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

"Is this question part of your assignment? We can help"

ORDER NOW