debate and convince "for" Should employers continue to allow remote work?

Your job is to convince class to buy into your side of the issue. add in-text citation and 4 references.

The purpose of the position paper is to practice formulating and articulating an informed opinion that could be used to influence one's constituents about a conflict in business. Because conflict has the potential to breed growth, it is important for managers (and learners) to be able to consider many different perspectives to an issue and to ground their arguments in theory so that the resulting decisions will be viewed as informed, reliable, and convincing rather than somewhat ignorant, unsubstantiated and biased. The position paper will provide you the opportunity to select a controversy of interest to you, examine your views in light of existing theory and research, design a presentation format that will convince your constituents to act in your favor, and work with a team in presenting that posture to the rest of the class.

Position Paper Rubric Levels of Achievement Criteria Poor -- did not meet Fair -- needs more depth for Good minimum standards Master's level work Outstanding Conflict & 0 to 13.5 points 14 to 15.5 points 16 to 17.5 points 18 to 20 points Position The conflict was vague The conflict was vague and The conflict was eventually The conflict was dearly and not clearly stated in not clearly stated early in the Implied or stated, but not early stated in an interrogative the paper. An paper, within the first two in the paper, within the first format to which half of the Interrogative format was aragraphs. An Interrogative two paragraphs. An team answered yes, and the not used. The reader had mat to which half of the nerrogative format to which other half, no. The position a hard time figuring out team answered yes, and the half of the team answered yes, taken was clearly stated at what was being debated other half, no, was not used. and the other half, no, was the beginning of the paper The reader had to search for fairly dear. The reader had to (within the first paragraph o the position being taken. wait to find out what position two). was being taken. Content 0 to 31 points 31.5 to 35.5 points 36 to 40 points 40.5 to 45 points Arguments Inadequate arguments for Superficial, obvious Said, basic arguments for the Outstanding argument the position were arguments for the position position were clearly listed the postion, going ed or discussed. were discussed, but not well- ed, persuasive and the obvious and covering Evidence of critical explained. Arguments were academic different perspectives (such thinking was missing not especially persuasive or jou mals, legitimate news as financial, ethical Arguments were not thoughtful. Some supporting outlets, government, company emotional , global) were especially persuasive or sources were questionable andfor industrial sources. clearly listed, explained. thoughtful. i. Supporting of peer-reviewed, and persuasive and supported by sources were obtained from random academic journals, legitimate questionable, not peer- websites, rather than news outlets, government, reviewed, and obtained academic sources. company and/or industrial from random websites sources rather than academic sources. Theory 0 to 31 points 31.5 to 35.5 points 36 to 40 points 40.5 to 45 points The discussion did not The discussion named OB The discussion and he discussion and dearly identify OB concepts or a theory. They explanation named or defined explanation went beyond concepts or theory, nor were superficially explained a theory or OB concept. An merely naming or defining were they used to help or discussed and not used to OB, theoretical model, linking OB concepts. An academic, inform the position. This help Inform the position. This critical variables together was , theoretical model, linking section was either missing section needed more depth not identifed and/or explained. critical variables together or needed consider ably in critical thinking and was The concepts were applied to was identified more depth in critical not linked to academic, Le. the conflict and used to The model was then applied thinking and was not peer-reviewed, Information. explain how the position was to the conflict and used to based on academic, Le., supported. This section explain how the position was peer-reviewed. displayed basic understanding supported. This section information. of OB concepts, not displayed depth and necessarily theory, and some evidence of critical thinking evidence of critical and was based on academic and was based on peer- Le., peerreviewed, reviewed, Information. information.Outside 0 to 31 points 31.5 to 35.5 points 36 to 40 points 40.5 to 45 points Readings Only one or no substantive Atleast two substantive Atleast three substantive ur substantive sources, in addition to the sources, in addition to the sources, in addition to the sources, in addition to the textbook, were used to book, were used to help lextbook, were used to help textbook, were used to help help inform the arguments Inform the arguments and inform the arguments and inform the arguments and and position. Academic asition. Academic, peer position. There was at least position. There was at least peer-reviewed journals reviewed journals may not one academic, peer-reviewed one academic, peer- were not consulted. have been consulted. joumal consulted. Internet reviewed journal consulted Internet sources without Internet sources without sources without authors, lifes Internet sources without authors, titles and journal authors, Ifles and journals and names of credible authors, titles and names d might have been used. might have been used. publications were not used. credible publications were Random websites might Random websites might Random websites were not not used. Random websites have been used. have been used. Outside used. Outside sources were were not used. sources were not carefully sources were not carefully mentioned, if not totally sources were smoothly integrated into the integrated into the analysis. integrated into the analysis. integrated into the analysis. analysis. Quality of Writing 0 to 31 points 31.5 to 35.5 points 36 to 40 points 40.5 to 45 points Poor, masters-level Fair, masters-level writing Said, masters-level, writing Outstanding, masters-level, writing skills and skills and vocabul skils and vocabulary were writing skills and vocabulary vocabulary were employed. There were employed. There were a few were employed. There were employed. There were several weaknesses in weaknesses in grammar and minimal weaknesses in several, serious grammar and sentence sentence structure and some grammar and sentence weaknesses in grammar structure and some misspelled words. Writing structure and no misspelled and sentence structure misspelled words. Writing errors highlighted in the words. Writing eit ors and several misspelle wars highlighted in the edback on your previous hlighted in the feedback words. Writing errors edback on your case and case and rope assignments on your case and rope highlighted in the feedback rope assignments may have may have been repeated. assignments were no on your case and rope been repeated. Ideas may Some ideas may not have eated. Ideas were assignments were not have been articulated been referenced. No more articulated clearly and were repeated. Ideas were not dearly nor appropdately than 10% of the paper was appropd ately referenced. No articulated dear referenced. No more than uated. Citations and more than 10% of the pap appropriately referenced. 10% of the paper was references were complete was quoted. Citations and More than 10% of the quoted. Citations and (authors, dates, Miles, journals, references were complete paper was quoted. references may not have utilishers, cities and states of (authors, dates, " Des, Citations and references complete nor in publishers, page numbers, journals, publishers, cities were not complete and/or proper APA format. All websites) and in proper APA and states of publishers, not in proper APA format. citations may not have been ormat. All citations were page numbers, websites) All citations were not referenced in the back of the referenced in the back of the and in proper APA format. All referenced in the back of paper. All references listed paper. All references listed clations were referenced in the paper. All refer were not cited in the text of may not have been cited in the the back of the paper. All Isted were not cited in the the paper. text of the paper. references listed were cited text of the paper. in the text of the paper