PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AS INDICATED BELOW:

1). ZERO (0) PLAGIARISM

2). ATLEAST 5 REFERENCES, NO MORE THAN 5 YEARS

3). PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING ATTACHED RUBRIC DETAILS.

Thank you.

A walk through the Business section of any bookstore or a quick Internet search on the topic will reveal a seemingly endless supply of writings on leadership. Formal research literature is also teeming with volumes on the subject.

However, your own observation and experiences may suggest these theories are not always so easily found in practice. Not that the potential isn’t there; current evidence suggests that leadership factors such as emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behaviors, for example, can be highly effective for leading nurses and organizations.

Yet, how well are these theories put to practice? In this Discussion, you will examine formal leadership theories. You will compare these theories to behaviors you have observed firsthand and discuss their effectiveness in impacting your organization.

To Prepare:

  • Review the Resources and examine the leadership theories and behaviors introduced.
  • Identify two to three scholarly resources, in addition to this Module’s readings, that evaluate the impact of leadership behaviors in creating healthy work environments.
  • Reflect on the leadership behaviors presented in the three resources that you selected for review.

Write two key insights you had from the scholarly resources you selected. Describe a leader whom you have seen use such behaviors and skills, or a situation where you have seen these behaviors and skills used in practice. Be specific and provide examples. Then, explain to what extent these skills were effective and how their practice impacted the workplace.

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Content

Name: NURS_6053_Module03_Week04_Discussion_Rubric

 

Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting Points: Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback:

Points: Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback:

Points: Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Post is cited with two credible sources.

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors. Feedback:

Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Contains only one or no credible sources.

Not written clearly or concisely.

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback:

Main Post: Timeliness Points: Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3. Feedback:
First Response Points: Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback:

Points: Points Range: 15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback:

Points: Points Range: 13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Feedback:

Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited. Feedback:

Second Response Points: Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback:

Points: Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback:

Points: Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Feedback:

Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited. Feedback:

Participation Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. Feedback:

Show Descriptions Show Feedback

Main Posting–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

 

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Good 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

 

Supported by at least three credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Fair 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

 

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

 

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

 

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

Post is cited with two credible sources.

 

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Contains some APA formatting errors. Poor 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

 

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

 

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

 

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

Contains only one or no credible sources.

 

Not written clearly or concisely.

 

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback:

Main Post: Timeliness–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3. Good 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)   Fair 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)   Poor 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3. Feedback:

First Response–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Good 15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Fair 13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Poor 0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited. Feedback:

Second Response–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Good 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Fair 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Poor 0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited. Feedback:

Participation–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. Good 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)   Fair 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)   Poor 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NURS_6053_Module03_Week04_Discussion_Rubric

 
Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.