LDR 615 Contemporary Organization Evaluation
LDR 615 Contemporary Organization Evaluation

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:
1. Describe the organization and the change to which it is responding.
2. Discuss the degree to which the change has been disruptive and how the organization has responded to the dynamics created by this change.
3. Evaluate the strategies the organization used in its change plan and determine the level of success the organization experienced with the strategies.
4. Determine the effect the change had on stakeholders, and to what degree stakeholders have resisted. Assess how well stakeholder resistance was addressed.
5. Evaluate the overall implications the change had on interdepartmental collaboration.
6. 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?
7. 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.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
Contemporary Organization Evaluation – Rubric
Collapse All Contemporary Organization Evaluation – RubricCollapse All
Contemporary Organization (Description of Organization and Responding to Change)
20 points
Criteria Description
Contemporary Organization (Description of Organization and Responding to Change)
5. Excellent
20 points
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.
4. Good
17.4 points
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.
3. Satisfactory
15.8 points
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.
2. Less than Satisfactory
14.8 points
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.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Description of a contemporary organization responding to change is not provided.
Effects of Change (Discusses Effects of Change, Organizational Response and Strategies Utilized)
20 points
Criteria Description
Effects of Change (Discusses Effects of Change, Organizational Response and Strategies Utilized)
5. Excellent
20 points
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.
4. Good
17.4 points
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.
3. Satisfactory
15.8 points
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.
2. Less than Satisfactory
14.8 points
An incomplete discussion on the effects of change on the organization is presented. The response of the organization is not discussed.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The effects of change on the organization and the response of the organization to change are not discussed.
Stakeholders (Determine Effects of Change and Response to Change)
20 points
Criteria Description
Stakeholders (Determine Effects of Change and Response to Change)
5. Excellent
20 points
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 stakeholders are offered to help stakeholders overcome resistance.
4. Good
17.4 points
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 overcome resistance.
3. Satisfactory
15.8 points
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.
2. Less than Satisfactory
14.8 points
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.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The effect of change on the stakeholders is not addressed.
Effects of Change on Interdepartmental Collaboration
20 points
Criteria Description
Effects of Change on Interdepartmental Collaboration
5. Excellent
20 points
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.
4. Good
17.4 points
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.
3. Satisfactory
15.8 points
A superficial evaluation of the effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration for the organization is presented. The evaluation lacks detail, facts, support, or rationale.
2. Less than Satisfactory
14.8 points
General effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration are discussed, but the specific effects for the departments within the organization are not included.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration are not evaluated.
Evaluation of the Response of the Leaders to Change and the Strategies Presented by Leaders
30 points
Criteria Description
Evaluation of the Response of the Leaders to Change and the Strategies Presented by Leaders
5. Excellent
30 points
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, leadership response to change is clear and contains significant information or details that describe the extent of leadership involvement and the degree to which leadership involvement was influential.
4. Good
26.1 points
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 are missing to discern the actual extent of leadership involvement or the degree to which leadership involvement was influential.
3. Satisfactory
23.7 points

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: LDR 615 Contemporary Organization Evaluation
LDR 615 Contemporary Organization Evaluation
LDR 615 Contemporary Organization Evaluation

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 details are missing to discern the actual extent of leadership involvement or the degree to which leadership involvement was influential.
2. Less than Satisfactory
22.2 points
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.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Evaluation response of the leaders to change is not addressed, and strategies presented by leaders are not referenced.
Recommendations (Suggestions to Better Address Change Dynamics, Additional Strategies)
30 points
Criteria Description
Recommendations (Suggestions to Better Address Change Dynamics, Additional Strategies)
5. Excellent
30 points
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.
4. Good
26.1 points
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.
3. Satisfactory
23.7 points
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.
2. Less than Satisfactory
22.2 points
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.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
No recommendations are made.
Thesis Development and Purpose
14 points
Criteria Description
Thesis Development and Purpose
5. Excellent
14 points
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
4. Good
12.18 points
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
3. Satisfactory
11.06 points
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
2. Less than Satisfactory
10.36 points
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
Argument Logic and Construction
16 points
Criteria Description
Argument Logic and Construction
5. Excellent
16 points
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
4. Good
13.92 points
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
3. Satisfactory
12.64 points
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.
2. Less than Satisfactory
11.84 points
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)
10 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)
5. Excellent
10 points
The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
4. Good
8.7 points
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.
3. Satisfactory
7.9 points
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.
2. Less than Satisfactory
7.4 points
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.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
10 points
Criteria Description
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
5. Excellent
10 points
All format elements are correct.
4. Good
8.7 points
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
3. Satisfactory
7.9 points
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
2. Less than Satisfactory
7.4 points
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
Documentation of Sources
10 points
Criteria Description
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
5. Excellent
10 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
4. Good
8.7 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
3. Satisfactory
7.9 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
2. Less than Satisfactory
7.4 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Sources are not documented.