| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| MGT-410 | MGT-410-O500 | Servant Leadership in Diverse Contexts | 110.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less than Satisfactory (65.00%) | Satisfactory (75.00%) | Good (85.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 70.0% |
| Selected Cultural Context and Religious Viewpoint | 10.0% | Identification of a selected cultural context and a religious viewpoint is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant. | Identification of a selected cultural context and a religious viewpoint is vague or incomplete. | Identification of a selected cultural context and a religious viewpoint is provided, but at a cursory level. | Identification of a selected cultural context and a religious viewpoint is clear and appropriate. | Identification of a selected cultural context and a religious viewpoint is clear and well-chosen. |
| Servant Leadership in a Religion (Different From Christianity) | 10.0% | An explanation of evidence of the servant leadership within the selected religion is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant. | An explanation of evidence of the servant leadership within the selected religion is vague or incomplete. Supporting material is often confusing or inappropriate. | An explanation of evidence of the servant leadership within the religion is provided, but at a cursory level and may contain some inconsistencies. Supporting material of baseline acceptable quality and quantity is provided. | An explanation of evidence of the servant leadership within the selected religion is clear and integrated. Supporting material of above average quality and quantity is provided. | An explanation of evidence of the servant leadership within the selected religion is thorough and well-integrated. Supporting material of exceptional quality and quantity is provided. |
| Servant Leadership and National Cultures | 10.0% | An explanation of evidence of the servant leadership within the selected national culture is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant. | An explanation of evidence of the servant leadership within the selected national culture is vague or incomplete. Supporting material is often confusing or inappropriate. | An explanation of evidence of the servant leadership within the selected national culture is provided, but at a cursory level and may contain some inconsistencies. Supporting material of baseline acceptable quality and quantity is provided. | An explanation of evidence of the servant leadership within the selected national culture is clear and integrated. Supporting material of above average quality and quantity is provided. | An explanation of evidence of the servant leadership within the selected national culture is thorough and well-integrated. Supporting material of exceptional quality and quantity is provided. |
| Similarities Between Cultural Values and Servant Leadership Characteristics | 10.0% | A description of the similarities between servant leadership philosophies and the values evident in the selected national culture is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant. | A description of the similarities between servant leadership philosophies and the values evident in the selected national culture is vague or incomplete. Supporting material is often confusing or inappropriate. | A description of the similarities between servant leadership philosophies and the values evident in the selected national culture is provided, but at a cursory level and may contain some inconsistencies. Supporting material of baseline acceptable quality and quantity is provided. | A description of the similarities between servant leadership philosophies and the values evident in the selected national culture is clear and integrated. Supporting material of above average quality and quantity is provided. | A description of the similarities between servant leadership philosophies and the values evident in the selected national culture is thorough and well-integrated. Supporting material of exceptional quality and quantity is provided. |
| Differences Between Cultural Values and Servant Leadership Characteristics | 10.0% | A description of the differences between servant leadership philosophies and the values evident in the selected national culture is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant. | A description of the differences between servant leadership philosophies and the values evident in the selected national culture is vague or incomplete. Supporting material is often confusing or inappropriate. | A description of the differences between servant leadership philosophies and the values evident in the selected national culture is provided, but at a cursory level and may contain some inconsistencies. Supporting material of baseline acceptable quality and quantity is provided. | A description of the differences between servant leadership philosophies and the values evident in the selected national culture is clear and integrated. Supporting material of above average quality and quantity is provided. | A description of the differences between servant leadership philosophies and the values evident in the selected national culture is thorough and well-integrated. Supporting material of exceptional quality and quantity is provided. |
| Similarities Between Selected Religious Values (Other Than Christianity) and Servant Leadership Characteristics and Philosophies | 10.0% | A description of the similarities between servant leadership philosophies and the values evident in the selected religious viewpoint is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant. | A description of the similarities between servant leadership philosophies and the values evident in the selected religious viewpoint is vague or incomplete. Supporting material is often confusing or inappropriate. | A description of the similarities between servant leadership philosophies and the values evident in the selected religious viewpoint, is provided, but at a cursory level and may contain some inconsistencies. Supporting material of baseline acceptable quality and quantity is provided. | A description of the similarities between servant leadership philosophies and the values evident in the selected religious viewpoint is clear and integrated. Supporting material of above average quality and quantity is provided. | A description of the similarities between servant leadership philosophies and the values evident in the selected religious viewpoint is thorough and well-integrated. Supporting material of exceptional quality and quantity is provided. |
| Differences Between Selected Religious Values (Other Than Christianity) and Servant Leadership Characteristics | 10.0% | A description of the differences between servant leadership philosophies and the values evident in the selected religious viewpoint is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant. | A description of the differences between servant leadership philosophies and the values evident in the selected religious viewpoint is vague or incomplete. Supporting material is often confusing or inappropriate. | A description of the differences between servant leadership philosophies and the values evident in the selected religious viewpoint, is provided, but at a cursory level and may contain some inconsistencies. Supporting material of baseline. acceptable quality and quantity are provided. | A description of the differences between servant leadership philosophies and the values evident in the selected religious viewpoint is clear and integrated. Supporting material of above average quality and quantity is provided. | A description of the differences between servant leadership philosophies and the values evident in the selected religious viewpoint is thorough and well-integrated. Supporting material of exceptional quality and quantity is provided. |
| Organization and Effectiveness | 20.0% |
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 7.0% | 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. |
| Argument Logic and Construction | 8.0% | 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 progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | 5.0% | 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. |
| Format | 10.0% |
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | 5.0% | 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. |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 5.0% | 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. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
