Description
Assessment Description
Directions
Create an analysis of how a Christian worldview could impact Southwest airlines vision and mission statements and its business practices (750-1,000 words).
Include the following:
Review the company’s vision and mission statements. Describe elements of your company’s vision and mission statements that reflect the organization’s commitment to the greater social good and relates to elements of a Christian worldview.
Explain how the company’s commitment to the greater social good relates to elements of a Christian worldview.
Explain whether the company’s practices are consistent with a Christian worldview?
Deliverable
Submit a Word document to the digital classroom.
All analysis in the paper should be substantiated with a minimum of five relevant and credible sources in support of your content. Credible sources need to be relevant to the assessment and can include corporate websites and peer reviewed sources, or those provided in the topic Resources.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Benchmark – A Christian Perspective in Vision and Mission – Rubric
Collapse All
Describe How the Mission and Vision Statements Reflect Commitment to
a Greater Social Good and CWV
10 points
Criteria Description
5. Target
10 points
Description of the elements of the company mission and vision statements that
reflect their commitment to the great social good and Christian worldview is
thoroughly presented. Description is comprehensive and insightful with exceptional
supporting details.
4. Acceptable
8.7 points
Description of the elements of the company mission and vision statements that
reflect their commitment to the great social good and Christian worldview is clear
and coherent. Explanation is supported with relevant supporting details.
3. Appraoching
7.9 points
Description of the elements of the company mission and vision statements that
reflect their commitment to the great social good and Christian worldview is
somewhat limited and lacks some essential details or clarity.
2. Insufficient
7.4 points
Description of the elements of the company mission and vision statements that
reflect their commitment to the great social good and Christian worldview is
inadequate. Explanation is weak and missing relevant supporting details.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Description of the elements of the company mission and vision statements that
reflect their commitment to the great social good and Christian worldview is not
included.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
How the Company’s Commitment to the Greater Social Good Relates to
CWV (B)
Criteria Description
(C4.1, C10.1)
5. Target
10 points
The discussion of how the company’s commitment to the greater social good
relates to elements of a Christian worldview is thoroughly presented. Description is
comprehensive and insightful with exceptional supporting details.
4. Acceptable
8.7 points
The discussion of how the company’s commitment to the greater social good
relates to elements of a Christian worldview is clear and coherent. Explanation is
supported with relevant supporting details.
3. Appraoching
7.9 points
The discussion of how the company’s commitment to the greater social good
relates to elements of a Christian worldview is adequate. Explanation is somewhat
limited and lacks some essential details or clarity.
2. Insufficient
7.4 points
The discussion of how the company’s commitment to the greater social good
relates to elements of a Christian worldview is inadequate. Explanation is weak and
missing relevant supporting details.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Discussion of how the company’s commitment to the greater social good relates to
elements of a Christian worldview is not present.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
10 points
Company Practices Consistent With CWV
10 points
Criteria Description
5. Target
10 points
Discussion of whether the company’s practices are consistent with a CWV is
thoroughly presented. Description is comprehensive and insightful with exceptional
supporting details.
4. Acceptable
8.7 points
Discussion of whether the company’s practices are consistent with a CWV is clear
and coherent. Explanation is supported with relevant supporting details.
3. Appraoching
7.9 points
Discussion of whether the company’s practices are consistent with a CWV is
adequate. Explanation is somewhat limited and lacks some essential details or
clarity.
2. Insufficient
7.4 points
Discussion of whether the company’s practices are consistent with a CWV is
inadequate. Explanation is weak and missing relevant supporting details.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Discussion of whether the company’s practices are consistent with a CWV is not
included.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Research Sources
5 points
Criteria Description
(quantity, relevancy, and credibility of peer reviewed or professional and academic
sources)
5. Target
5 points
Source relevance is applicable and appropriate in all instances and sparks interest
in the reader to pursue further investigation. References from more than the
minimum number of credible scholarly resources are used. All assessment is
supported with credible sources.
4. Acceptable
4.35 points
Source relevance is applicable and appropriate in all instances. References of the
required number of credible resources are used and analysis in the paper is
supported.
3. Appraoching
3.95 points
Source relevance is mostly applicable and appropriate. References from the
required number of credible resources are used, but are not credible. (All analysis
in the paper is not supported.)
2. Insufficient
3.7 points
Source relevance is vague or inconsistent. References from the minimum number
of required credible resources are not used.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Sources are not used or cited as required in the assignment instructions. Credible
sources are not used.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Thesis, Position, or Purpose
3.5 points
Criteria Description
Communicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience.
5. Target
3.5 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is persuasively developed throughout and skillfully
directed to a specific audience.
4. Acceptable
3.05 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly
directed to a specific audience.
3. Appraoching
2.77 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately developed. An awareness of the
appropriate audience is demonstrated.
2. Insufficient
2.59 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally
weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of the appropriate
audience is evident.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Development, Structure, and Conclusion
4 points
Criteria Description
Advances position or purpose throughout writing; conclusion aligns to and evolves
from development.
5. Target
4 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is coherently and cohesively advanced throughout.
The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A convincing and unambiguous
conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.
4. Acceptable
3.48 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression
of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and plausible conclusion aligns to the
development of the purpose.
3. Appraoching
3.16 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on
each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.
2. Insufficient
2.96 points
Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are
inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic
and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections
between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Evidence
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose; considers
other perspectives.
5. Target
2.5 points
Comprehensive and compelling evidence is included. Multiple other perspectives
are integrated effectively.
4. Acceptable
2.18 points
Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Other perspectives are integrated.
3. Appraoching
1.98 points
Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used.
2. Insufficient
1.85 points
Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or
integration of other perspectives is present.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Evidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. The writing relies
entirely on the perspective of the writer.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Mechanics of Writing
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence
structure, etc.
5. Target
2.5 points
No mechanical errors are present. Skilled control of language choice and sentence
structure are used throughout.
4. Acceptable
2.18 points
Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence
structure are used.
3. Appraoching
1.98 points
Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally
appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.
2. Insufficient
1.85 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language
choice or sentence structure are recurrent.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language
choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Format/Documentation
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level;
documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc.,
appropriate to assignment and discipline.
5. Target
2.5 points
No errors in formatting or documentation are present. Selectivity in the use of
direct quotations and synthesis of sources is demonstrated.
4. Acceptable
2.18 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.
3. Appraoching
1.98 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious
errors.
2. Insufficient
1.85 points
Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors
in documentation of sources are evident.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.
Total 50 points
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
