Read “Case 2-2: Performance Management at KS Cleaners” from the textbook. Answer questions #1, #2, and #3 (located at the end of the case study and also as follows).
Question #1: In the context of KSC, critically evaluate the availability of any prerequisites to implementing a performance management process.
Question #2: Discuss your plans for developing formal job descriptions for the employees at the second shop.
Question #3: Explain key features of developing performance plans for the employees. Provide examples of factors you would consider in developing such plans for the dry cleaner.
You will need to include a brief introduction of the case and critically evaluate the current situation of KSC. It is important to display adequate analysis of the case and integrate sufficient support from scholarly resources throughout the assignment. Use suitable headings and subheadings to organize the work in an appropriate manner.
Your well-written paper should meet the following requirements:
MGT520
Critical Thinking Writing Rubric – Module 3
Exceeds | Meets Expectation | Below Expectation | Limited Evidence | |
Expectation | ||||
Content, Research, and Analysis | ||||
21-25 Points | 16-20 Points | 11-15 Points | 6-10 Points | |
Requirements | Exceeds | Meets Expectation- | Below Expectation- | Limited Evidence – |
Expectation – | Includes most of | Includes some of | Includes few of the | |
Includes all of the | the required | the required | required | |
required | components, as | components as | components as | |
components as | specified in the | specified in the | specified in the | |
specified in the | assignment. | assignment. | assignment. | |
assignment. | ||||
21-25 Points | 16-20 Points | 11-15 Points | 6-10 Points | |
Content | Exceeds | Meets Expectation- | Below Expectation- | Limited Evidence – |
Expectation – | Demonstrates | Demonstrates fair | Fails to | |
Demonstrates | adequate | knowledge of the | demonstrate | |
substantial and | knowledge of the | materials and/or | knowledge of the | |
extensive | materials; may | includes some | materials and/or | |
knowledge of the | include some | major errors or | includes many | |
materials, with no | minor errors or | omissions. | major errors or | |
errors or major | omissions. | omissions. | ||
omissions. | ||||
25-30 Points | 19-24 Points | 13-18 Points | 7-12 Points | |
Analysis | Exceeds | Meets Expectation- | Below Expectation- | Limited Evidence – |
Expectation – | Provides adequate | Provides poor | Provides little or no | |
Provides strong | thought, insight, | thought, insight, | thought, insight, | |
thought, insight, | and analysis of | and analysis of | and analysis of | |
and analysis of | concepts and | concepts and | concepts and | |
concepts and | applications. | applications. | applications. | |
applications. | ||||
13-15 Points | 10-12 Points | 7-9 Points | 4-6 Points | |
Sources | Exceeds | Meets Expectation- | Below Expectation- | Limited Evidence – |
Expectation – | Sources meet | Sources meet | Source selection | |
Sources go above | required criteria | required criteria, | and integration of | |
and beyond | and are adequately | but are poorly | knowledge from | |
required criteria, | chosen to provide | chosen to provide | the course is | |
and are well | substance and | substance and | clearly deficient. | |
chosen to provide | perspectives on the | perspectives on the | ||
effective | issue under | issue under | ||
substance and | examination. | examination. | ||
perspectives on | ||||
the issue under | ||||
examination. | ||||
Mechanics and Writing | ||||
5 Points | 4 Points | 3 Points | 1-2 Points | |
Demonstrates | Exceeds | Meets Expectation- | Below Expectation- | Limited Evidence – |
college-level | Expectation – | Project is fairly well | Project is poorly | Project is not |
proficiency in | Project is clearly | organized and | organized and | organized or well |
MGT520
Critical Thinking Writing Rubric – Module 3
organization, | organized, well | written, and is in | written, and may | written, and is not |
grammar and | written, and in | proper format as | not follow proper | in proper format as |
style. | proper format as | outlined in the | format as outlined | outlined in the |
outlined in the | assignment. | in the assignment. | assignment. Poor | |
assignment. Strong | Reasonably good | Inconsistent to | quality work; | |
sentence and | sentence and | inadequate | unacceptable in | |
paragraph | paragraph | sentence and | terms of grammar, | |
structure; contains | structure; may | paragraph | spelling, APA style, | |
no errors in | include a few | development, | and APA citations | |
grammar, spelling, | minor errors in | and/or includes | and references. | |
APA style, or APA | grammar, spelling, | numerous or major | ||
citations and | APA style, or APA | errors in grammar, | ||
references. | citations and | spelling, APA style, | ||
references. | or APA citations | |||
and references. | ||||
Total points possible = 100 |