20 (20%)

Student provides a thorough and detailed reflective explanation of the most important insights that he/she gained regarding his/her own leadership potential. Relevant resources and examples support thinking.

18.6 (18.6%)

Student provides a detailed reflective explanation of the most important insights that he/she gained regarding his/her own leadership potential. Relevant resources or examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors or details missing.

17 (17%)

Student provides a reflective explanation with some details of the most important insights that he/she gained regarding his/her own leadership potential. Some resources or examples support thinking. Some details are missing and/or not fully developed.

15 (15%)

Student provides an explanation with few details of the most important insights that he/she gained regarding his/her own leadership potential. Limited resources or examples support thinking. Many details are missing or lack clarity.

13 (13%)

Student provides a cursory or incomplete explanation with vague or missing details of the most important insights that he/she gained regarding his/her own leadership potential. Few if any resources or examples support thinking. Most details are missing.

7 (7%)

Student made an attempt but there is little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

0 (0%)

Student did not submit this element.

20 (20%)

Student provides a thorough and detailed reflective explanation of his/her personal value system and his/her ethical code and how they relate to his/her own leadership style. Relevant resources and examples support thinking.

18.6 (18.6%)

Student provides a detailed reflective explanation of his/her personal value system and his/her ethical code and how they relate to his/her own leadership style. Relevant resources or examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors/details missing.

17 (17%)

Student provides a reflective explanation with some details of his/her personal value system and his/her ethical code and how they relate to his/her own leadership style. Some resources or examples support thinking. Some details are missing and/or not fully developed.

15 (15%)

Student provides an explanation with few details of his/her personal value system and his/her ethical code and how they relate to his/her own leadership style. Limited resources or examples support thinking. Many details are missing or lack clarity.

13 (13%)

Student provides a cursory or incomplete explanation with vague or missing details of his/her personal value system and his/her ethical code and how they relate to his/her own leadership style. Few if any resources or examples support thinking. Most details missing.

7 (7%)

Student made an attempt but there is little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

0 (0%)

Student did not submit this element.

20 (20%)

Student provides a thorough and detailed reflective explanation of his/her plans for future growth and development as a leader. Relevant resources and examples support thinking.

18.6 (18.6%)

Student provides a detailed reflective explanation of his/her plans for future growth and development as a leader. Relevant resources or examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors/details missing.

17 (17%)

Student provides a reflective explanation with some details of his/her plans for future growth and development as a leader. Some resources or examples support thinking. Some details are missing and/or not fully developed.

15 (15%)

Student provides an explanation with few details of his/her plans for future growth and development as a leader. Limited resources or examples support thinking. Many details are missing or lack clarity.

13 (13%)

Student provides a cursory or incomplete explanation with vague or missing details of his/her plans for future growth and development as a leader. Few if any resources or examples support thinking. Most details missing.

7 (7%)

Student made an attempt but there is little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

0 (0%)

Student did not submit this element.

10 (10%)

Student exhibited comprehensive critical analysis and thinking throughout the paper, consistently supporting their thinking with relevant resources and examples. Strong logical progression of ideas with detailed supporting rationales throughout the paper including applying conceptual or theoretical understanding gained from readings, media, and other Learning Resources from course illustrating what he/she has learned throughout the context of the course.

9.3 (9.3%)

Student exhibited comprehensive critical analysis and thinking throughout the paper. Logical progression of ideas with detailed supporting rationales supports thinking including applying conceptual or theoretical understanding gained from readings, media, and other Learning Resources from course illustrating what he/she has learned throughout the context of the course.

8.5 (8.5%)

Student exhibited critical analysis and thinking overall on the assignment, but analysis would have been stronger with more recent or additional resources or examples. Some logical progression of ideas with rationales including some application of conceptual or theoretical understanding gained from readings, media, and other Learning Resources from course illustrating what he/she has learned throughout the context of the course.

7.5 (7.5%)

Student exhibited some evidence of critical analysis and thinking on the assignment, but not consistently. Some weakness in critical analysis or in the logical progression of ideas and/or rationales are somewhat weak and/or minimal application of conceptual or theoretical understanding gained from readings, media, and other Learning Resources from course illustrating what he/she has learned throughout the context of the course.

6.5 (6.5%)

Student exhibited weak critical analysis and thinking on the assignment due to the logic and/or reasoning being difficult to understand or follow. Rationales are missing or not well supported and/or little if any application of conceptual or theoretical understanding gained from readings, media, and other Learning Resources from course illustrating what he/she has learned throughout the context of the course.

3.5 (3.5%)

Student made an attempt but there is little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

0 (0%)

Student did not submit this element.

15 (15%)

Student submitted a paper that was fully consistent with Academic Writing Expectations and demonstrated a thorough understanding to audience and purpose of writing. Student used a scholarly voice that skillfully communicated meaning to readers with clarity and fluency and used correct spelling and grammar.

13.95 (13.95%)

Student submitted a paper that was fully consistent with Academic Writing Expectations and demonstrated a thorough understanding to audience and purpose of writing. Student used a scholarly voice that skillfully communicated meaning to readers with clarity and fluency and used correct spelling and grammar. There are one or two minor errors.

12.75 (12.75%)

Student submitted a paper that is mostly consistent with Academic Writing Expectations style. Paper may have minor organization, scholarly tone, writing issues, and/or may contain a few writing or spelling errors. There may be a few grammar, usage, or mechanics errors in the writing but they do not distract the reader.

11.25 (11.25%)

Student submitted a paper that was somewhat inconsistent in applying the Academic Writing Expectations style. Paper may have some organization, scholarly tone, writing issues, and/or may contain some writing or spelling errors. There may be some grammar, usage, or mechanics errors in the writing but they may minimally distract the reader.

9.75 (9.75%)

Student submitted a paper that was weak in organization, scholarly tone, or contains many writing or spelling errors, or shows moderate reliance on quoting versus original writing and paraphrasing. There are many grammar, usage, or mechanics errors which make it challenging to read and/or understand the submission.

5.25 (5.25%)

Student made an attempt but there is little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

0 (0%)

Student did not submit this assignment.

15 (15%)

Student’s paper demonstrated strong use of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting to develop ideas appropriate for the assignment and communication praxis. Student’s paper demonstrated consistent adherence to APA formatting and style, and the paper contained no errors in heading levels, margins, pagination, etc. All sources and references are cited per APA format.

Student provides a thorough and detailed Executive Summary that states the purpose of the paper and key ideas.

4.65 (4.65%)

Student provides a detailed Executive Summary that states the purpose of the paper and key ideas. There are one or two minor errors or details missing.

4.25 (4.25%)

Student provides an Executive Summary that states the purpose of the paper. Some details are missing and/or not fully developed.

3.75 (3.75%)

Student provides an Executive Summary that states the purpose of the paper. Many details are missing or lack clarity.

3.25 (3.25%)

Student provides a cursory or incomplete Executive Summary that vaguely states the purpose of the paper. Most details are missing.

1.75 (1.75%)

Student made an attempt but there is little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

0 (0%)

Student did not submit this element.

5 (5%)

Student provides a thorough and detailed description of the company and its current leader fully addressing the history and current information. Relevant resources and examples support thinking.

4.65 (4.65%)

Student provides a detailed description of the company and its current leader fully addressing the history and current information. Relevant resources or examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors/details missing.

4.25 (4.25%)

Student provides a description of the company and its current leader addressing with some details of the history and current information. Some resources or examples support thinking. Some details are missing and/or not fully developed.

3.75 (3.75%)

Student provides a description of the company and its current leader addressing with few details of the history and current information. Limited resources or examples support thinking. Many details are missing or lack clarity.

3.25 (3.25%)

Student provides a cursory or incomplete description of the company and its current leader addressing with vague or missing details of the history and current information. Few if any resources or examples support thinking. Most details missing.

1.75 (1.75%)

Student made an attempt but there is little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

0 (0%)

Student did not submit this element.

5 (5%)

Student provides a thorough and detailed description of the mission, vision, and values statements.

4.65 (4.65%)

Student provides a detailed description of the mission, vision, and values statements. There are one or two minor errors/details missing.

4.25 (4.25%)

Student provides a description with some details of the mission, vision, and values statements. Some details are missing and/or not fully developed.

3.75 (3.75%)

Student provides a description with few details of the mission, vision, and values statements. Many details are missing or lack clarity.

3.25 (3.25%)

Student provides a cursory or incomplete description with vague or missing details of the mission, vision, and values statements. Most details missing.

1.75 (1.75%)

Student made an attempt but there is little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

0 (0%)

Student did not submit this element.

8 (8%)

Student provides a thorough and detailed description of the current leader and the leader’s leadership style. Relevant resources and examples support thinking.

7.44 (7.44%)

Student provides a detailed description of the current leader and the leader’s leadership style. Relevant resources or examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors/details missing.

6.8 (6.8%)

Student provides a description with some details of the current leader and the leader’s leadership style. Some resources or examples support thinking. Some details are missing and/or not fully developed.

6 (6%)

Student provides a description with few details of the current leader and the leader’s leadership style. Limited resources or examples support thinking. Many details are missing or lack clarity.

5.2 (5.2%)

Student provides a cursory or incomplete description with vague or missing details of the current leader and the leader’s leadership style. Few if any resources or examples support thinking. Most details missing.

2.8 (2.8%)

Student made an attempt but there is little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

0 (0%)

Student did not submit this element.

8 (8%)

Student provides a thorough and detailed explanation of the leadership and culture. Relevant resources and examples support thinking.

7.44 (7.44%)

Student provides a detailed explanation of the leadership and culture. Relevant resources or examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors/details missing.

6.8 (6.8%)

Student provides an explanation with some details of the leadership and culture. Some resources or examples support thinking. Some details are missing and/or not fully developed.

6 (6%)

Student provides an explanation with few details of the leadership and culture. Limited resources or examples support thinking. Many details are missing or lack clarity.

5.2 (5.2%)

Student provides a cursory or incomplete explanation with vague or missing details of the leadership and culture. Few if any resources or examples support thinking. Most details are missing.

2.8 (2.8%)

Student made an attempt but there is little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

0 (0%)

Student did not submit this element.

8 (8%)

Student provides a thorough and detailed explanation of the stance on ethics and corporate social responsibility. Relevant resources and examples support thinking.

7.44 (7.44%)

Student provides a detailed explanation of the stance on ethics and corporate social responsibility. Relevant resources or examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors/details missing.

6.8 (6.8%)

Student provides an explanation with some details of the stance on ethics and corporate social responsibility. Some resources or examples support thinking. Some details are missing and/or not fully developed.

6 (6%)

Student provides an explanation with few details of the stance on ethics and corporate social responsibility. Limited resources or examples support thinking. Many details are missing or lack clarity.

5.2 (5.2%)

Student provides a cursory or incomplete explanation with vague or missing details of the stance on ethics and corporate social responsibility. Few if any resources or examples support thinking. Most details are missing.

2.8 (2.8%)

Student made an attempt but there is little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

0 (0%)

Student did not submit this element.

8 (8%)

Student provides a thorough and detailed evaluation of the related theory that he/she has studied throughout this course. Relevant resources and examples support thinking.

7.44 (7.44%)

Student provides a detailed evaluation of the related theory that he/she has studied throughout this course. Relevant resources or examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors/details missing.

6.8 (6.8%)

Student provides an evaluation with some details of the related theory that he/she has studied throughout this course. Some resources or examples support thinking. Some details are missing and/or not fully developed.

6 (6%)

Student provides an evaluation with few details of the related theory that he/she has studied throughout this course. Limited resources or examples support thinking. Many details are missing or lack clarity.

5.2 (5.2%)

Student provides a cursory or incomplete evaluation with vague or missing details of the related theory that he/she has studied throughout this course. Few if any resources or examples support thinking. Most details are missing.

2.8 (2.8%)

Student made an attempt but there is little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

0 (0%)

Student did not submit this element.

8 (8%)

Student provides a thorough and detailed analysis of the research to support his/her main ideas about the company and the company’s leadership. Relevant resources and examples support thinking.

7.44 (7.44%)

Student provides a detailed analysis of the research to support his/her main ideas about the company and the company’s leadership. Relevant resources or examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors/details missing.

6.8 (6.8%)

Student provides an analysis with some details of the research to support his/her main ideas about the company and the company’s leadership. Some resources or examples support thinking. Some details are missing and/or not fully developed.

6 (6%)

Student provides an analysis with few details of the research to support his/her main ideas about the company and the company’s leadership. Limited resources or examples support thinking. Many details are missing or lack clarity.

5.2 (5.2%)

Student provides a cursory or incomplete analysis with vague or missing details of the research to support his/her main ideas about the company and the company’s leadership. Few if any resources or examples support thinking. Most details are missing.

2.8 (2.8%)

Student made an attempt but there is little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

0 (0%)

Student did not submit this element.

5 (5%)

Student provides more than four additional outside sources of information, including the company’s Web site. All resources are relevant, current, and cited correctly.

4.65 (4.65%)

Student provides at least four additional outside sources of information, including the company’s Web site. All resources are relevant, current, and cited correctly.

4.25 (4.25%)

Student provides at least four additional outside sources of information, including the company’s Web site.

3.75 (3.75%)

Student provides at least four additional outside sources of information, including the company’s Web site; however, some resources are not relevant and/or current.

3.25 (3.25%)

Student provides less than four additional outside sources of information and/or does not include the company’s Web site.

1.75 (1.75%)

Student made an attempt but there is little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

0 (0%)

Student did not submit this element.

10 (10%)

Student exhibited comprehensive critical analysis and thinking throughout the paper, consistently supporting their thinking with relevant resources and examples. Strong logical progression of ideas with detailed supporting rationales throughout the paper including applying conceptual or theoretical understanding gained from readings, media, and other Learning Resources from course illustrating what he/she has learned throughout the context of the course.

9.3 (9.3%)

Student exhibited comprehensive critical analysis and thinking throughout the paper. Logical progression of ideas with detailed supporting rationales supports thinking including applying conceptual or theoretical understanding gained from readings, media, and other Learning Resources from course illustrating what he/she has learned throughout the context of the course.

8.5 (8.5%)

Student exhibited critical analysis and thinking overall on the assignment, but analysis would have been stronger with more recent or additional resources or examples. Some logical progression of ideas with rationales including some application of conceptual or theoretical understanding gained from readings, media, and other Learning Resources from course illustrating what he/she has learned throughout the context of the course.

7.5 (7.5%)

Student exhibited some evidence of critical analysis and thinking on the assignment, but not consistently. Some weakness in critical analysis or in the logical progression of ideas and/or rationales are somewhat weak and/or minimal application of conceptual or theoretical understanding gained from readings, media, and other Learning Resources from course illustrating what he/she has learned throughout the context of the course.

6.5 (6.5%)

Student exhibited weak critical analysis and thinking on the assignment due to the logic and/or reasoning being difficult to understand or follow. Rationales are missing or not well supported and/or little if any application of conceptual or theoretical understanding gained from readings, media, and other Learning Resources from course illustrating what he/she has learned throughout the context of the course.

3.5 (3.5%)

Student made an attempt but there is little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

0 (0%)

Student did not submit this element.

15 (15%)

Student submitted a paper that was fully consistent with Academic Writing Expectations and demonstrated a thorough understanding to audience and purpose of writing. Student used a scholarly voice that skillfully communicated meaning to readers with clarity and fluency and used correct spelling and grammar.

13.95 (13.95%)

Student submitted a paper that was fully consistent with Academic Writing Expectations and demonstrated a thorough understanding to audience and purpose of writing. Student used a scholarly voice that skillfully communicated meaning to readers with clarity and fluency and used correct spelling and grammar. There are one or two minor errors.

12.75 (12.75%)

Student submitted a paper that is mostly consistent with Academic Writing

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.