| |
1 Unsatisfactory 0.00% |
2 Less than Satisfactory 74.00% |
3 Satisfactory 79.00% |
4 Good 87.00% |
5 Excellent 100.00% |
| 70.0 %Content |
|
| 15.0 %Performance Metric |
A performance metric is not included. |
A performance metric is included, but it is not clear or cannot clearly monitor employee performance. |
A performance metric that monitors employee performance is included. |
A performance metric that monitors employee performance incorporates a visual representation and a brief description. |
A well-developed performance metric that monitors employee performance incorporates an organized visual representation and a detailed description explaining how to use the metric to monitor employee performance. |
|
| 20.0 %Motivation Strategies and Techniques |
Motivation strategies or techniques are not included. |
Motivation strategies or techniques are included, but they lack detail or are incomplete. |
Only one motivation strategy or technique is included. |
Multiple motivation strategies and techniques are included. There is an explanation for implementing the strategies or techniques to appeal to the employees within the organization. |
Multiple motivation strategies and techniques are included. There is a clear explanation for implementing the strategies or techniques to appeal to the employees within the organization. |
|
| 25.0 %Incentive Compensation |
An incentive compensation proposal is not included. |
An incentive compensation proposal is included, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. |
An incentive compensation proposal is included. |
An incentive compensation proposal discusses the plan of the organization to remain competitive within the industry. There is a relationship between the performance metrics and incentives. |
An incentive compensation proposal discusses the detailed plan of the organization to remain competitive within the industry. There is a relationship between the performance metrics and incentives and applies motivation and techniques to the proposal. |
|
| 10.0 % Moral Hazards |
Moral hazards affecting employees and the organization are not included. |
Moral hazards affecting employees and the organization are included, but they lack detail or are incomplete. |
Moral hazards affecting employees and the organization are included. There is some mention of strategies to prevent hazards. |
Moral hazards affecting employees and the organization include a detailed description and more than one strategy to prevent hazards. |
Moral hazards affecting employees and the organization include a comprehensive description of both hazards and preventative strategies. |
|
| 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
|
| 7.0 % Thesis Development and Purpose |
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. |
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. |
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. |
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. |
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
|
| 8.0 % Argument Logic and Construction |
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. |
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. |
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. |
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. |
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
|
| 5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) |
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. |
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. |
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. |
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
|
| 10.0 %Format |
|
| 5.0 % Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) |
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. |
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. |
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. |
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. |
All format elements are correct. |
|
| 5.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) |
Sources are not documented. |
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. |
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
|
| 100 % Total Weightage |
|
|