Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style) 5.0% No reference page is included. No citations are used. Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used. Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present. Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct.

Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 5.0% Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0% Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.

Argument Logic and Construction 8.0% Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. 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. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

Thesis Development and Purpose 7.0% Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

Discussion of the Communication Methods Appropriate for Culturally Diverse Recipients Benchmarks C5.3: Suggest communication methods appropriate for culturally diverse recipients. 25.0% A discussion of the communication methods appropriate for culturally diverse recipients is not present. An incomplete or inaccurate discussion of the communication methods appropriate for culturally diverse recipients is presented. A cursory discussion of the communication methods appropriate for culturally diverse recipients is presented. Some sources are not scholarly. A reasonable discussion of the communication methods appropriate for culturally diverse recipients is presented. All sources are scholarly though some are outdated.

Discussion of the Negotiation Strategies the Inclusive Leader could Apply to Craft a Common Cultural Mindset 20.0% A discussion of the negotiation strategies the inclusive leader could apply to craft a common cultural mindset is not present. An incomplete or inaccurate discussion of the negotiation strategies the inclusive leader could apply to craft a common cultural mindset is presented. A cursory discussion of the negotiation strategies the inclusive leader could apply to craft a common cultural mindset is presented. Some sources are not scholarly. A reasonable discussion of the negotiation strategies the inclusive leader could apply to craft a common cultural mindset is presented. All sources are scholarly though some are outdated.

Criteria Percentage Unsatisfactory (0.00%) Less Than Satisfactory (74.00%) Satisfactory (79.00%) Good (87.00%) Content 70.0% Discussion of how to Integrate Varied Perspectives to Lead Successfully Benchmarks C3.4: Integrate varied perspectives in dynamic environments. 25.0% A discussion of how to integrate varied perspectives to lead successfully is not present. An incomplete or inaccurate discussion of how to integrate varied perspectives to lead successfully is presented. A cursory discussion of how to integrate varied perspectives to lead successfully is presented. Some sources are not scholarly. A reasonable discussion of how to integrate varied perspectives to lead successfully is presented. All sources are scholarly though some are outdated.

Course Code Class Code LDR-804 LDR-804-O500 Benchmark - Advancing Cultural Mindset and Integration 170.0

PLEASE DO NOT USE ANY BORDERS NOR CONTENTS REFERENCES SHOULD NOT BE MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. DOUBLE SPACED, OLD ROMAN 12, LEFT ALIGNMENT REFERENCES – HANGING Running head first page different Running head: BENCHMARK-ADVANCING CULTURAL MINDSET AND INTEGRATION , PAGE NUMBER ON THE RIGHT ONLY-HEADER INTRODUCTION THEN LEFT MARGIN INDENTED-FIRST LINE SECONDARY HEADINGS – CENTERED- IN BOLD. PLEASE GIVE CITINGS TO EVERY THING YOU SAY WHAT I MEAN IS BACK UP WITH EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ARTICLES.