Observation Paper (20 percent)
Select an organization in which you have worked or with which you are familiar enough to perform an observation.
By completing the observation paper, students will meet the requirements of outcomes 1 and 2:
- develop and implement strategies that establish constructive interpersonal and group relationships that build high-performing and loyal individuals and teams
- evaluate the culture and policies of an organization to recommend and implement improvements that support its vision, success, and sustainability
Required Elements to include in the Observation Paper:
- Identify the organization’s mission, vision, and core values.
- Discuss the culture of the organization as you believe it to be. Students want to be thorough in their analysis using course material.
- Provide four recommendations with a discussion about the relationship to culture of organization, impact that statement has on culture of organization, importance of mission, vision, and core values, and any other relevant material. For example, you may discover that the employees are unaware of or do not consistently act in accordance with the core values of the organization. Perhaps the culture of the organization is inappropriate to support the achievement of the mission.
- Include a conclusion
- Students are expected to apply terminology and concepts of leadership to the paper.
Required Formatting of Paper:
- This report should be double spaced, 12-point font, and three to four pages in length excluding the title page and reference page.
- Title page with your name, the course name, the date, and instructor’s name.
- Include references with at least one reference other than the textbook.
- Writing should be clear and concise.
- Use APA formatting for in-text citations and reference page. You are expected to paraphrase and not use quotes. Deductions will be taken when quotes are used and found to be unnecessary.
- Use outside credible sources.
- Submit the paper in the Assignment Foldert.
Grading Rubric for Observation Paper (20%)
|
Outstanding |
Superior |
Good |
Substandard |
Failure |
|
7.0 |
5.95 |
5.25 |
4.55 |
3.85 |
| Critical thinking/reasoning |
demonstrates a high degree of critical thinking, is consistent in accurately interpreting questions & material; provides solid assumptions, reasoning & claims; thorough analysis & evaluation with sound conclusions |
shows good critical thinking; accurately interprets most questions & material; usually identifies relevant arguments/reasoning/claims; offers good analysis & evaluation with fairly sound conclusions |
shows occasional critical thinking; questions & material is at times accurately interpreted; arguments/reasoning/claims are occasionally explained; offers fair analysis & evaluation with a conclusion |
shows little critical thinking, misinterprets questions or material; ignores or superficially evaluates; justifies little and seldom explains reasoning; draws unwarranted conclusions |
lacks critical thinking consistently offers biased interpretations; ignores or superficially evaluates; argues using poor reasoning, and/or unwarranted claims |
|
7.0 |
5.95 |
5.25 |
4.55 |
3.85 |
| Application of concepts/development |
arguments or positions are well-supported with evidence from the readings/experience; ideas go beyond the course material and recognize implication and extensions of the material and concepts |
arguments or positions are mostly supported by evidence from the readings and course content; ideas presented demonstrate student’s understanding of the material and concepts |
arguments are more often based on opinion or unclear views than on position grounded in the readings of material or external sources of material |
arguments are frequently illogical and unsubstantiated; student may resort to ad hominem attacks on the author instead of making meaningful application of the material |
a meaningful attempt to explain or support ideas does not exist |
|
3.0 |
2.55 |
2.25 |
1.95 |
1.65 |
| Attention to instructions |
demonstrated full understanding of requirements responded to each aspect of assignment |
demonstrated understanding of requirements; missed one minor aspect of assignment |
demonstrated some understanding of requirements; missed a key element or two minor aspects of assignment |
failed to show a firm understanding of requirements; missed two key elements or several minor aspects of assignment |
did not demonstrate understanding of assignment requirements |
|
2.0 |
1.7 |
1.5 |
1.3 |
1.1 |
| Clarity, including grammar |
writing is clear and easy to follow; grammar and spelling are all correct; formatting gives a professional look and adds to readability |
most ideas are presented clearly; occasional spelling and/or grammar issues |
wordy; some points require rereading to understand fully; more than an occasional spelling and/or grammar |
unclear and difficult to understand; frequent spelling and grammar issues |
largely incomprehensible writing/poorly written in terms of mechanics and structure |
|
1.0 |
.85 |
.75 |
.65 |
.55 |
| Adherence to APA style (6thed.) |
no APA style errors |
attempts in-text citation and reference list but 1 or 2 APA style errors are present |
attempts in-text citation and reference listing; APA style errors are present: inconsistencies in citation usage can be found throughout the document |
attempts either in-text citation or reference list but omits the other |
no attempt at APA style |
