I have attached the instruction.
DISCUSSION
The Merger & Acquisition team hired a team of external consultants to assist with identification of cultural issues which could result in barriers to the successful acquisition of Island Banking Services by Padgett-Beale. The consultants conducted interviews with Padgett-Beale executives and senior staff. They also used a standardized survey to measure attitudes and beliefs about culture and conflict management styles at Padgett-Beale. A survey of islanders was conducted as well. The results from both surveys have not yet been validated but, the early results show substantial similarities to existing national culture survey results for U.S. populations and residents of Fiji. You can learn more about the national culture surveys here:
https://www.hofstede-insights.com/models/national-culture/
and here
https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/fiji,the-usa/
An additional survey was conducted among Padgett-Beale managers who will transfer to PBI-FS and island residents who have applied for jobs at PBI-FS. This survey focused primarily on the influence of context upon inter-cultural communications. This survey found that Padgett-Beale’s corporate communications culture was “low context” while the job applicants expected a “high context” culture. For definitions and examples see
http://www.culture-at-work.com/highlow.html
After reviewing the consultants’ reports, the M&A team has decided to focus on differences in two factors which could present immediate barriers to success: (a) communications context and (b) power-distance.
|
Cultural Dimension |
Padgett Beale Managers & Employees |
PBI-FS Job Applicants (Islanders) |
|
Communications Context |
Low Context |
High Context |
|
Power-Distance |
Medium Power Distance |
High Power Distance |
To answer questions and allay concerns, you’ve been asked to prepare a briefing about these factors to be given at the next senior leadership meeting. For that briefing you must research and answer the following questions:
1. What is “communications context” and how could it influence expectations of managers and employees and their relationships with each other at PBI-FS?
2. What is “power-distance” and how could it influence expectations of managers and employees and their relationships with each other at PBI-FS?
3. How might differences in communications context (low/high) and power-distance contribute to conflicts within the new organization (PBI-FS), e.g. between transferred PBI personnel and newly hired islanders?
4. What best practices should managers and executives follow when conflicts arise between the company (Padgett-Beale) and its new subsidiary (PBI-FS)?
Organize your talking points around the four sets of questions. Then write your responses as a 5 to 7 paragraph briefing paper (you may use some bullet points but the majority of the content should be organized as paragraphs). This paper will be sent to the VP’s and other senior leaders to read prior to the senior leadership meeting.
2/4/22, 7:05 PMRubric Assessment – CSIA 485 6380 Practical Applications in Cyber…y Management and Policy (2222) – UMGC Learning Management System
Page 1 of 3https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessm…4&d2l_body_type=5&closeButton=1&showRubricHeadings=0&viewTypeId=3
50/50 Discussion Par!cipa!on with Cri!ques and Follow-ups
Course: CSIA 485 6380 Prac!cal Applica!ons in Cybersecurity Management and Policy (2222)
Timeliness of Ini!al Pos!ng On Time Late Very Late No Submission
Timeliness of Response to
Discussion Paper
Assignment
5 points
Posted response to topic
assignment before 11:59 PM ET
on Sunday.
4 points
Posted response to topic
assignment before 11:59 PM ET
on Monday.
3 points
Posted response to topic
assignment before 11:59 PM ET
on Tuesday.
0 points
Did not post response to topic
assignment before 11:59 PM ET
on Tuesday.
“Short Paper”
(Response to Topic
Assignment)
Excellent Outstanding Acceptable Needs Improvement
Needs Significant
Improvement
Missing or No Work
Submi!ed
Introduc!on
Analysis
Summary
Use of Authorita!ve
Sources
7.5 points
Provided an excellent
introduc!on to the
deliverable which clearly,
concisely, and accurately
addressed the topic of
the short
paper.
Appropriately
paraphrased informa!on
from authorita!ve
sources.
6.5 points
Provided an outstanding
introduc!on to the
deliverable which clearly
and accurately addressed
the topic of the short
paper. Appropriately
paraphrased informa!on
from authorita!ve
sources.
5.5 points
Provided an acceptable
introduc!on to the
deliverable which
addressed the topic of
the short paper.
Appropriately
paraphrased informa!on
from authorita!ve
sources.
4.5 points
Provided an introduc!on
to the deliverable but the
sec!on lacked some
required details.
Informa!on from
authorita!ve sources was
men!oned.
2 points
A”empted to provide an
introduc!on to the
deliverable but this
sec!on lacked detail
and/or was not well
supported by informa!on
drawn from authorita!ve
sources (too many
quota!ons or improper
paraphrasing).
0 points
Introduc!on was missing
or no
work submi”ed.
17.5 points
Provided an excellent
analysis of the issues for
the required topic.
Addressed at least three
separate issues and
provided appropriate
examples for each.
Appropriately used and
cited
informa!on from
authorita!ve sources.
15.5 points
Provided an outstanding
analysis of the issues for
the required topic.
Addressed at least two
separate issues and
provided appropriate
examples for each.
Appropriately used and
cited informa!on from
authorita!ve sources.
14.5 points
Provided an acceptable
analysis of the issues for
the required topic.
Addressed at least one
specific issue and
provided an appropriate
example. Appropriately
used and cited
informa!on from
authorita!ve sources.
12.5 points
Addressed the required
topic but the analysis
lacked details or was
somewhat disorganized.
Appropriately used and
cited informa!on from
authorita!ve sources.
6.5 points
Men!oned the required
topic but the analysis
was very disorganized or
off topic. OR, the analysis
did not appropriately use
informa!on from
authorita!ve sources (too
many quota!ons or
improper paraphrasing).
0 points
Analysis was missing or
no work was submi”ed.
10 points
Included an excellent
summary sec!on for the
short paper which was
on topic, well organized,
and covered at least 3
key points. The summary
contained at least one
full paragraph.
9 points
Included an outstanding
summary paragraph for
the short paper which
was on topic and covered
at least 3 key points.
8 points
Included a summary
paragraph for the short
paper which was on topic
and provided an
appropriate closing.
5 points
Included a summary
paragraph but, this
sec!on lacked content or
was disorganized.
1 point
Included a few summary
sentences for the short
paper.
0 points
Did not include a
summary for the short
paper.
5 points
Included and properly
cited three or more
authorita!ve sources
with complete
publica!on or retrieval
informa!on. No
forma$ng errors.
4 points
Included and properly
cited three or more
authorita!ve sources
(minor errors allowable).
Reference list entries
contain sufficient
informa!on to enable the
reader to find and
retrieve the cited
sources.
3 points
Included and cited two or
more authorita!ve
sources (minor errors in
cita!ons or reference
entries). Reference list
entries contain sufficient
informa!on to enable the
reader to find and
retrieve the cited
sources.
2 points
Included and cited at
least one authorita!ve
source (minor errors in
cita!ons or reference
entries). Reference list
entries contain sufficient
informa!on to enable the
reader to find and
retrieve the cited
sources.
1 point
Men!oned at least one
authorita!ve source but,
the cita!ons and/or
reference list entries
lacked required
informa!on (not
sufficient to retrieve the
correct resource).
0 points
References and cita!ons
were missing. Or, no
work submi”ed.
2/4/22, 7:05 PMRubric Assessment – CSIA 485 6380 Practical Applications in Cyber…y Management and Policy (2222) – UMGC Learning Management System
Page 2 of 3https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assess…4&d2l_body_type=5&closeButton=1&showRubricHeadings=0&viewTypeId=3
Professionalism
5 points
No forma$ng, grammar,
spelling, or punctua!on
errors. Submi”ed work
shows outstanding
organiza!on and the use
of color, fonts, !tles,
headings and sub-
headings, etc. is
appropriate to the
assignment
type.
4 points
Work contains minor
errors in forma$ng,
grammar, spelling or
punctua!on which do
not significantly impact
professional
appearance.
Work needs some
polishing to improve
professional appearance.
3 points
Errors in forma$ng,
spelling, grammar, or
punctua!on which need
a”en!on / edi!ng to
improve professional
appearance
of the work.
2 points
Submi”ed work has
numerous errors in
forma$ng, spelling,
grammar, or punctua!on.
Substan!al polishing /
edi!ng is required.
1 point
Submi”ed work is
difficult to read and/or
understand. OR, work
has significant errors in
forma$ng, spelling,
grammar, punctua!on, or
word usage which
detract from the overall
professional appearance
of the work.
0 points
No submission.
First Cri!que Excellent Acceptable Needs Significant Improvement Missing or No Work Submi!ed
Analysis
Professionalism
10 points
The cri!que pos!ng provided
three or more sugges!ons for
improvement in content which
were based upon an analysis of
the short paper (how well it met
the content requirements).
Provided examples which could
be incorporated into the short
paper to improve or refine it.
Authorita!ve sources were cited
as appropriate. The pos!ng
addressed the peer author by
name.
8.5 points
The cri!que pos!ng provided at
least three sugges!ons for
improvement in content which
were based upon an analysis of
the short paper (how well it met
the content requirements).
Authorita!ve sources were cited
as appropriate. The pos!ng
addressed the peer author by
name.
6 points
The pos!ng did not provide a
cri!que of the short paper. The
pos!ng may have included
compliments or “good job” type
comments.
0 points
The analysis was missing (or not
submi”ed before 11:59 PM ET
Tuesday night). OR the submi”ed
cri!que was copied (not the
student’s own
original work).
5 points
The cri!que was wri”en in an
appropriate tone of voice for a
peer-to-peer communica!on. No
forma$ng, grammar, spelling, or
punctua!on errors. Authorita!ve
sources were appropriately cited.
Submi”ed work shows
outstanding organiza!on and the
use of color, fonts, !tles, headings
and sub-headings, etc. is
appropriate to the assignment
type.
4 points
The cri!que was wri”en in an
appropriate tone of voice for a
peer-to-peer communica!on.
Authorita!ve sources were
appropriately cited. Work
contains minor errors in
forma$ng, grammar, spelling or
punctua!on which do not
significantly impact professional
appearance. Work needs some
polishing to improve professional
appearance.
3 points
The tone of voice used in the
cri!que was not appropriate for a
peer-to-peer communica!on in
the workplace. OR, there were
errors in forma$ng, spelling,
grammar, or punctua!on which
need a”en!on / edi!ng to
improve professional appearance
of the work.
0 points
No submission (or not submi”ed
before 11:59 PM ET Tuesday
night). Or, the cri!que was
copied (not the student’s own
original work).
Second Cri!que Excellent Acceptable Needs Significant Improvement Missing or No Work Submi!ed
Analysis
Professionalism
10 points
The cri!que pos!ng provided
three or more sugges!ons for
improvement in content which
were based upon an analysis of
the short paper (how well it met
the content requirements).
Provided examples which could
be incorporated into the short
paper to improve or refine it.
Authorita!ve sources were cited
as appropriate. The pos!ng
addressed the peer author by
name.
8.5 points
The cri!que pos!ng provided at
least three sugges!ons for
improvement in content which
were based upon an analysis of
the short paper (how well it met
the content requirements).
Authorita!ve sources were cited
as appropriate. The pos!ng
addressed the peer author by
name.
6 points
The pos!ng did not provide a
cri!que of the short paper. The
pos!ng may have included
compliments or “good job” type
comments.
0 points
The analysis was missing (or not
submi”ed before 11:59 PM ET
Tuesday night). OR the submi”ed
cri!que was copied (not the
student’s own original work).
5 points 4 points 3 points 0 points
2/4/22, 7:05 PMRubric Assessment – CSIA 485 6380 Practical Applications in Cyber…y Management and Policy (2222) – UMGC Learning Management System
Page 3 of 3https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assess…4&d2l_body_type=5&closeButton=1&showRubricHeadings=0&viewTypeId=3
Total
Overall Score
The cri!que was wri”en in an
appropriate tone of voice for a
peer-to-peer communica!on. No
forma$ng, grammar, spelling, or
punctua!on errors. Authorita!ve
sources were appropriately cited.
Submi”ed work shows
outstanding organiza!on and the
use of color, fonts, !tles, headings
and sub-headings, etc. is
appropriate to the assignment
type.
The cri!que was wri”en in an
appropriate tone of voice for a
peer-to-peer communica!on.
Authorita!ve sources were
appropriately cited. Work
contains minor errors in
forma$ng, grammar, spelling or
punctua!on which do not
significantly impact professional
appearance. Work needs some
polishing to improve professional
appearance.
The tone of voice used in the
cri!que was not appropriate for a
peer-to-peer communica!on in
the workplace. OR, there were
errors in forma$ng, spelling,
grammar, or punctua!on which
need a”en!on / edi!ng to
improve professional appearance
of the work.
No submission (or not submi”ed
before 11:59 PM ET Tuesday
night). Or, the cri!que was
copied (not the student’s own
original work).
Contribu!ons to Discussion Excellent Acceptable Needs Improvement Missing or No Work Submi!ed
Follow-up Reply or
Comment #1
Follow-up Reply or
Comment #2
10 points
Posted a follow-up reply or
comment which demonstrated
cri!cal thinking and added value
to
the discussion.
8.5 points
Posted an acceptable follow-up
reply or comment which added
some value
to the discussion.
6 points
Posted a follow-up reply or
comment but added li”le value to
the discussion.
0 points
Pos!ng was missing (or not
submi”ed before 11:59 PM ET
Tuesday night). Or the pos!ng did
not add value to the discussion.
10 points
Posted a follow-up reply or
comment which demonstrated
cri!cal thinking and added value
to the discussion.
8.5 points
Posted an acceptable follow-up
reply or comment which added
some value to the discussion.
6 points
Posted a follow-up reply or
comment but added li”le value to
the discussion.
0 points
Pos!ng was missing (or not
submi”ed before 11:59 PM ET
Tuesday night). Or the pos!ng did
not add value to the discussion.
Do Not Use This Box
0 points minimum
