ANSWER

GDD Leadership

Student’s Name

Course

Instructor’s Name

Date

GDD Leadership

Just as the needs of mankind have evolved over time so has the approach to leadership in order to meet the needs of an organization. It is important for the Global Delivery Direct (GDD) leader of today to navigate the fine line in which they demonstrate genuine care for people and the task at hand. The most imperative strength of any organization is the individuals or human resources. The achievement or inability of an organization to achieve its objectives will begin with the people within the organization. The Global Delivery Direct forerunner values human resource and teamwork that ensures the laws and progressions are in sort out to create competencies, take full advantage of the performance, and expedite the favorite organizational objectives. In the study and assessment of the leadership models, styles, and theories of four prospective candidates, a determination can be established on the candidate most relevant for new managerial position in Global Delivery Direct.

Table 1: Leadership Theory, Approach and Style of GDD

Leadership Theory	Leadership Approach	Leadership Style
The leaders of Global Delivery Direct at every level of the society are ethical, supple, adjustable, values human resource & different viewpoints, and sanctions all workforces dependable with the Relational Leadership Model (“The Relational Leadership Model,” 2006).	The Diamond Model is the center for the leadership approach of Global Delivery Direct. The rudiments of self, task, valuing others, & the firm when integrated develop the vital elements of leadership indispensable for the present GDD leader (Clawson, 2011).	Global Delivery Direct leadership style is meticulously affiliated to the Innovative or Visionary leadership style. The style is quite relevant when an institute ought to have a new direction. Its objective is to enable people to achieve a new set of collective visions (“Leadership Styles,” n.d.).

GDD Results

Positive relationships and their correlation with leadership cannot be inflated. Through positive relationships managers can inspire and stimulate those surrounding them in organizational achievement in their objectives. Leaders that have demonstrated the ability to perform in functions required of their employees strengthen the positive relationships. Indeed, the actual leadership theory for GDD currently is the relational leadership methodology. Contained of five essential constituents, this model to leadership is “focused and offers dimensions of obligation toward positive commitments, which are include people and various points of views, endows those within it, is ethical, and makes out that the four fundamentals are achieved through process-oriented mechanism” (Bond et al., 2010).

Global Delivery Direct leadership approach is built on the foundation of Diamond Model style. This model suits the leader of Global Delivery Direct leader for it has proven to supple, compliant and appropriate to diverse situations and leaders at every level of the organization. An effective leader of Global Delivery Direct starts with self-assessment and presents their view resolutely in the company’s vision. They then identify an approach and provide objectives that others will be found captivating thus employing influence. According to Clawson (2011) self, task and influence of others in appraisals are guaranteed by the organization which offers the organizational structure required for success. The consideration of all elements permits the leader of Global Delivery Direct to yield results regardless of the circumstances.

The ability of the leader of Global Delivery Direct recognize a policy and inspire workers towards a mutual vision of the society needs an innovative or visionary style of management for an efficacious process. With the wish to advance in a competitive superiority within the North American market, inventiveness and invention are essential at every level from the CEO down to the discrete team members. Innovative or visionary leaders are proficient at enunciating a new set of shared visions while creating an environment for employees to apply innovative philosophy or brainstorming that will actualize development of new services and products (Westley & Mintzberg, 2015). To have a competitive edge offering a customized service in a niche marketplace, the entrants for the new administrative position need to be innovative or visionary and make even the leadership model of Global Delivery Direct.

Candidate Results

Table 2: Leadership Model, Method and Style of the Interviewees

Candidate	Leadership Theory	Leadership Approach	Leadership Style
Henrietta Raynard	Great Man Theory – Highlights discrete features like trustworthiness & trust.	None: Has a feeling she can take leadership & appreciates the reputation of sustainability.	Authoritarian / Transactional – Raynard has a belief that it is transactional yet is seems more authoritarian considering that on inclination to small business atmosphere where she has more authority
Orson Hernandez	Contingency: he preferred inducement motivational practices and would occasionally sanction workforces if they showed the ability to achieve other objectives too.	Situational: Considers that this approach permits him the suppleness to style things by the condition which presents itself.	Laissez-Faire: Considers this method inspires freedom.
Jonathan Livingston	Relational: Ha a belief that people make change work and leading change in the future	Relational: creates positive relationships in the organization, seeks leadership opportunities & encourages employees to act upon them.	Transformational: Appreciates the significance of regarding the large picture.
Adrianna Coyote	Relational: dependable, suits her team that is inspiring, supple and people-first.	Situational: Giving direction and support when necessary.	Servant / Authoritarian: Firm yet puts efforts to serving the workforces by considering what they need and contentment.

In reviewing the data of applicants, it is clear that Henrietta Raynard felt her leadership model was quite close to the Great Man theory and that it was best suited for success in the 21st century. The possible obdurate position of Raynard relates to the relation with workforces as she has no tolerance for nonsense, dislikes surprises, and desires brief speeches from people so that the leadership style is authoritarian. With a vibrant work ethic and the fact that Raynard has a preference for a small business, she can take a change of the day-to-day processes and workers more easily. Astoundingly, Raynard signposted that she valued the collaborative setting where her sentiments and submissions are continuously welcome. Conversely, in consideration of their perspectives on whether or not somebody can lead, it is uncertain whether or not she has value for the employees’ opinions, that might demonstrate why Raynard has a view of leadership as transactional.

Orson Hernandez who was interviewed in the second position has results revealing that he as a strong inclination towards the contingency leadership theory, as he prefers making decisions according to the situation. The laissez-faire models permit him to build a good relationship with the workforce as he gives rewards and punishments with consideration to performance Morgeson et al., 2010). Hernandez considers a mobile packaging store yet could not re-count this idea to how Global Delivery Direct might create a competitive advantage. He has the flexible personality that is a strength and considers partnership and creativity in his team.

Jonathan Livingston, a third applicant adopts the relational leadership concept. He is awfully charismatic and well organized, for he had already paid a visit to both companies before the interview. His leadership approach permits him to have a good relationship with the followers at the time he seeks leadership chances and inspires the workforces to do likewise. His approach together with the positive stance on the impending Global Delivery Direct and transformational leadership style makes it possible that he gains the trust essential in transforming the organization.

The final applicant, who is Adrianna Coyote had a relational leadership model pooled together with a servant style. According to Blanken (2013) the approach seems situational and issues being supportive and directive when mentoring, training, and empowering her workers. The leadership is authoritarian and servant at the same time due to her stress on the happiness of the workforce and in the ability she has in providing strong direction whenever required as well as and stern observance to deadlines. Certainly, she has a limited information of the mobile business yet presents an initiative by investigating Mail on Wheels and the business ideal.

Table 3: Leadership Model, Method and Style Scorecard

Applicant	1 Not fit	2 Bad Fit	3 Not sure	4 Good Fit	5 Best Fit
Henrietta Raynard		X
Orson Hernandez			X
Jonathan Livingston					X
Adrianna Coyote				X

Comparison of candidates with Global Delivery Direct

The leadership approach, style and theory of Raynard scored 2 in Table 3 (Bad Fit) and it evaluated that she ought to be unfit for Global Delivery Direct. Ideally, the authoritarian style of leadership is unconducive to a work setting which endows personnel, values attitudes and submissions of others, and can bring into line the team with the vision of the organization and Mail on Wheels within Global Delivery Direct.

Mr. Hernandez expresses contingency leadership but might be latent for success only that he will be blocked by the laissez-faire style. Without a clear guidance or a definite task, the above-mentioned features might not suit the new managerial position in Global Delivery Direct. His suppleness and partiality for creating a setting, which esteems in teamwork and creativity are assets yet the carefree outlook might fail to offer a sufficient structure, or control needed for new amenities in a niche marketplace. As a candidate, he is evaluated as average and got score 3 in Table 3 or “not sure”.

The leadership model, approach, and theory of Jonathan Livingston are parallel with the model Global Delivery Direct uses and scores 5 in Table 3 or “Best Fit”. He has proven a capability to associate with his workers on a personal level and post reverence and trust. His former military service has endowed him the with attention, discipline, configuration, and large picture in the perspective that Global Delivery Direct will be well. He is fascinating, stimulates and inspires his personnel with his optimism and consideration that good leadership is erected on good relations.

Adrianna Coyote has got a score of four in Table 3 because of her leadership style and approach. She is in close proximity with the values and authenticity of Global Delivery Direct in that the workforces and the expansion of positive personal relations. Nevertheless, her leadership style and authoritarian/servant model might not be actual in leading the Mail on Wheels towards the achievement of the goal.

Recommendations

Jonathan Livingston is the most suitable candidate for the new managerial position and can lead the GDD Mail on Wheels well. Livingston has recorded the highest score in Table 3 and is more diligently affiliated to the present model of the company and the current culture. It is ideal that Livingston has the essential qualities to lead in the 21st c and elevate the Mail on Wheels business to the potential level. He will build a setting for teamwork and ingenuity as long as the organizational context and organization required are available to attain the desired results.

References

Blanken, R. (2013(. 8 Common Leadership Styles. Retrieved July 13, 2017, from https://www.asaecenter.org/resources/articles/an_magazine/2013/january/8-common-leadership-styles

Bond, D., Dent, F., Gitsham, M. & Culpin, V. (2010). A perspective on leadership: Towards a relational leadership framework. The Ashridge Journal, 1-8. Retrieved from https://www.ashridge.org.uk/Media-Library/Ashridge/PDFs/Publications/TowardsARelationalLeadershipFramework.pdf

Clawson, J. G. (2009). Level three leadership:  Getting below the surface (4th ed.).  Upper Saddle, NJ:  Pearson Education.

Clawson, J. (2011). A Four-wheel-drive Diamond in the Rough Leadership Model. Retrieved July 12, 2017, from http://www.greatleadershipbydan.com/2011/09/four-wheel-drive-diamond-rough.html

Leadership Styles. (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2017, from http://guides.wsj.com/management/developing-a-leadership-style/how-to-develop-a-leadership-style/

Morgeson, F.P., DeRue, D.S. & Karam, E.P. (2010). Leadership in Teams: A Functional Approach to Understanding Leadership Structures and Processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5-39. doi: 10.1177/0149206309347376

n.a. (2006). The Relational Leadership Model. 73-114. Retrieved from http://www.mu.uri.edu/leadership/pdfs/relationalleadership.pdf

The Relational Leadership Model. (2006). Retrieved July 11, 2017, from https://learn.umuc.edu/content/enforced/232464-001034-01-2175-US1-5120/The%20Relational%20Leadership%20Model.pdf?_&d2lSessionVal=9QaBs8pm8pXlSW2GESHo2BMAU

Stevenson, H.  (2014).  Leadership Style, Emotional Intelligence, and Organizational Effectiveness.  Retrieved from http://www.clevelandconsultinggroup.com/articles/leadership-style-emotional-intelligence-organizational-effectiveness.php

Westley, F. & Mintzberg (2015). Visionary Leadership and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 17-32. doi:DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250100704