MGTS7607 Case Analysis Marking Rubric Below Expectations Meets Expectations Very Good Outstanding Criterion 1 Introduction (5 marks) You have not provided a satisfactory context to your report, or the context is missing. Definitions of key terms are missing. You have not adequately summarised your argument or your argument is missing. You have not provided a satisfactory description of the structure of your report. Your Introduction provides a satisfactory context to the report, supported by some literature. Definitions of key terms are included. You have stated the purpose of the report. You have stated your argument and the structure of your report. Your Introduction provides a clear context to the report, supported by relevant and recent literature. Definitions of key terms are included. You have stated the purpose of the report. You have stated your argument and the structure of your report. Your Introduction provides a clear and convincing context to your report, supported by highly relevant and recent literature. Relevant definitions of key terms are included. You have clearly stated the purpose of the report. You have clearly stated your argument and the structure of your report. Criterion 2 Case Summary (5 marks) You have not provided an adequate description of the unethical behaviour/event(s), or the description is missing. You have failed to appropriately describe the context where the behaviour/event(s) occurred. You have not identified appropriate stakeholders and/or explained the impact of the unethical behaviour/events on stakeholders. You have not supported your summary with appropriate sources. You have provided an adequate description of the unethical behaviour/event(s). You have described the context in which the unethical behaviour/event(s) occurred, although there is room for improvement here. You have identified some stakeholders and explained the impact of the unethical behaviour/event(s) on stakeholders, although these could be addressed in more depth. In your summary, you have used some relevant sources to support your points. You have provided a comprehensive description of the unethical behaviour/event(s). You have provided a description of the context in which the unethical behaviour/event(s) occurred, including the industry, organisation, and key individuals. You have clearly identified all stakeholders and explained the impact of the unethical behaviour/events on stakeholders. In your summary, you have used relevant sources effectively to support your points. You have provided an exceptionally comprehensive description of the unethical behaviour/event(s). You have provided a detailed description of the context in which the unethical behaviour/events occurred, including the industry, organisation, and key individuals. You have clearly identified all stakeholders and explained the impact of the behaviour/event(s) on stakeholders. In your summary, you have used a range of relevant sources very effectively to support your points. Criterion 3 Case Analysis and Evaluation from Multiple Ethical Decision-Making Theories or Frameworks (8 marks) You have failed to identify and analyse the central ethical issue(s) in the case. You have not accurately applied relevant theories or frameworks. Descriptions of each theory or framework are inadequate or missing. You have not provided a satisfactory evaluation of the case. You have identified and analysed the central ethical issue(s) in the case, accurately applying at least two relevant theories or frameworks. You have described each theory or framework using appropriate scholarly literature. You have provided a satisfactory evaluation of the case but this is superficial in places. You have identified and thoroughly analysed the central ethical issue(s) in the case, accurately applying at least three relevant theories or frameworks. You have clearly and accurately described each theory or framework using appropriate scholarly literature. Overall, you have provided a very good evaluation of the case. You have identified and thoroughly analysed the central ethical issue(s) in the case, accurately applying at least four highly relevant theories or frameworks. You have clearly and accurately described each theory or framework using appropriate scholarly literature. Overall, you have provided a thoughtful, critical and persuasive evaluation of the case. Criterion 4 Analysis of Factors Contributing to the Unethical Behaviour (15 marks) You have failed to provide a satisfactory analysis of the factors that contributed to the unethical behaviour/event(s) in your case. You have not applied theoretical concepts, sources of evidence and integrated examples to support your analysis. Most scholarly sources used are inappropriate, or missing. You have not engaged in satisfactory analysis of the evidence, or provided any insights over and above the stated findings. You have not made any attempt to analyse the relationship between your chosen factors. You have provided a satisfactory analysis of relevant factors that contributed to the unethical behaviour/event(s) in your case. You have applied some theoretical concepts, sources of evidence and integrated examples to support your analysis. Most scholarly sources used are recent and appropriate. You have engaged in satisfactory analysis of the evidence, with some insights over and above the stated findings. You have attempted to analyse the relationship between your chosen factors, although this could be improved in places. You have provided a convincing analysis of relevant factors that contributed to the unethical behaviour/event(s) in your case. You have synthesised and applied a range of relevant theoretical concepts, multiple sources of evidence and integrated examples to support your analysis. Scholarly sources used are recent and appropriate. You have provided a very good analysis of the evidence, offering some insights over and above the stated findings. You have analysed the relationship between your chosen factors, with evidence to support your assertions. You have provided a thoughtful, convincing and rigorous analysis of highly relevant factors that contributed to the unethical behaviour/event(s) in your case. You have cleverly synthesised and applied a range of highly relevant theoretical concepts, multiple sources of evidence and integrated examples to support your analysis. Scholarly sources used are recent and appropriate. You have provided a convincing and original analysis of the evidence, offering considerable insights over and above the stated findings. You have critically analysed the relationship between your chosen factors, with evidence to support your assertions. Criterion 5 Analysis of Organisation’s Response and Recommendations (10 marks) You have not offered an adequate description and evaluation of how the organisation responded to the unethical behaviour/event(s). You have not recommended at least one way that the organisation could have responded more effectively, or the recommendation is not supported with appropriate academic evidence. The recommendation(s) are illogical, lack feasibility, or are missing. You have offered a satisfactory description and evaluation of how the organisation responded to the unethical behaviour/event(s), although more appropriate sources could have been used here. Based on academic evidence, you have recommended at least one way that the organisation could have responded more effectively. The recommendation could have been more logical and/or feasible. You have offered a very good description and evaluation of how the organisation responded to the unethical behaviour/event(s), supported by appropriate sources. Based on academic evidence, you have recommended at least two ways that the organisation could have responded more effectively. The recommendations are generally logical and feasible. Your analysis demonstrates some originality and independent thinking. You have offered a comprehensive description and evaluation of how the organisation responded to the unethical behaviour/event(s), supported by appropriate sources. Based on academic evidence, you have recommended at least two ways that the organisation could have responded more effectively. The recommendations are highly logical and feasible. Overall, your analysis demonstrates a high degree of originality and independent thinking. Criterion 6 Conclusion (4 marks) Your conclusion is difficult to follow, poorly organised or missing. You have not summarised the key conclusions from your analysis. You have failed to discuss appropriate lessons learnt. You have provided an adequate summary of your report, highlighting the key conclusions from your analysis, but there is room for improvement. Some lessons that you have learnt are provided but these are superficial. You have provided a clear and succinct summary of your report, highlighting the key conclusions from your analysis and at least two lessons that you have learnt. You have provided an exceptionally clear and succinct summary of your report, highlighting the key conclusions from your analysis and 2-3 lessons that you have learnt. Criterion 7 Writing (5 marks) The structure of your report is poorly planned and/or sequenced. Your writing is highly disjointed with poor sentence structure. Your tone is not professional. There are numerous spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors which makes your writing confusing and difficult for the reader to follow. The structure of your report reflects evidence of planning and sequencing ability. A generally appropriate tone is used, though there are some disruptions to the fluency of your writing. You have made a sound attempt to correctly use punctuation, grammar and spelling, with minor errors and the occasional major error. The structure of your report shows strong planning and sequencing abilities. Your writing is mostly fluent and the report is written in an appropriate professional tone. Mostly correct punctuation, grammar and spelling are used throughout, with only the occasional minor error. The structure of your report shows very strong planning and sequencing abilities. Your writing is exceptionally fluent and the report is written in an appropriate professional tone. Correct use of punctuation, grammar and spelling enhances the readability of your report. Criterion 8 Presentation (3 marks) Overall, the report is poorly presented and lacks professional insight. There are multiple, consistent errors in the in-text citations and/or Reference List, and the report is substantially over or under the required word limit. Few to no evidence is included to support your statements, or the evidence is presented inappropriately. Though not entirely professional, the report is presented with a title page, page numbering, double-spacing and appropriate margins. A single referencing style is generally used throughout. Though there are some errors in the in-text citations and/or Reference List, the report is within the required word limit (+/-10%). You have included some relevant evidence in the Appendix. Your report is professionally presented with a title page, page numbering, double-spacing and appropriate margins. A single referencing style is consistently used, with very few errors to be found in the in-text citations and/or Reference List. The report is within the required word limit (+/-10%). You have included all relevant evidence in the Appendix. The professional presentation of your report is flawless complemented by a title page, page numbering, double-spacing and appropriate margins. A single referencing style is consistently used throughout, with no errors in the in-text citations and/or Reference List. The report is within the required word limit (+/-10%). You have included all relevant evidence in the Appendix.
