Welcome to your second case study of the semester, and your only assignment this week.
As you know, case studies are a requirement of this course. They are similar to application exercises in their intent to make you THINK about, and CONNECT concepts and vocabulary in a way that encourages you to actually use them in real life situations and continue your leadership skill development after you have completed this class.
As a reminder, case studies differ from application exercises. They require you to look outward, rather than inward, to expand your ability to think critically when applying leadership concepts you are learning. This means that you are charged with finding resources other than your text book that you will use to research what you decide are key aspects of the case presented, to synthesize and analyze the facts of the case and subsequently put forward your own thoughts and theories about the case in a professional and complete narrative with citations in APA format included.
NOTE: This assignment calls for you to use AT LEAST THREE resources in addition to the textbook, and to cite their use within your assignment in APA format and in a bibliography on the final page. If you are are not confident using the APA format, or unsure how to find resources for your research, you are strongly encouraged to contact the DCCC Learning Commons at 610 – 359 – 5149 for immediate assistance. If you need clarification on the case study itself, contact me as soon as possible, with the understanding it may take me 24 hours to respond to you.
Begin by reading the case in your text on pages 684 – 685. You may want to read it through more than once, and take notes on aspects you find interesting or believe important to the case itself. Some students find it helpful to identify 2 or 3 key points that will be addressed in the case study narrative. Draw from what you have learned this semester.
Once you believe you have a good grasp of what the case is about, and how you might relate it to what you have learned in the chapters that have come before, go on to review the 5 questions provided after the narrative. Do these questions confirm for you that the key points you have chosen are what you will research? They are there to help you form your analysis, and should not be answered number by number in your case study.
As you develop your case study narrative, be sure to keep the following requirements in mind:
· Provide a clear explanation of what you believe are the key issues, but do not recap word – for – word what you have already read in the case study. Begin with what you think the case study is about using your key points, and include information from the case study itself only as it supports what you have chosen to write
· Include as many new vocabulary words and concepts as you can – show you understand what they are
· Provide an in – depth analysis and thorough evaluation of the aspects you believe are at play
· Consistently validate your analysis and evaluation – support perspectives with specific details and information
· Provide a comprehensive summary including a conclusion that recommends a strategic plan of action for improvement that is logical and congruent with the key issues identified – explain why it is and cite resources
· Narrative must be written in a professional manner with correct grammar, spelling, punctuation and syntax
· Written narrative must be a minimum of 4 pages, normal margins and double – spaced using 12 point font
· Assignment must have a face page that includes the case name, your name, class and date submitted
· Bibliography of resources used must be provided on a separate sheet in APA format following narrative
· Use your own words throughout the narrative, rather than cutting and pasting extensively from resources
· Assignment must have all citations in APA format – contact the Learning Commons if you have questions!
GRADE: Your case study is worth a maximum of 100 points, and graded using a standardized rubric provided by the College. A range of points is available for each criteria noted, allowing for an equitable measure of each student’s submission.
Rubric
Written Case Study Grading Rubric
Written Case Study Grading Rubric
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeClear explanation of key strategic issues
• The problems, scope, and seriousness was clearly identified in the discussions.
• There was a well focused diagnosis of strategic issues and key problems that demonstrated a good grasp of the company’s present situation and strategic issues.
• Did not waste space summarizing information already found in the case.
20.0 to >17.0 pts
Exceeds Expectation
Shows superior knowledge of the issues, key problems, and the company’s present situation and strategic issues.
17.0 to >14.0 pts
Meets Expectation
Shows adequate knowledge of the issues, key problems, and the company’s present situation and strategic issues.
14.0 to >12.0 pts
Approaching
Shows some understanding of the issues, key problems, and the company’s present situation and strategic issues.
12.0 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectation
Shows little understanding of the issues, key problems, and the company’s present situation and strategic issues.
20.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeValid arguments; analysis of financial performance with relevant supportive detail
• Logically organized, key points, key arguments, and important criteria for evaluating business strategies were easily identified
• Critical issues and key problems that supported the Case Analysis were identified and clearly analyzed and supported.
20.0 to >17.0 pts
Exceeds Expectation
Critical issues and key problems that supported the Case Analysis were clearly identified, analyzed, and supported.
17.0 to >14.0 pts
Meets Expectation
Critical issues and key problems that supported the Case Analysis were partially identified, analyzed, and supported.
14.0 to >12.0 pts
Approaching
Critical issues and key problems that supported the Case Analysis were not clearly identified, analyzed, and supported.
12.0 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectation
Critical issues and key problems that supported the Case Analysis were poorly identified, analyzed, and supported.
20.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAppropriate analysis, evaluation, synthesis for the specific industry identified
• There was complete data on which to base a thorough analysis
• Key change drivers underlying the issues were identified.
• Synthesis, analysis, and evaluations were clearly presented and supported in a literate and effective manner.
20.0 to >17.0 pts
Exceeds Expectation
Analysis of key change drivers and the underlying the issues were clearly identified
17.0 to >14.0 pts
Meets Expectation
Analysis of key change drivers and the underlying the issues were partially identified
14.0 to >12.0 pts
Approaching
Analysis of key change drivers and the underlying the issues were not identified.
12.0 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectation
Analysis of key change drivers and the underlying the issues inadequate.
20.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConclusions and recommendations are congruent with strategic analysis
• Specific recommendations and/or plans of action provided.
• Specific data or facts were referred to when necessary to support the analysis and conclusions.
• Recommendations and conclusions were presented and supported in a literate and effective manner.
20.0 to >17.0 pts
Exceeds Expectation
Effective recommendations, solutions, and/or plans of action were provided Specific data or facts were referred when necessary to support the analysis and conclusions.
17.0 to >14.0 pts
Meets Expectation
Effective recommendations and/or plans of action were partially provided. Specific data or facts were occasionally referred when necessary to support the analysis and conclusions.
14.0 to >12.0 pts
Approaching
Effective recommendations and/or plans of action inadequate. Specific data or facts were not referred when necessary to support the analysis and conclusions.
12.0 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectation
Effective recommendations and/or plans of action not provided. Specific data or facts necessary to support the analysis and conclusions was not provided.
20.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProper organization, professional writing, and logical flow of analysis.
• Logically organized, key points, key arguments, and important criteria for evaluating the business logic easily identified.
• Key points were supported with a well thought out rationale based on applying specific concepts or analytical frameworks to the data provided in the case.
• Proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, 3rd person objective view, professional writing, and syntax.
20.0 to >17.0 pts
Exceeds Expectation
Key points were clearly identified and supported with a well thought out rationale based on applying specific concepts or analytical frameworks to the data provided in the case. Excellent grammar, spelling, punctuation, professional writing, and syntax
17.0 to >14.0 pts
Meets Expectation
Key points were partially identified and supported with a well thought out rationale based on applying specific concepts or analytical frameworks to the data provided in the case. Adequate grammar, spelling, punctuation, professional writing, and syntax
14.0 to >12.0 pts
Approaching
Key points were not identified and supported with a well thought out rationale based on applying specific concepts or analytical frameworks to the data provided in the case. Grammar, spelling, punctuation, professional writing, and syntax needs improvement
12.0 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectation
Key points were poorly identified and supported with a well thought out rationale based on applying specific concepts or analytical frameworks to the data provided in the case. Grammar, spelling, punctuation, professional writing, and syntax needs significant improvement
20.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeBUS 213.4 Effective and ineffective leadership
Explain the difference between an effective and an ineffective leader.
threshold: 3.0 pts
4.0 pts
Exceeds Expectation
3.0 pts
Meets Expectation
2.0 pts
Approaching Expectation
1.0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectation
0.0 pts
No Evidence
—
Total Points: 100.0
Since all our papers are written from scratch, the papers we submit are plagiarism free and we strictly adhere to lecturer’s instructions. Our writers are highly qualified from all over the world and include graduates and professors from most of the largest and known universities in the world. Once you have assigned us your assignment, we select the most qualified and reliable writer to handle your assignment.
Unlike other writing companies, we encourage clients to draw back their money at any stage of the writing process if they experience any uncertainties with the quality of generated content. However, you will hardly have to make this decision because of our business approach that suits your needs.
We have an advanced plagiarism-detection system that flags any work that fails to meet the required academic expectations. Our company thrives in honesty, and as such, you will be guaranteed to achieve a paper that meets your expectations.
At homeworkpaper.org we have online agents that you can chat with to have your assignment taken care of with the little remaining time. Also, we have professional academic writers who will work on your assignment providing you with a high-quality paper at the same time. We can take care of your urgent assignments in less than 5 hours.
We uphold confidentiality and privacy through our interactions with clients, an aspect that has enhanced our relationship with prospective customers seeking for assignment help. We do not disclose your information with third-parties; neither do we share your work with any other person apart from you.
We do not resell previously-done tasks delivered to other clients. When we deliver orders to our clients, we safeguard their privacy and confidentiality by ensuring the third party does not access the work. By writing the papers from scratch, we have managed to maintain a certain level of originality, which defines our business model. Our qualified editors proofread all submitted work to eliminate mistakes that can interfere with the credibility of the assignment.
