To make marking consistent, fair, and transparent, we’re adopting a standard scoring method for the Certified Orgtologist Program (COP) Module 1 essay.
This method is built around what Module 1 is designed to assess: your ability to apply Hypothesis 2x in practice, supported by orgtology theory, presented in a clear argument, and backed by credible scholarship.
Pass Mark Rule
To pass the Module 1 essay, you must score at least 65%.
Why 65%? Because the COP rules state that learners must maintain an average score of 65% in all examinations to successfully complete the program.
In short: 65% is the pass mark for the essay, aligned with the program’s overall assessment standard.
The Scoring Breakdown (100%)
1) Practical Application of Hypothesis 2x – 50%
Hypothesis 2x is the foundation of orgtology and the heart of this essay. We are looking for a real application to your chosen topic – not just definitions.
What earns high marks:
- You correctly apply receptive (concrete, predictable, operational, repeatable) and projective (abstract, unpredictable, strategic, disruptive) activity to your topic.
- You show how organisations exist through projecting and receiving (reciprocity), forming relations and relationships in your chosen domain.
- You operationalise the “x” (X‑factor): the unpredictable human element that changes outcomes even when systems look similar.
Common reason marks drop:
Treating 2x as only “operations vs strategy” without demonstrating reciprocity/relationships and the X‑factor in the case.
2) Use of Orgtology Models & Theories – 20%
This measures how well you use orgtology tools/theories to strengthen your argument – beyond simply naming them.
High marks look like:
- You apply at least one orgtology model in a way that produces clear insights (e.g., a mapping, analysis output, or design implication).
- Your model use directly supports your Hypothesis 2x argument.
3) Argument Design & Structure – 15%
This is about logical flow and clarity.
Your essay must include:
A clear If‑Then‑Because hypothesis statement.
A progression of paragraphs that logically leads to a defensible conclusion.
4) Scholarship (Harvard + Breadth) — 15%
Your essay must be academically credible.
We will score:
- Harvard-style in-text citations and a Harvard reference list.
- Correct referencing of course material (each guide includes a ready-made Harvard reference you can cut and paste).
- Breadth requirement: at least 30% of your sources must be outside the field of orgtology (e.g., peer-reviewed articles, books, laws/policy docs, credible industry research).
- Use of previous students’ essays is allowed – but must be referenced properly.
- Most of the original orgtology theory, models, and course material was developed by Derek Hendrikz – please reference and cite accordingly, e.g., (Hendrikz: 2016), “Hendrikz (2016) states that…” Similar rules will apply where you use other students work as part of your essay.
Academic Integrity Rule (Threshold Requirement)
This is not a “small penalty.” It is a standard requirement.
If you use wording, structure, or ideas from:
- orgtology guides,
- published orgtology work,
- other students’ essays,
- or external sources,
- …you must cite and acknowledge them clearly.
- The Module 1 outlay explicitly expects proper referencing, including using external material and other students’ work responsibly.
A Simple Self-Check Before You Submit
Hypothesis 2x (50%)
- Did I map receptive (concrete) and projective (abstract) activity clearly to my topic?
- Did I show reciprocity/relationships (projecting ↔ receiving) in my case?
- Did I define and apply the X‑factor (human unpredictability) concretely?
Orgtology models (20%)
- Did I apply at least one model and show what it reveals?
Structure (15%)
- Do I have a clear If‑Then‑Because hypothesis and a logical flow?
Scholarship (15%)
- Are citations and references Harvard-consistent?
- Are ≥30% of references outside orgtology?
Why This Scoring Method?
Because Module 1 is meant to confirm you can apply the foundation of orgtology – Hypothesis 2x – and build a credible argument using the expected structure and referencing requirements.