WMGM1002 Case Study Marking Rubric Page 1 of 2 Criteria, Weightings and Marks Fail (F) 0 – 4 Pass (P) 5 – 6 Credit (Cr) 7 Distinction (D) 8 High Distinction (HD) 9 – 10 Question 1 (25%) Which of the five sources of power outlined in the unit (Lesson 2.1: Leadership), do you see reflected in Ferguson’s approach Explain which ones and how they were exhibited. Response fails to accurately identify which five sources of power are reflected in the leader’s approach. Explanation of the reasons is incomplete, irrelevant, or unclear with no link to theory and is not supported from the case study. Response shows no or limited understanding of theory. Response provides a basic explanation and identification of relevant sources of power reflected in the leader’s approach with some link to theory. Some support from the case study is provided. Response demonstrates some understanding of theory. Response provides a clear explanation and identification of relevant sources of power reflected in the leader’s approach with some link to theory. The response is mostly supported from the case study. Response demonstrates understanding of theory. Response provides a clear and detailed explanation and identification of relevant sources of power reflected in the leader’s approach with some link to theory and is supported from the case study. Response demonstrates critical understanding of theory. Response provides a consistently clear, comprehensive, and detailed explanation and identification of relevant sources of power reflected in the leader’s approach. Response is well linked to theory and is comprehensively supported from the case study. Response demonstrates critical and analytical understanding of theory. Question 2 (20%) Do you think Sir Alex Ferguson was truly an autocratic leader when he was manager of Manchester United Explain your answer, citing evidence from the case study. Response fails to determine whether he is an autocratic leader or not. The analysis provided is incomplete, irrelevant, or unclear with no link to theory and is not supported from the case study. Response shows no or limited understanding of theory. Response provides a basic response to the question in determining his leadership type with some link to theory. Some support from the case study is provided. Response demonstrates some understanding of theory. Response provides a clear and accurate response to the question in determining his leadership type with some link to theory. The response is mostly supported from the case study. Response demonstrates understanding of theory. Response provides a clear, accurate and detailed response to the question in determining his leadership type which is linked to theory and is supported from the case study. Response demonstrates critical understanding of theory. Response provides a consistently clear, accurate, comprehensive, and detailed response to the question in determining his leadership type. Response is well linked to theory and is comprehensively supported from the case study. Response demonstrates critical and analytical understanding of theory. Question 3 (20%) Based on the five traits for Sir Alex Ferguson outlined in the case study, discuss how his honesty and integrity would influence how effective his communication to players may be. Response fails to accurately discuss the influence of his honesty and integrity on effective communication. Discussion provided is incomplete, irrelevant, or unclear with no link to theory and is not supported from the case study. Response shows no or limited understanding of theory. Response provides a basic discussion of the influence of his honesty and integrity on effective communication with some link to theory. Some support from the case study is provided. Response demonstrates basic understanding of theory. Response provides a clear and accurate discussion of the influence of his honesty and integrity on effective communication with some link to theory. The response is mostly supported from the case study. Response demonstrates a reasonable understanding of theory. Response provides a clear, accurate and detailed discussion of the influence of his honesty and integrity on effective communi
cation which is linked to theory. The response is supported from the case study. Response demonstrates critical understanding of theory. Response provides a consistently clear, accurate, comprehensive, and detailed discussion of the influence of his honesty and integrity on effective communication. The response is well linked to theory and is comprehensively supported from the case study. Response demonstrates critical and analytical understanding of theory. Question 4 (25%) As the case study details, Ferguson has faced several controversies, including abusing match officials as well as his own players. Do you think this had an impact on his effectiveness as a successful leader Why or why not Response fails to accurately discuss and analyse the impact of his behaviour on his leadership’s effectiveness. Response provided is incomplete, irrelevant, or unclear with no link to theory and is not supported from the case study. Response shows no or limited understanding of theory. Response provides a basic discussion and analysis of the impact of his behaviour on his leadership’s effectiveness with some link to theory. Some support from the case study is provided. Response demonstrates some understanding of theory. Response provides a clear and accurate discussion and analysis of the impact of his behaviour on his leadership’s effectiveness with some link to theory. The response is mostly supported from the case study. Response demonstrates understanding of theory. Response provides a clear, accurate and detailed discussion and analysis of the impact of his behaviour on his leadership’s effectiveness which is linked to theory and is supported from the case study. Response demonstrates critical understanding of theory. Response provides a consistently clear, accurate, comprehensive, and detailed discussion and analysis of the impact of his behaviour on his leadership’s effectiveness. Response is well linked to theory and is comprehensively supported from the case study. Response demonstrates critical and analytical understanding of theory. WMGM1002 Case Study Marking Rubric Page 2 of 2 Criteria, Weightings and Marks Fail (F) 0 – 4 Pass (P) 5 – 6 Credit (Cr) 7 Distinction (D) 8 High Distinction (HD) 9 – 10 Academic Writing (5%) Formal style, hedging, complex sentence structure, a broad vocabulary range Writer’s voice is evident The writer uses very few academic writing techniques. Simple sentences are generally well- constructed, although complex sentences lack accuracy or are not attempted; academic language/ vocabulary lacks precision. The writer uses a number of academic writing techniques. Sentences are generally well- constructed; academic language/ vocabulary is used although precision may be lacking. The writer uses a range of academic writing techniques. Sentences are generally well- constructed; academic language/ vocabulary is used with some precision. The writer uses a comprehensive range of academic writing techniques. Sentences are well-constructed; complex academic language/ vocabulary is used with a good degree of precision. The writer uses a broad range of expert academic writing techniques. The language is skilfully constructed; sophisticated academic language/ vocabulary is used with excellent precision. Referencing (5%) Accuracy, consistency, and compliance with Harvard style No referencing or in-text citations (0 mark) or referencing does not conform to Harvard style; multiple inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies with in-text references and/or reference list. Referencing mostly conforms to Harvard style. May be inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the in-text references and/or reference list. Referencing conforms to Harvard style. Few inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies in the in-text references and reference list. Referencing conforms to Harvard style. Very minor inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies in the in-text references and reference list. Referencing conforms to Harvard style. The in-text references and a reference list are faultless, with no inaccuracies or inconsistencies. Word
Limit Penalty: If the word limit is exceeded by more than 10%, a
penalty of minus 5 marks will be applied. (Note: The word limit does not
include headings or the reference list.)