Case Study Review 1 Instructions-Week 5
Respond to the following case scenario by applying topics and theories learned from the current module week:
Scenario-Supporting Employee Goals:
Amy Werner took a job at the New York City-based search firm On-Ramps just over three years ago. Amy joined at an integral time in the firm’s growth and quickly became a key asset to the small firm. Sarah Grayson, one of the firm’s founding partners, manages Amy and explains, “Amy has a lot of institutional knowledge and is a high performer.” When she first began, she was working toward a degree in social work but taking classes at nights and on the weekends. A year and a half into the job, Amy’s school schedule became more complicated. Her internship requirements made working a traditional, full-time schedule difficult. Because of her star performance, Sarah and her fellow partners were keen to keep her on board while encouraging her to complete her degree. Amy remained full time but now works two days a week in the office, completing the rest of her hours on nights and weekends. As Amy says, “They have been nothing but supportive.”
The firm has a semi-annual review process where goals are set and discussed; they also do more frequent check-ins on goals during weekly meetings. Amy and Sarah have talked a lot about how On-Ramps can support Amy not only by providing a flexible schedule but by thinking about the intersection of her studies and her work. They’ve found that there are lots of transferable skills between her job as a search associate and her work as a social worker, such as interviewing and client management. In explaining why, they are so supportive of Amy’s educational activities, Sarah says, “We wouldn’t have done this for a low performer. We have to ask ourselves, ‘What would it take to hire another Amy?’” Amy will be finishing her master’s degree in May and she and Sarah have begun to discuss what’s next for her. Both hope that there is a way to combine her skills in search and her interest in social work to create a job that is ideal for both her and On-Ramps. (Adopted from Harvard Business Review, 2019).
Items to Address:
The following items should be evident in your case paper:
- Identify the key roles and organizational issues through a brief summary or introductory paragraph (this is not the abstract page).
- Integrate specific theories from the readings for the type of organization. You may use previous module readings when applying a specific structure/system.
- Provide your personal perspective on the case, applying theories, perspectives, and structures you along with alternatives that could be best integrated to address the participant’s concerns.
Paper Requirements:
- The paper must be written using current APA format and must include a title page, an abstract, and a references list. These are not included in the word count.
- The paper must have a minimum of 800 words and a maximum of 1,200 words. The case paper is short as you will apply your scenario in the following Discussion Board Forum assignment.
- The paper must be submitted as a Word document (.doc) it will be checked in SafeAssign upon submission.
- Do not use bullets or listing anywhere in the paper. Do not copy/paste the scenario into the paper.
- References must be as follows:
- A minimum of 4 different references, in addition to the Merida text and the Bible must be used. A variety of authors and sources is required.
Case Study Review Grading Rubric
| Criteria | Levels of Achievement | |||
| Content 70% | Advanced | Proficient | Developing | Not present |
| Abstract | 8 points
The abstract articulates a clear and comprehensive overview of the paper. Key terms are included. |
5 to 7 points
The abstract articulates some key components of the paper. Key terms are included. |
1 to 4 points
The abstract less than clearly articulates key components of the paper. Key terms are included. |
0 points
Not present. |
| Identification of Issues | 15 points
Presents articulate and detailed descriptions of the problems and issues central to the case. Provides a well-focused diagnosis of strategic issues and key problems that demonstrate an excellent grasp of the situation and challenges; descriptions are compelling and insightful; provides a thorough and effective summary. |
10 to 14 points
With a few exceptions, identifies and outlines the principal problems and issues in the case; demonstrates an acceptable understanding of the issues, situation, and challenges; executive summary provides an adequate overview of the case issues and problems. Summary is missing a few minor points, but meets expectations. |
1 to 9 points
Does not fully recognize the problems or issues of the case, or identifies problems and issues that are not based on facts of the case; displays little understanding of the issues, key problems, the situation, and challenges. Summary does not present a clear overview of the case issues; the main points are not outlined, or cannot be understood. |
0 points
Not present. |
| Analysis and Evaluation | 25 to 30 points
Presents a balanced, in-depth, and critical assessment of the facts with application to required research; develops insightful and well-supported conclusions using reasoned, sound, and informed judgments. Provides a clear application to the specified concepts with evidence of original thought, not re-stating the original scenario. Suggests alternative leadership solutions with theories and concepts applied. Integrates scripture and Merida text thoroughly. |
20 to 24 points
Presents an acceptable analysis of most issues with application to some required research. Provides a somewhat clear application to the specified concepts with evidence of original thought, not re-stating the original scenario. Some suggested alternative leadership solutions exist with few theories and concepts applied. Somewhat integrates scripture and Merida text. |
1 to 19 points
Does not fully discuss the relevance of the facts; fails to draw conclusions, or conclusions are not justified or supported; does not fully present relevant research or data; shows no critical examination of issues. Application to the specific concepts is not clear and evidence of original thought leans too heavily on re-stating the scenario. Alternative leadership solutions are not provided. Application to scripture and Merida text is not evident. |
0 points
Not present. |
| Organization | 6 points
Very well organized. The narrative has clarity and includes strong, clear and varied transitions linking sub-topics and main topic. The narrative flows well throughout. |
5 points
Well organized. The narrative has clarity and flows logically, and includes transitions linking subtopics and the topic. The narrative may not always flow well at some points. |
1 to 4 points
Somewhat well organized, flows logically, and includes some attempts to provide a variety of transitions. The narrative may not flow well. |
0 points
Not present. |
| Structure 30% | Advanced | Proficient | Developing | Not present |
| APA Format (Cover page, references, margins, citations, pagination, headings, headers, abstract, etc.) | 10 points
Proper, current APA format is used. |
9 points
There are 1–2 current APA formatting errors present. |
1 to 8 points
There are 3–4 current APA formatting errors present. |
0 points
More than 4 current APA formatting errors are present. |
| Grammar and Spelling | 6 points
Proper spelling and grammar are used. |
5 points
There are 1–2 spelling and/or grammar errors present. |
1 to 4 points
There are 3–4 spelling and/or grammar errors present.
|
0 points
More than 4 spelling and/or grammar errors are present. |
| Length | 15 points
The submission is 800-1,200 words. |
13 to 14 points
The submission is 500-799 words. |
1 to 12 points
The submission is less than 500 words. |
0 points
Not present. |
| Sources | 10 points
The paper met or exceeded the required minimum amount of sources (at least 4 references in addition to the Merida textbook and the Bible). |
9 points
The paper includes some of the required sources (at least 4 references in addition to the Merida textbook and the Bible) but are not well integrated within the paper. |
1 to 8 points
The paper is missing most of the required sources (at least 4 references in addition to the Merida textbook and the Bible) and does not integrate them within the discussion. |
0 points
Not present. |
