In today’s fast-paced and global community, most organizations are faced with constant change. Research contemporary organizations that are currently responding to a significant change within the industry, such as disruptive technology; state, government, or industry regulations; environmental constraints; judicial or legislative rulings; etc.Choose one organization from your research that has recently responded to major change, or is currently responding to change. Write a paper (1,250-1,500 words) discussing how well the organization is responding to the change dynamics. Include the following:Describe the organization and the change to which it is responding.Discuss the degree to which the change has been disruptive and how the organization has responded to the dynamics created by this change.Evaluate the strategies the organization used in its change plan and determine the level of success the organization experienced with the strategies.Determine the effect the change had on stakeholders, and to what degree stakeholders have resisted. Assess how well stakeholder resistance was addressed.Evaluate the overall implications the change had on interdepartmental collaboration.In your opinion, how well did the leaders of the organization respond and prepare for the change? What worked and what did not work with the strategies they implemented?What modifications would you suggest the leaders of the organization make in order to better address the change dynamics? What additional strategies would you recommend to assist the organization through this change?Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.RUBRIC (attached).PLEASE MAKE SURE TO FULL FILL ALL CRITERIA MENTIONED IN RUBRIC5 REFERENCE AND IN TEXT CITATION REQUIRED
rubriccccccc.xlsx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Course Code
LDR-615
Class Code
LDR-615-O500
Criteria
Content
Percentage
70.0%
Contemporary Organization (Description of
Organization and Responding to Change)
10.0%
Effects of Change (Discusses Effects of Change,
Organizational Response and Strategies Utilized) 10.0%
Stakeholders (Determine Effects of Change and
Response to Change)
10.0%
Effects of Change on Interdepartmental
Collaboration
10.0%
Evaluation of the Response of the Leaders to
Change and the Strategies Presented by Leaders 15.0%
Recommendations (Suggestions to Better
Address Change Dynamics, Additional Strategies) 15.0%
Organization and Effectiveness
20.0%
Thesis Development and Purpose
7.0%
Argument Logic and Construction
8.0%
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling,
punctuation, grammar, and language use)
5.0%
Format
10.0%
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the
major and assignment)
5.0%
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes,
references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to
assignment and style)
5.0%
Total Weightage
100%
Contemporary Organization Evaluation
Unsatisfactory (0.00%)
Description of a contemporary organization responding to
change is not provided.
The effects of change on the organization and the response of
the organization to change are not discussed.
The effect of change on the stakeholders is not addressed.
The effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration are
not evaluated.
Evaluation response of the leaders to change is not
addressed, and strategies presented by leaders are not
referenced.
No recommendations are made.
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing
claim.
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The
conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is
incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede
communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or
sentence construction is employed.
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format
is rarely followed correctly.
Sources are not documented.
200.0
Less than Satisfactory (74.00%)
A partial description of the organization is presented; major
relevant details are missing. A description of the change to
which the organization is responding is cursory and
incomplete. The organization and change issue are not
contemporary or current.
An incomplete discussion on the effects of change on the
organization is presented. The response of the organization is
not discussed.
The effect of change on stakeholders is briefly considered,
but no evidence or rationale is provided for claims made.
Stakeholder response/resistance to change is not presented.
No suggestions are provided in responding to stakeholder
resistance.
General effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration
are discussed, but the specific effects for the departments
within the organization are not included.
A clear evaluation of the response of the leaders to change is
not addressed, and strategies presented by leaders are
referenced, but not formally addressed. Overall, the
involvement of leadership in response to change is unclear.
Recommendations to address change dynamics or for
additional strategies are incomplete. Recommendations do
not contain substantial rationale or support and do not seem
relevant to the organization or circumstances.
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not
clear.
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks
consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some
sources have questionable credibility.
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.
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing
or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as
appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous
formatting errors.
Satisfactory (79.00%)
A cursory description of a contemporary organization is
presented; most major details are included. A general
description of the change to which the organization is
responding is presented, but contains some inaccuracies or
lacks some relevant details; the change to which the
organization is responding is not a current event.
A general discussion on the effects of change on the
organization is presented. The response of the organization
to the change is presented, but it does not include a clear
evaluation of the strategies of the organization. The
discussion lacks relevant details, facts, and support.
The effect of change on stakeholders is discussed, but little
evidence or rationale is provided for claims made.
Stakeholder response/resistance to change is generally
presented, but it is lacking in detail. Cursory suggestions are
provided in responding to stakeholder resistance, but these
strategies are incomplete and lack support for validity.
A superficial evaluation of the effects of change on
interdepartmental collaboration for the organization is
presented. The evaluation lacks detail, facts, support, or
rationale.
Evaluation of the response of the leaders to change is
presented, but it lacks detail or information vital to
understanding the actual involvement of the leaders.
Strategies presented by leaders in response to change are
generally addressed. Overall, it is apparent that the leaders
were responsive to change, but significant information or
General recommendations to address change dynamics are
presented. Additional strategies are offered, but lack detail,
rationale, or a clear plan to illustrate that the
recommendations are relevant and would support a better
change option in response to change.
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
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.
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.
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although
some minor errors may be present.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and
style, although some formatting errors may be present.
Good (87.00%)
A description of a contemporary organization is presented; all
major details are included. A description of the change to
which the organization is responding is current and accurately
represented.
A discussion on the effects of change on the organization and
its response to the change is presented. The discussion is
supported by relevant and documented facts.
The effect of change on stakeholders is discussed.
Stakeholder response/resistance to change is presented.
Suggestions are provided in responding to stakeholder
resistance. Evidence or rationale is provided for claims made.
Some evidence is provided to support statements, and
common strategies are offered to help stakeholders
An evaluation of the effects of change on interdepartmental
collaboration for the organization is presented. The
evaluation is supported with some detail, facts, support, or
rationale.
Evaluation of the response of the leaders to change is
presented, but it lacks detail or information vital to
understanding the involvement of the leaders. Strategies
presented by leaders in response to change are generally
addressed. Overall, it is apparent that the leaders were
responsive to change, but significant information or details
Recommendations to address change dynamics are
presented. Additional strategies are offered, with appropriate
rationale or a clear plan to illustrate that the
recommendations are relevant and would support a better
change option in response to change.
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper.
Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and
appropriate to the purpose.
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of
argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of
claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are
authoritative.
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.
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no
errors in formatting style.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and
style, and format is mostly correct.
Excellent (100.00%)
A detailed description of a contemporary organization is
presented; all relevant details are included and description
provides insight into the organization. The description of the
current change to which the organization is responding is well
developed and contains relevant detail.
A well-rounded discussion on the effects of change on the
organization and its response to the change is presented. The
discussion is detailed and strongly supported by documented
facts.
The effect of change on stakeholders is discussed in detail.
Stakeholder response/resistance to change is presented with
accurate and relevant examples. Well-developed
recommendations are provided in responding to stakeholder
resistance. Strong evidence or rationale is provided for claims
made, and strategies relevant to the organization and
A detailed evaluation of the effects of change on
interdepartmental collaboration for the organization is
presented and provides insight into the situation. The
evaluation is supported with strong detail, facts, support, and
rationale.
Evaluation of the response of the leaders to change is
presented with sufficient detail and supporting information
vital to understanding the involvement of the leaders.
Strategies presented by leaders in response to change are
clearly addressed and provide insight into the outcomes the
organization experienced in responding to change. Overall,
Well-supported recommendations to address change
dynamics are clearly presented. Additional strategies are
offered, with strong rationale or a clear plan to illustrate that
the recommendations are relevant and would indeed support
a better change option in response to change.
Comments
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the
paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper
clear.
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive
claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are
authoritative.
The writer is clearly in command of standard, written,
academic English.
All format elements are correct.
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as
appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of
error.
Points Earned
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
