadership theories/styles to address the identified issue, discussing the role of collaboration, and commenting on the ethics/faith-based influence on the solution proposed.
Students will include and cite the work from their annotated bibliography, sector-based case analysis and discussion, foundational/critical theorists and, reference current peer-reviewed sector appropriate research to support and defend their selection and application.
Each section of this draft should include at a minimum, 3-4 paragraphs addressing the relevant heading of the paper in order to receive feedback on the draft. The expectation is that provided feedback is then applied to the final version. Review the Critical Assignment Rubric below for the criteria for the final assignment submission in Week 7.
CRITICAL ASSIGNMENT RUBRIC
RUBRIC DETAIL
| Levels of Achievement | ||||
| Criteria | Exemplary | Accomplished | Developing | Beginning |
| Dimension 1 – Assessing an organization’s failure/malfeasance leadership issue. CLO – 3 SLO – 1 USO – APa, ESa WCC* – W, CT Weight= 10??% Weight 17.00% | 90.00 to 100.00 % Fully developed and insightful description and assessment of an organization’s context. Compelling leadership failure/malfeasance issue is clearly identified and presented in great detail with supporting evidence. | 80.00 to 89.50 % Sufficiently developed description and assessment of an organization’s context. Compelling leadership failure/malfeasance issue is identified and presented in detail with supporting evidence. | 70.00 to 79.50 % Minimally developed description and assessment of an organization’s context. Compelling leadership failure/malfeasance issue is identified and presented with limited supporting evidence. | 0.00 to 69.50 % Incomplete or lacking assessment of an organization’s context. Compelling leadership failure/malfeasance issue is presented without supporting evidence. |
| Dimension 2 – Self Awareness Assessment CLO – 2 SLO – 1, 4, 5 USO – APa, ESa WCC* – W, CT Weight= 10?% Weight 17.00% | 90.00 to 100.00 % Fully developed and insightful evaluation of their academic, professional, and leadership strengths. Scoring and interpretation of self-assessment results are included and discussed. Implications for leadership strategies are discussed in great detail. | 80.00 to 89.50 % Sufficiently developed and articulated academic, professional, and leadership strengths. Scoring and interpretation of self-assessment results are included. Implications for leadership strategies are discussed in detail. | 70.00 to 79.50 % Minimally developed and articulated academic, professional, and leadership strengths. Scoring and interpretation of self-assessment results are included. Implications for leadership strategies are discussed in some detail. | 0.00 to 69.50 % Insufficient or lacking academic, professional, and leadership strengths. Scoring and interpretation of self-assessment results are included. Implications for leadership strategies are discussed in detail. |
| Dimension 3 – Administration/ Leadership Theories CLO – 1 SLO – 1, 2 USO – APa, ESa WCC* – W, IL Weight= 30% Weight 17.00% | 90.00 to 100.00 % Fully demonstrates a high level of understanding of the fundamental administration and leadership theories. Synthesis includes an accurate description of relevant strategies. Thinking is supported by current research. | 80.00 to 89.50 % Sufficiently demonstrates an understanding of the fundamental administration and leadership theories. Synthesis includes an accurate description of relevant strategies. Thinking is supported by current research. | 70.00 to 79.50 % Minimally demonstrated an inconsistent level of understanding of the fundamental administration and leadership theories. Synthesis includes an accurate description of relevant strategies. Thinking is somewhat or partially supported by current research. | 0.00 to 69.50 % Insufficiently demonstrated little understanding of the fundamental administration and leadership theories. Synthesis includes an accurate description of relevant strategies. Thinking may not be supported by current research. |
| Dimension 4 – Promoting effective collaborative environments. CLO – 4 SLO – 8 USO – APa, ESa, ESb WCC* – Weight= 10% Weight 16.00% | 90.00 to 100.00 % Fully developed and insightful description of several leadership strategies that effectively foster collaborative environments. Describes use of these strategies in clear detail. | 80.00 to 89.50 % Sufficiently developed description of leadership strategies that effectively foster collaboration. Describes use of these strategies in detail. | 70.00 to 79.50 % Minimally developed description of leadership strategies that effectively foster collaboration. Partially describes use of these strategies. | 0.00 to 69.50 % Incomplete or lacking description of leadership strategies that effectively foster collaboration. Partially describes use of these strategies. |
| Dimension 5 – Ethical, faith-based conduct. CLO – 5 SLO – 4 USO – APa, ESa, BR WCC* – W, IL, CT Weight= 10?% Weight 17.00% | 90.00 to 100.00 % Fully developed and insightfully presents a strong rationale for ethical, faith-based leadership conduct. Accurately referenced and includes the ethical frameworks and reasoning presented in the course. | 80.00 to 89.50 % Sufficiently developed and presented the rationale for ethical, faith-based leadership conduct. Accurately referenced and includes the ethical frameworks and reasoning presented in the course. | 70.00 to 79.50 % Minimally developed rationale for ethical, faith-based leadership conduct. Accurately referenced and includes the ethical frameworks and reasoning presented in the course. | 0.00 to 69.50 % Incomplete or lacking rationale for ethical, faith-based leadership conduct. Lacks references to and/ or inclusion of the ethical frameworks and reasoning presented in the course. |
| Dimension 6 – Role of research. CLO – 6, 7 SLO – 2 USO – APa, GM, ESa WCC* – W, IL, CT Weight= 10% Weight 16.00% | 90.00 to 100.00 % Exceptionlly demonstrates the role of research by effectively including References and in-text citations in the work. Connections to relevant peer-reviewed research are evident throughout the paper. | 80.00 to 89.50 % Demonstrates the role of research by including References and in-text citations in the work. Connections to relevant peer-reviewed research are evident throughout the paper. | 70.00 to 79.50 % Partially demonstrates the role of research by including some References and in-text citations in the work. Connections to relevant peer-reviewed research used in portions of the paper. | 0.00 to 69.50 % Incomplete or lacking demonstration of the role of research by including few References and in-text citations in the work. Connections to relevant peer-reviewed research are minimal. |
| Dimension 7 – Use of APA. CLO – 8 SLO – 2,4 USO – APa, ESa WCC* – W, IL, CT Weight= 20% Weight 0.00% | 90.00 to 100.00 % Fully developed and insightful Student has presented work that completely adheres to the standards of APA for research papers including format, in-text citations, and appropriate academic references including peer-reviewed journal articles and books. | 80.00 to 89.50 % Sufficiently developed Student has presented work that mostly adheres to the standards of APA for research papers (1-3 errors) including format, in-text citations, and appropriate academic references including peer-reviewed journal articles and books. | 70.00 to 79.50 % Minimally developed Student has presented work that somewhat (more than 3 errors) adheres to the standards of APA for research papers including format, in-text citations, and appropriate academic references including peer-reviewed journal articles and books. | 0.00 to 69.50 % Incomplete or lacking Student has presented work that does not adhere to the standards of APA for research papers including format, in-text citations, and appropriate academic references including peer-reviewed journal articles and books. |
Requirements: 5-6 pages
so here is my situation: a manager was on the job for 2-months and wrote me up because I told her that the new things she wanted to implement had already been tested and failed. She said I was being insubordnant but when I challenged her and took her to HR, she tried to lie and say the conversation was on the phone but it was all written and I had the messages. so she changed her write-up and said I didn’t need a date for my deliverables. HR kept the write-up but let transfer to another department without her interfering.
something for you to incorporate. Thanks a bunch
Here are my clifton strengths as a reference – attached
Answer preview for the “Module Objective 5.3: Students will develop the first draft of the Critical Assignment.” essay…………………….
apa 1847 words