This is the link the paper will be written about, attached is the directions. https://www.ted.com/talks/drew_dudley_everyday_leadership?referrer=playlist-how_leaders_inspire
Did the Message get across?
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Leadership Assignment | Online Assignment
Get an essay WRITTEN FOR YOU, Plagiarism free, and by an EXPERT!
Below is the link that the paper needs to be written about.
Everyday leadership
https://www.ted.com/talks/drew_dudley_everyday_leadership?referrer=playlist-how_leaders_inspire
Background:
In addition to your module readings exploring the models of communication, Chapters 5-7 in Business Essentials provided some insight to:
- the four functions of the management process
- the types of managers found in company and their hierarchical organization structures
- the requirements of managers
- the role of strategic management and goal-setting, including contingency planning theory
- how corporate culture is cultivated
- the role of operations management and operations planning, including supply chain and quality assurance
In Chapter 5: Managing the Business there are five fundamental management skills that translate to personal success as a manager. Two additional skills are noted as becoming increasingly important. Collectively, these seven skills include:
- Technical Skills
- Human Relations Skills
- Conceptual Skills
- Decision-Making Skills
- Time Management Skills
- Global Management Skills
- Technology Skills
Assignment:
Select one of the skills noted by the authors in Chapter 5 as a necessary skill critical to an individual’s success as a manager. Then find a recorded presentation (like a TedTalk) intended to develop an individual’s leadership and management skills within an organization. Analyze the message and identify the medium and channel used to convey the message. Be sure to include a copy and/or active link to the message you have chosen. For the message you have chosen determine:
- General purpose of the message
- Specific purpose of the message
- Was the message well timed?
- Did the sender choose an appropriate medium and channel for the message (be sure to include why they did or didn’t)?
- Was the sender’s purpose realistic?
- What was your impression of the speaker?
- What mannerisms/behaviors made the speaker interesting to listen to? Or alternatively, painful to listen to?
- What are the major takeaways you have from this presentation? (i.e. if you were to give a presentation, what would you integrate into your own style?)
Note: while you will refer to the content of the presentation you analyze, the purpose of this paper is to discuss how effective the presenter was in communicating the message. Do not merely summarize what the presenter says but talk about why the presentation is effective or why it is not.
As with your paper for week one, I am looking for a coherent, organized paper and not a list of answers to the questions above, though the questions should guide your discussion and your paper should address each of the questions in a logical fashion.
As I did for your first assignment, I have posted a short announcement that you may find useful as you approach your paper.
Submission Requirements:
Please submit a two-page paper, double-spaced, in 12 point Times New Roman font formatted in MLA style (click HERE for a sample paper formatted in MLA style). Be sure to address each of the eight points noted above and include the link to the presentation you viewed.
158977799905/17/202011:59pm
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
| Copy and paste or type your submission right here. |
|
|
| CancelSubmit Assignment |
Bottom of Form
Before you can submit assignments directly from Google Drive you need to authorize Canvas to access your Google Drive account:
Authorize Google Drive Access
Rubric
454490
Can’t change a rubric once you’ve started using it.
Find a Rubric
Title: Find Rubric
Written Assignment Rubric (1) (1)
You’ve already rated students with this rubric. Any major changes could affect their assessment results.
| Written Assignment Rubric (1) (1) |
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts |
| Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent: Ideas and Content 19455_4444 view longer description Range threshold: pts | | Edit ratingDelete rating 20.0 to >15.0 pts Excellent: The writing is exceptionally clear. Main ideas include strong supporting material. Discussions completely reflect the assignment objectives. (15.1-20 points) blank | Edit ratingDelete rating 15.0 to >10.0 pts Above Average: The writing is clear, focused, and interesting. Main ideas are developed by supporting details. Discussions may need development. 19455_7649 | Edit ratingDelete rating 10.0 to >5.0 pts Average: The main ideas may be overly broad or simplistic, and may not be effective. Supporting details are often insubstantial. 19455_2646 | Edit ratingDelete rating 5.0 to >0 pts Below Average to Failing: The writing lacks a central idea or purpose. Ideas are extremely limited, have minimal development, and repeat details. blank_2 | This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion. | pts / 20.0 pts — |
| Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent: Purpose and Intent 19455_2850 view longer description Range threshold: pts | | Edit ratingDelete rating 12.0 to >9.0 pts Excellent: The writing reflects the writer’s specific purpose and intent. 19455_3846 | Edit ratingDelete rating 9.0 to >6.0 pts Above Average: The writing has many characteristics of the writer’s specific purpose and intent. 19455_8114 | Edit ratingDelete rating 6.0 to >5.0 pts Average: The writing has a few characteristics of the writer’s specific purpose and intent. 19455_7937 | Edit ratingDelete rating 5.0 to >0 pts Below Average to Failing: The writing does not reflect the purpose and intent of the assignment. 19455_6116 | This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion. | pts / 12.0 pts — |
| Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent: Reasonable and Appropriate Appeal 19455_6233 view longer description Range threshold: pts | | Edit ratingDelete rating 10.0 to >8.0 pts Excellent: The writer connects strongly with the audience by including relevant details and natural, engaging language. 19455_460 | Edit ratingDelete rating 8.0 to >5.0 pts Above Average: The writer successfully includes one or two reasonable or appropriate appeals. 19455_1726 | Edit ratingDelete rating 5.0 to >5.0 pts Average: The writer unsuccessfully attempts to connect with the audience. 19455_4723 | Edit ratingDelete rating 5.0 to >0 pts Below Average to Failing: The writer made no attempt to make the reader care about the topic. 19455_5255 | This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion. | pts / 10.0 pts — |
| Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization and Development: Organization 19455_2249 view longer description Range threshold: pts | | Edit ratingDelete rating 8.0 to >6.0 pts Excellent: Major points are stated clearly, organized logically, and supported by specific details. Organization enhances the central idea and its development. The introduction clearly conveys the topic and grabs the readers attention. Paragraphs easily flow with subtle transitions. Conclusion effectively reviews major points. 19455_1384 | Edit ratingDelete rating 6.0 to >4.0 pts Above Average: Major points are stated and include some specific details. Organization is clear and coherent. Structure is present but formulaic. The introduction clearly conveys the topic. There may be ineffective paragraph transitions. The conclusion does not review major points. 19455_9920 | Edit ratingDelete rating 4.0 to >2.0 pts Average: Major points are somewhat stated and organized, but they do not include specific details, examples, or analysis. The introduction somewhat conveys the topic. The overview sentence is vague. Structure is present but often ineffective. The conclusion is somewhat logical. 19455_196 | Edit ratingDelete rating 2.0 to >0 pts Below Average to Failing: Major points are not stated. The paper does not include a clear beginning, body, or ending. The introduction does not convey the topic. Paragraph structure, if present, appears to be random. There is no conclusion. 19455_7604 | This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion. | pts / 8.0 pts — |
| Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization and Development: Person and Point of View 19455_4630 view longer description Range threshold: pts | | Edit ratingDelete rating 4.0 to >3.0 pts Excellent: The writer uses the appropriate point of view throughout the entire paper. 19455_384 | Edit ratingDelete rating 3.0 to >2.0 pts Above Average: The writer uses the appropriate point of view throughout most of paper. 19455_7683 | Edit ratingDelete rating 2.0 to >1.0 pts Average: The writer uses the appropriate point of view in portions of the paper. 19455_7876 | Edit ratingDelete rating 1.0 to >0 pts Below Average to Failing: The writer shifts between various points of view throughout the paper, or frequently uses an inappropriate point of view. 19455_8500 | This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion. | pts / 4.0 pts — |
| Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization and Development: Sentence Variety and Fluency 19455_1183 view longer description Range threshold: pts | | Edit ratingDelete rating 4.0 to >3.0 pts Excellent: The writing includes extensive variation in sentence structure and length. Sentence structure enhances meaning by drawing attention to key ideas. There are no fragments or run-on sentences. 19455_1986 | Edit ratingDelete rating 3.0 to >2.0 pts Above Average: The writing flows; however, connections between phrases or sentences may be less than fluid, and occasional poor sentence construction interferes with meaning. There are some fragments or run-on sentences. 19455_9543 | Edit ratingDelete rating 2.0 to >1.0 pts Average: Sentences tend to be mechanical rather than fluid. Occasional awkward constructions obstruct the meaning. Fragments and run-on sentences confuse the reader. 19455_3648 | Edit ratingDelete rating 1.0 to >0 pts Below Average to Failing: Sentences lack structure and appear incomplete, lengthy, awkward, or difficult to read. Lack of sentence structure frequently obscures meaning. 19455_7079 | This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion. | pts / 4.0 pts — |
| Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization and Development: Word Choice 19455_1131 view longer description Range threshold: pts | | Edit ratingDelete rating 4.0 to >3.0 pts Excellent: Words are specific and accurate. The writer’s word choices enhance the meaning and clarify understanding. 19455_1858 | Edit ratingDelete rating 3.0 to >2.0 pts Above Average: Words are correct, and they support the writer’s meaning. Words and phrases are functional, but there may be better choices. 19455_5975 | Edit ratingDelete rating 2.0 to >1.0 pts Average: Words are correct but somewhat confusing. Words and phrases are somewhat functional but must be refined. 19455_8722 | Edit ratingDelete rating 1.0 to >0 pts Below Average to Failing: Words are not specific and are distracting. Jargon, clichés, or redundancies distract or mislead the reader. 19455_5236 | This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion. | pts / 4.0 pts — |
| Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMechanics: Conventions 19455_9437 view longer description Range threshold: pts | | Edit ratingDelete rating 8.0 to >6.0 pts Excellent: Correct grammar, spelling and mechanics facilitate the reading of the text. There are no errors in capitalization or punctuation. The paper is exceptionally easy to read and conveys information effectively. 19455_5911 | Edit ratingDelete rating 6.0 to >4.0 pts Above Average: Correct grammar, spelling, and mechanics facilitate the reading of the text. There are one or two errors in capitalization or punctuation, but the paper still conveys information effectively. 19455_4518 | Edit ratingDelete rating 4.0 to >2.0 pts Average: Errors in grammar, spelling, and mechanics are minor but affect the reading of the text. The writer makes a few errors in capitalization or punctuation interrupts the flow. 19455_3018 | Edit ratingDelete rating 2.0 to >0 pts Below Average to Failing: Poor mechanics, grammar, and spelling impede the reading of the text. The writer makes several errors in capitalization or punctuation, which greatly interrupts the flow. 19455_5191 | This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion. | pts / 8.0 pts — |
| Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMechanics: References and In-Text Citations 19455_8764 view longer description Range threshold: pts | | Edit ratingDelete rating 10.0 to >7.0 pts Excellent: All intellectual property is accurately documented consistent with MLA guidelines. Box in-text and reference page citations are correct. The writer accurately quotes, paraphrases, and summarizes. Only sources included in paper appear on the reference page. 19455_4158 | Edit ratingDelete rating 7.0 to >3.0 pts Above Average: All intellectual property is accurately documented, but a few citations are incorrect. Either the in-text citations or the reference page require revisions. There is too much paraphrasing and not enough original content. 19455_930 | Edit ratingDelete rating 3.0 to >3.0 pts Average: All intellectual property is documented, but many citations are not consistent with MLA guidelines. They require many revisions. The in-text citations do not match the listed references. 19455_1338 | Edit ratingDelete rating 3.0 to >0 pts Below Average to Failing: Few sources are used and there are little or no citations. Those that appear are not formatted correctly. The citations and reference page require major revisions. The paper reflects possible plagiarism. | | |