Project One Leadership Theories Approach Style management homework help

Project One Leadership Theories Approach Style management homework help

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:

Task 1: 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.

Task 2: Contractions are not used in business writing, so you are expected NOT to use contractions in writing this assignment.

Task 3: 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.

Task 4: You are responsible for APA only for in-text citations and a reference list.

Task 5: 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.

Task 1: Read the course readings in weeks 1 – 4 to gain an understanding of the concepts of leadership theory, leadership approach and leadership style.

Task 2: 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.

Task 3: Create a table that illustrates GDD’s prevalent leadership theory, leadership approach and the preferred leadership style.

Task 4: 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.

Task 1: 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 21st 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 21stcentury, 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.

Task 2: Create a table that illustrates each candidate’s prevalent leadership theory, leadership approach and the preferred leadership style.

Task 3: 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.

Task 1: 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.

Task 1: Recommend the best candidate for the job.

Task 2: 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).

Hide Rubrics

Rubric Name: Assignment #1

Criteria

Table is created and correctly identifies the leadership theory, leadership approach and leadership style of GDD and also identifies specific sublevels information.

(1.44 – 1.60)

Table is created and correctly identifies the leadership theory, leadership approach and leadership style of GDD.

(1.28 – 1.43)

Table is created and correctly identifies two out of three (the leadership theory, leadership approach and leadership style) of GDD.

(1.12 – 1.27)

Table is created and 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)

Excellent reasoning for the selections is given for each area and is thorough and complete.

(1.44 – 1.60)

Reasoning for the selections is sound but needs more clarification in at least one area of either category.

(1.28 – 1.43)

Reasoning for the selections is good but needs more clarification in at least two areas of either category.

(1.12 – 1.27)

Reasoning for the selections is weak and needs more clarification in all areas.

(0.96 – 1.11)

No reasoning is presented.

(0)

Table is created and correctly identifies the leadership theory, leadership approach and leadership style of the candidates.

(1.44 – 1.60)

Table is created and correctly identifies 10- 11 items of the leadership theory, leadership approach and leadership style of the candidates.

(1.28 – 1.43)

Table is created and correctly identifies 9 items of the leadership theory, leadership approach and leadership style of the candidates.

(1.12 – 1.27)

Table is created and correctly identifies 7-8 items of the leadership theory, leadership approach and leadership style of the candidates.

(0.96 – 1.11)

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 table is completely incorrect.

(0)

Excellent reasoning for the selections is given for each area and is thorough and complete.

(1.44 – 1.60)

Reasoning for the selections is sound but needs more clarification in at least one area of either category.

(1.28 – 1.43)

Reasoning for the selections is satisfactory but needs more clarification in at least two areas of either category.

(1.12 – 1.27)

Reasoning for the selections is weak and needs more clarification in all areas.

(0.96 – 1.11)

No reasoning is presented.

(0)

Table is completed with ratings between 1 and 5 with 5 being the highest value and 1 the lowest value.

(0.36 – 0.40)

Table is partially completed or different criteria than required is used, or all candidates receive the same rating.

(0.24 – 0.27)

Table is not completed.

(0)

Excellent presentation of similarities and differences with conclusions drawn that led to the selection of the candidate that best fits the job at GDD.

(1.44 – 1.60)

Reasoning for the selection is sound but needs more clarification in either the explanation of rating of candidates overall or selected the second best candidate.

(1.28 – 1.43)

Selected the best candidate but lacked detailed reasoning or support, or selected the second best candidate but lacked sound reasoning.

(1.12 – 1.27)

Failed to identify the top two candidates. Lacked sound reasoning or detailed explanation of conclusions.

(0.96 – 1.11)

No reasoning is presented.

(0)

Recommended the best candidate.

(0.36 – 0.40)

Recommended the second best candidate.

(0.32 – 0.35)

Recommended two best candidates but failed to identify the best candidate.

(0.28 – 0.31)

Failed to recommend either two top candidates or discussed the candidates but did not clearly recommend one.

(0.24 – 0.27)

No recommendation made.

(0)

Excellent explanation of the logical connection between the leadership theories, approaches and styles and the recommendation, and explanation why this candidate is better than the remaining candidates.

(1.08 – 1.2)

Above satisfactory explanation of the logical connection between the leadership theories, approaches and styles and the recommendation, and explanation why this candidate is better than the remaining candidates.

(0.96 – 1.07)

Satisfactory explanation of the logical connection between the leadership theories, approaches and styles and the recommendation, and explanation why this candidate is better than the remaining candidates.

(0.84 – 0.95)

Weak demonstration of analysis and explanation of the logical connection between the leadership theories, approaches and styles and the recommendation, and explanation why this candidate is better than the remaining candidates.

(0.72 – 0.83)

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)

Presents exceptionally well-supported arguments or positions with evidence from the readings/experience; ideas go beyond the course material and recognize implications and extensions of the material and concepts.

(2.7 – 3.0)

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 )

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)

Arguments are frequently illogical and unsubstantiated; Limited use of facts in case study and essential information presented in course readings.

(1.8 – 2.09)

Arguments lack meaningful explanation or support of ideas. Does not provide facts presented in case study.

(0 – 1.79)

Demonstrates exceptional understanding 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)

Demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements; missed one minor aspect of assignment.

(1.6 – 1.79)

Demonstrates satisfactory understanding of requirements; missed a key element or two minor aspects of assignment.

(1.4 – 1.59)

Fails to show a firm understanding of requirements; missed two key elements or several minor aspects of assignment.

(1.2 – 1.39)

Fails to demonstrate understanding of assignment requirements.

(0 – 1.19)

Strictly adheres to standard usage 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 adheres 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)

No APA style or usage errors; Proper citation of source material is used throughout paper; Reference titles follow APA with only the first word, the first word after a colon and proper nouns capitalized.

(1.8 – 2.0)

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)

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)

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)

No attempt at APA style; or attempts either in-text citations or reference list but omits the other.

(0 –

© Copyright - termpaperbuddy.com