Criteria

Ratings

Pts

25 pts

25 pts

30 pts

10 pts

10 pts

Total Points: 100

25 to >20.0 pts

Exemplary

You thoroughly integrated the literature on incentives that motivate people to perform in Fortune 500 Companies. Your description of the incentives was clear, concise, compelling, and used specific examples from the literature to support your statements.

20 to >16.0 pts

Satisfactory

You described the literature on incentives that motivate people to perform in Fortune 500 Companies. Your description of the incentives was clear and concise, with occasional examples from the literature to support your statements. Minor details are missing that would help to inform your audience on which incentives have the strongest research backing.

16 to >13.0 pts

Minimally Responsive

You identified some of the literature on incentives that motivate people to perform in Fortune 500 Companies. Some references are cited, but overall, the description includes tangential, dated, insufficient, or opinion-based information in attempting to substantiate particular incentives. More research and information are needed to inform your audience on which incentives have the strongest research backing.

13 to >0.0 pts

Unacceptable

You attempted to identify the literature on incentives that motivate people to perform in Fortune 500 Companies. However, your attempt relies more on opinion and/or dated, non-credible information than on the research to support the incentives. This attempt does not provide the audience with a sense of the literature on incentives that motivate. Major details are missing. Serious errors, biases, or assumptions may be introduced, leaving the audience confused on which incentives have research backing.

0 pts

No points

This criterion was not addressed. You did not adhere to the College’s Academic Honesty Policy.

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Employee Motivation Analysis

25 to >20.0 pts

Exemplary

You thoroughly examined the differences in motivating employees in a remote work environment versus a traditional workplace, including evidence-backed descriptions of some of the unique challenges, as well as strategies to motivate employees who don’t respond to the employer’s motivation methods. You have provided examples to illustrate your points.

20 to >16.0 pts

Satisfactory

You examined the differences in motivating employees in a remote work environment versus a traditional workplace, evidence-backed strategies to motivate employees who don’t respond to the employer’s motivation methods. Minor details are missing that would provide a clearer sense of how to motivate employees.

16 to >13.0 pts

Minimally Responsive

You briefly described the differences in motivating employees in a remote work environment versus a traditional workplace, including motivating employees who don’t respond to the employer’s motivation methods. The description includes tangential, dated, insufficient, or opinion-based information, and more information is needed to give your audience a clearer sense of how to motivate employees.

13 to >0.0 pts

Unacceptable

You attempted to describe the differences in motivating employees in a remote work environment versus a traditional workplace, and/or how to motivate employees who don’t respond to the employer’s motivation methods. Major details are missing. Serious errors, biases, or assumptions may be introduced in the description. These serious issues leave the reader unable to build a picture of how to motivate employees.

0 pts

No points

This criterion was not addressed. You did not adhere to the College’s Academic Honesty Policy.

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Recommended strategies for motivating employees

30 to >26.0 pts

Exemplary

You recommended more than the minimum requirement of two (2) specific motivational strategies that work better in the remote workplace than the traditional office environment. Your recommendations were clear, compelling, and highly persuasive. All reasoning for your recommendations is strongly supported by the research.

26 to >23.0 pts

Satisfactory

You recommended two (2) specific motivational strategies that work better in the remote workplace than the traditional office environment. Your recommendations were clear, and the reasoning for your recommendations is overall supported by the research. Minor details are missing and/or several points need further development.

23 to >20.0 pts

Minimally Responsive

You recommended 1-2 somewhat generic motivational strategies that work better in the remote workplace than the traditional office environment. Some of your reasoning is supported by the research, but is also oversimplified, vague, and/or difficult to follow. More information is needed to support your recommendation(s).

20 to >0.0 pts

Unacceptable

You identified at least one (1) motivational strategy; however, research does not support that your recommended strategy would work better in the remote workplace than the traditional office environment. Major details are missing. Serious errors, biases, or assumptions may be introduced in the proposed strategy. These serious issues leave the reader unable to understand the reasoning for the recommendation.

0 pts

No Points

This criterion was not addressed. You did not adhere to the College’s Academic Honesty Policy.

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

PPT Presentation Criteria

10 to >8.0 pts

Exemplary

You provided a PowerPoint presentation 10-12 slides in length and included a separate slide that denotes at least 2 relevant resources from the Excelsior Library and cited using current APA format. Information is presented in a logical sequence, structure, and communication style and word choice is highly appropriate (e.g., highly professional, confident, encouraging and persuasive) for intended audience. Layout integrates presentation best practices (e.g., excellent use of white space, text/image placement).

8 to >6.0 pts

Satisfactory

You provided a PowerPoint presentation 10-12 slides in length and included a separate slide that denotes at least 2 relevant resources from the Excelsior Library and cited using current APA format. Information is presented in a logical sequence/structure and communication style and word choice is appropriate (e.g., professional, confident, and persuasive) for intended audience. The layout generally conforms to presentation best practices, though maybe 1-2 slides with an awkward layout, e.g., poor font choices or excess/insufficient white space.

6 to >4.0 pts

Minimally Responsive

You provided a PowerPoint presentation just over or under 10-12 slides in length included a separate slide that denotes at least 1 fairly relevant resource from the Excelsior Library and cited using current APA format. Information is presented in a somewhat logical sequence/structure Communication style and word choice is fairly appropriate through much of the presentation (e.g., professional, confident, and persuasive) for intended audience. Layout shows some structure but does not conform to presentation best practices (e.g., has large gaps of white space OR insufficient white space, poor font choices, etc.).

4 to >0.0 pts

Unacceptable

Your PowerPoint presentation does not meet the requirements for 10-12 slides in length and relevant references. Information is not presented in a logical sequence/structure and often uses informal or inappropriate language or terminology for intended audience. The layout does not conform to presentation best practices; it is non-professional and/or lacks a discernable pattern.

0 pts

No Points

You did not submit a PowerPoint presentation. You did not adhere to the College’s Academic Honesty Policy.

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Use of Sources as Evidence

10 to >8.0 pts

Exemplary

Your selected resources are credible and have clear relevance to the topic at hand. You have skillfully used these sources as evidence to support claims made. You used the required two sources to make strong arguments for/against claims.

8 to >6.0 pts

Satisfactory

Some of your selected resources are credible and have relevance with the topic at hand and are used as sources of evidence to support claims made. Better selection of sources, and/or better integration of these sources would have strengthened the support of certain claims.

6 to >4.0 pts

Minimally Responsive

Some of your selected resources are credible , though one or more has little relevance to the topic at hand. and are used as sources of evidence to support claims made. Use of two required sources, better selection of sources, and/or better integration of these sources would have strengthened the support of many of your claims.

4 to >0.0 pts

Unacceptable

The sources used are not relevant or credible to the topic at hand. Including the required two resources did little to support your claims, as the chosen sources were not supportive of your work.

0 pts

No Points

You did not include sources in your presentation. You did not adhere to the College’s Academic Honesty Policy.