Assignment 1
Assignment 1: Leadership Theories/Approach/Style -
Submit Files
Hide Submission Folder Information
Submission Folder
Assignment 1: Leadership Theories/Approach/Style
Instructions
Project One: Leadership Theories/Approach/Style
Purpose:
In the first assignment, students are given a scenario about Global Delivery Direct
(GDD), a Norfolk, England medium-sized global delivery company that was started in
1968 by four college friends. The purpose of this exercise is to see if you can identify
the GDD leader in the potential candidates that will be hired to lead the new boutique
services department.
Outcome Met by Completing This Assignment
use leadership theories, assessment tools, and an understanding of the role of
ethics, values, and attitudes to evaluate and enhance personal leadership skills
Background:
Andrew Rockfish and the other owners have been looking for a competitive edge in the
North American market that will translate well to the other divisions. A recent meeting
of the owners resulted in the decision to target business organizations with custom
services. The decision stems from recent feedback from customers that revealed that
for GDD to anticipate the needs of their clients, suppliers and service vendors, the
company needed to decrease the turnaround time in delivery and mailing of small
packages and letters. Rockfish has decided to offer “boutique” services to its business
customers. Catering to businesses will allow GDD to provide personal services that
Fed Ex and UPS cannot offer. Customizing the services will allow GDD to increase
prices while creating a new niche in the market. It was decided that the initial roll out of
this idea would start in the US where an imminent threat from competition lies.
Rockfish was on board with this idea and began a campaign among the rest of the
company to find ideas that would help to encourage the new ‘Business First” strategic
plan.
In response, a sales manager from the mid-west sales team brought this idea from their
brainstorming session for Rockfish’s consideration. The sales manager proposed
creating several mobile packing stores to bring customer service to businesses
directly. GDD would not just pick up and deliver but they would also package. This
model could be viewed as an UPS store on wheels. The team got the idea from a local
delivery service that started a similar business as a Mail Store on Wheels and it
seemed to be doing well. The mail company has five “Mail on Wheels” trucks and
focuses on taking small business, not individuals away from the three local UPS and
Kinko stores. After a financial review of the company, Rockfish decided to buy the
business.
The mail business was started by a young entrepreneur, Adrian Cheng, who ran the
business with the philosophy that “customers always get the best of our time and
service”. Personal service, friendliness, and as much time as it takes to make the
customer happy, was part of the mission statement. Employees were casually dressed
and had no deadlines except those given by the customer. Cheng had about 45
employees and ran both day and evening shifts. He had one van that was on call
24/7. Cheng oversaw the entire operation with two assistant managers, one for the
day shift and one for the evening. Cheng does not want to stay on after the merger.
Rockfish therefore has decided to hire a new manager for the new service products
they will offer.
Rockfish has decided that you as a new management trainee might review some of the
candidates for the job and help him decide if the candidates have a leadership
approach and style that will fit the 21st century model that GDD is looking for in their
leaders.
Instructions:
NOTE: All submitted work is to be your original work. You may not use any work from
another student, the Internet or an online clearinghouse. You are expected to
understand the Academic Dishonesty and Plagiarism Policy, and know that it is your
responsibility to learn about instructor and general academic expectations with regard
to proper citation of sources as specified in the APA Publication Manual, 6th Ed.
(Students are held accountable for in-text citations and an associated reference list
only).
Step 1: Preparation for Writing the Assignment
Before you begin writing the report, you will read the following requirements that will
help you meet the writing and APA requirements. Not reading this information will lead
to a lower grade:
Review “How to Analyze a Case Study” under Week 4 Content. You are expected to
use the facts from the case scenario focusing on using this information to determine
opportunities and solve problems.
Read the grading rubric for the assignment. Use the grading rubric while writing the
report to ensure all requirements are met that will lead to the highest possible grade.
In writing this assignment, you will read and following these tasks:
Third person writing is required. Third person means that there are no words such as
“I, me, my, we, or us” (first person writing), nor is there use of “you or your” (second
person writing). If uncertain how to write in the third person, view this
link: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/first-second- and-third-
person.
Contractions are not used in business writing, so you are expected NOT to use
contractions in writing this assignment.
You are expected to paraphrase and are NOT to use direct quotes. You are expected
to paraphrase, which can be learned by reviewing this
link: https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_paraphrase2.html.
You are responsible for APA only for in-text citations and a reference list.
You are expected to use the facts from the case scenario paired with the weekly
courses readings to develop the analysis and support the reasoning. No more than
three (3) external resources can be used in completing the assignment. The
expectation is that you provide a robust use of the course readings. If any material is
used from a source document, it must be cited and referenced. A reference within a
reference list cannot exist without an associated in-text citation and vice versa. View
the sample APA paper and the How to Cite and Reference file located under Week 4
content.
Step 2: How to Set Up the Report
Create a Word or Rich Text Format (RTF) document that is double-spaced, 12-point
font. The final product will be between 4-6 pages in length excluding the title page and
reference page. You may not exceed six (6) pages so it is important to write clearly
and concisely.
Follow a report format. https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/726/01/
Create a title page with title, your name, the course, the instructor’s name and
date;
Introduction
GDD’s Results
Candidate’s Results
GDD/ Candidates Comparison
Recommendation
Step 3: Identify GDD’s prevalent leadership theory, leadership approach and
preferred leadership style.
Read the course readings in weeks 1 – 4 to gain an understanding of the concepts of
leadership theory, leadership approach and leadership style.
Read the background information under each week’s course schedule and the case
scenario to identify GDD’s prevalent leadership theory, leadership approach and
preferred leadership style.
Create a table that illustrates GDD’s prevalent leadership theory, leadership approach
and the preferred leadership style.
Explain the reasoning for the selection of each element within the table. You will use
the course readings and the case scenario information to support the reasoning.
Step 4: Identify each candidate’s prevalent leadership theory, leadership
approach and preferred leadership style.
There are four potential candidates for the new manager position. Below is a
summarization of Rockfish’s interview notes that have been provided for you to use to
help make a recommendation. Read the interview notes on each candidate.
Candidate One- Henrietta Raynard
Henrietta was the assistant to Alex Cheng. She is 28 years old with 3 years of college.
She currently is finishing her degree online at UMUC. Henrietta is a business
administration major. She is friendly and has a quiet demeanor. She does not tolerate
much nonsense from people, hates surprises, and wants people to be brief in talking
with her. Rockfish’s personal impression was that the candidate was hesitant in joining
a bigger company. She likes the smallness of a business and feels in control in such
an environment. She liked the idea of the collaborative environment of GDD and
responded well to the idea that her opinions and suggestions were always welcome.
However, she expressed some concern that the youthful employees of Mail on Wheels
had plenty of opinions but not a lot of discipline in their work ethic. She has found that
structure, procedures and rules have worked better than asking for input. When asked
how her staff perceived her, she laughed and said they called her a “Type A.”. But then
again to some of the people she works with, anyone who shows up for a meeting early
is a “Type A.” Rockfish noted that during this statement, it was only one of two times
during the interview that she held his gaze for any length of time. When asked what
characteristics she thought a leader needed to possess to succeed in the 21 st century
she replied, “…objective, practical, controlled and fair.” Raynard said her leadership
style was transactional but Rockfish was not sure if it was not more authoritarian.
When asked what leadership theory she thought was most likely to work in the 21st
century her reply was “Great Man, because it emphasizes the characteristics of a
person like honesty and trust.” Raynard’s knowledge of the business was sound but
when asked if anyone could be a leader she said no. It was up to the position that a
person holds. She seemed to know little about how GDD operated. When asked if she
had a leadership approach she replied, “Can you clarify the question? If you mean, do I
think I can l lead? Sure.” Raynard did understand that sustainability was very important
to the business. She said she had some ideas on how to make the process aspect of
Mail on Wheels better, more efficient while saving cost. She also thought that being
eco-friendly was important but realized that was the other meaning of the word
sustainability in business.
Candidate Two- Orson Hernandez
Hernandez currently manages the local Kinko’s store. He has remained loyal to the
company even after the merger.
However, he feels that the store’s image, culture, and mission have changed
dramatically since the merger. He enjoys working with a customer until they are
satisfied and regrets having to short change the time he spends with customers today.
He also feels that the company culture has become more rigid. When asked what
characteristics he thought a leader needed to succeed in the 21 st century, he replied,
“…flexible, compassionate, insightful and honest”. Hernandez seemed to understand
the idea of a mobile packaging store and was aware that Cheng’s company was
becoming a strong competitor for his small business customers. Asked about the idea
of competitive edge he said that a leader at his level does not have to worry about
competitive edge. He liked the collaborative culture at GDD and showed signs of
having done his homework on the company. GDD, he said would do well if the
company made sure that the new division continued the existing culture because it
encouraged creativity. When asked how he created followers among his employees,
Hernandez replied that he liked to use incentive motivational techniques and would
sometimes empower workers if they showed the ability to manage others well.
Hernandez said he was a laisse-faire leader because it encouraged freedom. His said
his favorite leadership theory was contingency theory because it allowed him approach
things by the situation. He liked to agree with people and saw himself as being
flexible. Hernandez said that he really did not have an approach to leadership just a
style.
Candidate Three- Jonathan Livingston
Currently works for the IT department at UPS and obtained this job right out serving in
the military. Livingston entered the interview room all smiles and with a firm
handshake. Rockfish admitted to being impressed by the firm handshake and the
constant eye contact throughout the interview. Livingston was very prepared to discuss
both companies having visited them both prior to the interview. Livingston had also
read about GDD online and spoke with current employees. Livingston indicated that he
was the team leader in his current job and was content with the organization. However,
his current job does not lead him to a career position in management, which he
desires. His approach to leading is to look for leadership opportunities and encourage
employees to act upon them if possible. Livingston believes he is positive about the
future and while he knows that GDD is searching for market share, he feels that he can
bring a big picture perspective to the new company having worked at UPS. Livingston
said he saw himself as a transformational leader. He feels that good leadership is built
on good relationships with followers. Relationship theory seems to make the most
sense to him for the 21st century because people make change work and leading
change is the future.
Candidate Four-Adrianna Coyote
Coyote went to work for GDD part-time straight out of college. She took time off to have
a family and is now managing the GDD airport station of the Ontario Hub. Having read
about the opportunity through the GDD’s HR division website, Coyote is excited about
the possibility of moving her career forward She is quite familiar with GDD shipping
methods, deadlines, culture and policies. Coyote has many innovative ideas besides
the mobile vans that would encourage the business boutique market. Coyote’s
evaluations are superior and she works well with her team. Her colleagues suggest
that she is flexible and a people-first person. Her eye contact is good and she comes
off as being very authentic. She describes her leadership style as servant with a touch
of authoritarian. The deadlines of station work require strong direction at times and she
believes that she must be strict about the deadlines. However, Coyote tries to serve
her people by looking at their needs and giving them a chance to be happy in their jobs.
Her team seems to concur. She has little knowledge of the mobile business but has
researched Mail on Wheels and looked closely at the business. When asked about her
favorite leadership theory she replied “relationship but really servant.” The idea of
leadership approach seemed to stump Coyote. Leaders she said must encourage
others and to seek out ways to encourage the company to do well.
Create a table that illustrates each candidate’s prevalent leadership theory,
leadership approach and the preferred leadership style.
Explain the reasoning for the selection of each element within the table.
You will use the course readings and the case scenario information to
support the reasoning.
Step 5: Compare and Contrast GDD with Candidates
You will determine what candidate is the best fit for the job. Use the data from the two
tables created in Steps 3 and 4.and compare the data for each candidate against the
GDD leadership model. Note: There is one best candidate.
Using the data ascertained in comparing the two tables, complete the
following rating table using a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the highest rating
and 1 the lowest rating. Note that it is possible to have candidates that fall
within the same category but it is unrealistic that all candidates will have
the same rating.
Candidate 1 No Fit 2 Bad Fit 3 Not
Sure
4 Good
Fit
5 Best Fit
Raynard
Hernandez
Livingston
Coyote
Task 2: For each candidate, draw conclusions after examining the similarities and
differences between the information presented in the two tables. Use the course
readings and case scenario facts to support your conclusions and explain how you
arrived at the rating.
Step 6: Recommend the candidate that best fits the GDD’s job.
Recommend the best candidate for the job.
Explain the logical connection between the leadership theories, approach
and styles and the recommendation. Explain why this candidate is better
than the remaining candidates.
Step 7: Submit the report in the Assignment Folder (The assignment submitted to
the Assignment Folder will be considered a student’s final product and therefore ready
for grading by the instructor. It is incumbent upon the student to verify the assignment
is the correct submission. No exceptions will be considered by the instructor.)
Due Date
Sep 17, 2017 11:59 PM
Rubric Name: Assignment #1
Criteria Outstanding Superior Good Substandard Failure
Table:
Create a
table that
illustrates
1.6 points
Table is
created and
correctly
identifies the
leadership
1.36 points
Table is
created and
correctly
identifies
1.2 points
Table is
created and
correctly
1.04 points
Table is
created and 0 points
GDD’s
prevalent
leadership
theory,
leadership
approach
and the
preferred
leadership
style.
theory,
leadership
approach and
leadership
style of GDD
and also
identifies
specific
sublevels info
rmation.
(1.44 - 1.60)
the
leadership
theory,
leadership
approach
and
leadership
style of
GDD.
(1.28 - 1.43)
identifies
two out of
three (the
leadership
theory,
leadership
approach and
leadership
style) of GDD.
(1.12 - 1.27)
correctly
identifies one
out of three
(the leadership
theory,
leadership
approach and
leadership
style) of GDD.
(0.96 - 1.11)
No table is
presented or the
information in the
table is completely
incorrect.
(0)
Explain the
reasoning
for the
selection of
each
element
within the
table.
1.6 points
Excellent
reasoning for
the selections
is given for
each area
and is
thorough and
complete.
(1.44 - 1.60)
1.36 points
Reasoning for
the selections
is sound but
needs more
clarification
in at least
one area of
either
category.
(1.28 - 1.43)
1.2 points
Reasoning for
the selections
is good but
needs more
clarification
in at least
two areas of
either
category.
(1.12 - 1.27)
1.04 points
Reasoning for
the selections
is weak and
needs more
clarification
in all areas.
(0.96 - 1.11)
0 points
No reasoning is
presented.
(0)
Create a
table that
illustrates
each
candidate’s
prevalent
leadership
theory,
leadership
approach
and the
preferred
leadership
1.6 points
Table is
created and
correctly
identifies the
leadership
theory,
leadership
approach and
leadership
style of the
1.36 points
Table is
created and
correctly
identifies 10-
11 items of
the leadership
theory,
leadership
approach and
leadership
style of the
1.2 points
Table is
created and
correctly
identifies 9
items of the
leadership
theory,
leadership
approach and
leadership
style of the
1.04 points
Table is
created and
correctly
identifies 7-8
items of the
leadership
theory,
leadership
approach and
leadership
style of the
0 points
Table is created and
correctly identifies
less than 7 items
of the leadership
theory, leadership
approach and
leadership style
of the candidates.
(0.1 - 0.95)
No table is
presented or the
information in the
style. candidates.
(1.44 - 1.60)
candidates.
(1.28 - 1.43)
candidates.
(1.12 - 1.27)
candidates.
(0.96 - 1.11)
table is completely
incorrect.
(0)
Explain the
reasoning
for the
selection of
each
element
within the
table.
1.6 points
Excellent
reasoning for
the selections
is given for
each area
and is
thorough and
complete.
(1.44 - 1.60)
1.36 points
Reasoning for
the selections
is sound but
needs more
clarification
in at least
one area of
either
category.
(1.28 - 1.43)
1.2 points
Reasoning for
the selections
is
satisfactory
but needs
more
clarification
in at least
two areas of
either
category.
(1.12 - 1.27)
1.04 points
Reasoning for
the selections
is weak and
needs more
clarification
in all areas.
(0.96 - 1.11)
0 points
No reasoning is
presented.
(0)
Complete
the rating
table for
each
candidate
0.4 points
Table is
completed
with ratings
between 1 and
5 with 5 being
the highest
value and 1
the lowest
value.
(0.36 - 0.40)
0.34 points 0.3 points
0.26 points
Table is
partially
completed or
different
criteria than
required is
used, or all
candidates
receive the
same rating.
(0.24 - 0.27)
0 points
Table is not
completed.
(0)
Draw
conclusions
and
1.6 points
Excellent
presentation
of similarities
and
differences
with
conclusions
1.36 points
Reasoning for
the selection
is sound but
needs more
clarification
in either the
1.2 points
Selected the
best
candidate but
lacked
detailed
reasoning or
1.04 points
Failed to
identify the
top two
candidates.
Lacked sound
0 points
No reasoning is
explain
how the
rating were
derived.
drawn that
led to the
selection of
the candidate
that best fits
the job at
GDD.
(1.44 - 1.60)
explanation
of rating of
candidates
overall or
selected the
second best
candidate.
(1.28 - 1.43)
support, or
selected the
second best
candidate but
lacked sound
reasoning.
(1.12 - 1.27)
reasoning
or detailed
explanation
of
conclusions.
(0.96 - 1.11)
presented.
(0)
Recommen
dation
0.4 points
Recommended
the best
candidate.
(0.36 - 0.40)
0.34 points
Recommended
the second
best candidate.
(0.32 - 0.35)
0.3 points
Recommended
two best
candidates but
failed to
identify the
best candidate.
(0.28 - 0.31)
0.26 points
Failed to
recommend
either two top
candidates or
discussed the
candidates but
did not clearly
recommend
one.
(0.24 - 0.27)
0 points
No
recommendation
made.
(0)
Explain the
logical
connection
between
the
leadership
theories,
approach
and styles
and the
recommen
dation.
Explain
why this
candidate
is better
than the
remaining
candidates.
1.2 points
Excellent expla
nation of the
logical
connection
between the
leadership
theories,
approaches and
styles and the
recommendatio
n, and
explanation wh
y this
candidate is
better than
the remaining
candidates.
1.02 points
Above satisfac
tory
explanation of
the logical
connection
between the
leadership
theories,
approaches and
styles and the
recommendatio
n, and
explanation wh
y this
candidate is
better than
the remaining
candidates.
0.9 points
Satisfactory
explanation of
the logical
connection
between the
leadership
theories,
approaches and
styles and the
recommendatio
n, and
explanation wh
y this
candidate is
better than
the remaining
candidates.
0.78 points
Weak
demonstration
of analysis and
explanation of
the logical
connection
between the
leadership
theories,
approaches and
styles and the
recommendatio
n, and
explanation wh
y this
candidate is
better than
the remaining
0 points
No explanation of
connection between
leadership theories,
approach and styles
and
recommendation.
Explanation why
the candidate is
better compared to
remaining
candidates not
discussed.
(0)
(1.08 - 1.2)
(0.96 - 1.07)
(0.84 - 0.95)
candidates.
(0.72 - 0.83)
Applicatio
n of
Resources
3 points
Presents
exceptionally well
-supported
arguments or
positions with
evidence from the
readings/experien
ce; ideas go
beyond the course
material and
recognize
implications and
extensions of the
material and
concepts.
(2.7 - 3.0)
2.55 points
Presents excellent
arguments or
positions that
are mostly
supported by
evidence from the
readings and
course content;
ideas presented
demonstrate
understanding of
the material and
concepts.
(2.4 - 2.69 )
2.25 points
Satisfactory
arguments or
positions are
presented but
there is a mix of
opinion or
unclear view with
supported
arguments using
course readings.
Case study facts
are occasionally
used but
arguments would
be much stronger
with use of facts.
(2.1 - 2.39)
1.95 points
Arguments are
frequently
illogical and
unsubstantiated;
Limited use of
facts in case
study and
essential
information
presented
in course
readings.
(1.8 - 2.09)
0 points
Arguments lack
meaningful explanation
or support of
ideas. Does not provide
facts presented in case
study.
(0 – 1.79)
Preparatio
n for
Writing
the
Assignmen
t
2 points
Demonstrates
exceptional under
standing of
requirements
responding
completely to
each aspect of
assignment
including minor
aspects of the
assignment such
as using third
person writing,
required use of
course readings,
and assignment
format.
(1.8 - 2.0)
1.7 points
Demonstrates
excellent
understanding
of
requirements;
missed one
minor aspect
of assignment.
(1.6 - 1.79)
1.5 points
Demonstrates
satisfactory
understanding
of
requirements;
missed a key
element or two
minor aspects
of assignment.
(1.4 - 1.59)
1.3 points
Fails to show a
firm
understanding
of
requirements;
missed two key
elements or
several minor
aspects of
assignment.
(1.2 - 1.39)
0 points
Fails to demonstrate
understanding of
assignment
requirements.
(0 – 1.19)
3 points
Strictly
adheres to
standard usage
2.55 points 2.25 points 1.95 points
0 points
Writing
Mechanics
rules of
written English,
including but
not limited to
capitalization,
punctuation,
run-on
sentences,
missing or
extra words,
stylistic errors,
spelling and
grammatical
errors. No
errors found.
No
contractions or
jargon used.
(2.7 - 3.0)
Excellently
adheres to
standard usage
of mechanics:
conventions of
written
English,
including
capitalization,
punctuation,
and spelling.
One to three
errors found.
(2.4 - 2.69)
Satisfactorily
adheres to
standard usage
rules of
mechanics:
conventions of
English,
including
capitalization,
punctuation,
and spelling.
Four to 10
errors found.
(2.1 - 2.39)
Minimally adhe
res to
standard usage
rules of
mechanics:
conventions of
written
English,
including
capitalization,
punctuation,
and spelling.
More than 10
errors found.
(1.8 - 2.09)
Does not adhere
to standard
usage rules of
mechanics:
conventions of
written English
largely
incomprehensible
; or errors are
too plentiful to
count.
(0 – 1.79)
APA Style
(6th ed.)
2 points
No APA style
or usage
errors; Proper
citation of
source material
is used
throughout
paper; Referen
ce titles follow
APA with only
the first word,
the first word
after a colon
and proper
nouns
capitalized.
(1.8 - 2.0)
1.7 points
Attempts in-
text citations
and reference
list but one or
two APA style
errors noted or
fails to use
APA citations
when
appropriate 1-2
times.
(1.6 - 1.79)
1.5 points
Attempts in-
text citations
and reference
lists; APA style
errors are
noted
throughout
document; Fails
to use APA
citations when
appropriate 3
times in
document.
(1.4 - 1.59)
1.3 points
Attempts in-
text citations
and reference
lists; Fails to
use APA
citation when
appropriate 4-
5 times; or
presents only
1-2 in- text
citations and
reference list
in a paper that
requires APA
citations
throughout the
document.
(1.2 - 1.39)
0 points
No attempt at
APA style; or
attempts either in-
text citations or
reference list but
omits the other.
(0 - 1.19)
Overall
Score
Outstanding
18 or more
Superior
16 or more
Good
14
9 years ago
Purchase the answer to view it
LEADERSHIP.docx
