Graded Homework

Hello,

Need help with this assignment.  Due Sunday before midnight.  Thanks a bunch!

Project Two:
Assessing Self and Potential Candidates

Purpose:

In the second
assignment, students continue working with Global Delivery Direct (GDD).
Students learn about their own personality type and based on what is learned,
rank several candidates who have applied for the position of CEO and develop
interview questions based on leadership quality and personality types.

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

In this
assignment, students will take the Myers-Briggs Personality Assessment, learn
about candidates for the position of CEO for Mail on Wheels and develop
interview questions that will be used by Alex Cheng.

Instructions

Step
1: Review “How to Analyze a Case Study” under Week 6
Content.

Step 2:
Create a Word or Rich Text Format (RTF) document that is double-spaced,
12-point font. The final product will be between 5-7 pages in length
excluding the title page and reference page.

Step
3: Review the grading rubric for the assignment.

Step 4: In
addition to providing an introduction, students will use headings following
this format:

• Title page with title, your name, the course, the instructor’s
  name;
• Results of Myers-Briggs Personality Test
• Ranking of CEO Candidates
• Top Candidates
• Interview Questions

Step 5: In
writing a case study, the writing is in the third person. What this means
is 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.
Also note that students are not to provide personal commentary.

Step 6: In
writing this assignment, students are expected to support the reasoning using
in-text citations and a reference list. 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 under Week 1 content.

Step 7: In
writing this assignment, students will use resources from the course
material and no more than 3 external source documents. NOTE:
The expectation is that students provide a robust use of the course material
including the material presented in this assignment.

Step 8: In
completing the assignment, students are expected to use the facts from the case
study paired with the weekly courses readings to develop the analysis.
The case study is not cited or referenced.

Step 9: In
writing this assignment, students are expected to paraphrase and not use direct
quotes. Students are expected to paraphrase, which can be learned by
reviewing this link: https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_paraphrase2.html

Step 11:
Read and use theGlobal Delivery Direct (GDD) Company Profile.

Step 12:
Read critically and analyze the following scenario:

Scenario: Having
bought the business from Alex Cheng, owner and CEO of Mail on Wheels, who
decided not to stay on in a leadership capacity, Rockfish now has to hire a
replacement for Alex Cheng. Rockfish is looking for a candidate who knows the
business, can present a good corporate image (i.e., to the bigger clients who
are more likely to pay for the custom service), is well-educated, and will lead
the existing group with a balance of firmness and give enough freedom to
creatively personalize fulfillment of each client’s needs. Since you are
the manager with whom Cheng’s replacement will have the most contact, Rockfish
has decided that you should participate in the call back interview. Further he
has given you his interview notes on each candidate and wants you to rank them
on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best fit, so that he has some idea going
into the interview what your “on paper” reaction is to each candidate.

Here are
his 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 . Henrietta is a
Business Administration major. She is friendly and has a quiet demeanor.
Her Myers-Briggs personality test ranked her as an ISTJ. She has received
high marks from Cheng who says she is detailed oriented, had a good
understanding of the business organization and seemed to work well with the
younger staff. She did not tolerate much nonsense from people, hated
surprises, and wanted people to be brief in talking with her. These
personality traits meant she could at times be cold to customers whose demands
she believed were unfounded or unrealistic. Cheng did not see this as bad
per se because he thought he was too pleasing sometimes. After all, he
was in the business to make money. Overall, Cheng felt that she could
handle the job. Rockfish’s personal impressions were that she was
hesitant in joining a bigger company. She liked the smallness of a
business and felt in control. She did like the collaborative environment
of GDD and responded well to the idea that her opinions and suggestions were
welcome at all times. Her reasons for wanting the job centered mainly on the
idea that she felt she could run the business well and had some good ideas
about making the mobile units better using the advanced technology that Cheng
wanted. The technology would allow for better connections to GDD allowing
deadlines to be met faster. When asked how the staff perceived her, she
laughed and said they called her “Type A”. but then to some of the people I
work 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 my gaze for any length of time.” When asked what
characteristics she thought a leader needed to succeed in the 21^st
century she replied, “…objective, practical, controlled and fair”. Her
knowledge of the business was sound. She seemed to not know a lot about
how GDD was operating.

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 were 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. Hernandez’s Myers-Briggs personality test
showed him as an ENFP. He could be very ebullient. At times, he was not
sure of the facts. 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. He liked
the clan culture at GDD and showed signs of having done his homework on the
company. 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. He was not aware of how his workers perceived his leadership style,
which he characterized as being diplomatic. He liked to be in agreement
with people and to be flexible. He enjoyed surprises. Hernandez has
a B.A. in art history. Overall impression: able to do the job well.

Candidate
Three- Jonathan Livingston

Graduated
from ’s MBA program two years ago! Currently works for the IT department at
UPS. This is a job he obtained right out of the military.
Livingston entered the interview room all smiles and with a firm
handshake. I was impressed by the firm handshake and the 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. He also mentioned looking at
Glass Doors as well. Livingston’s knowledge of the delivery/cargo
business was extensive having worked with UPS for 6 years in IT. His
Myers-Briggs personality test gave him an ETP with a split SN.
Livingston indicated that he was the team leader in his current job and
was content with the organization. However, his current job could not
lead him to a career position in management. He felt confident that he
could handle the new job as leader of the mobile division. Livingston
said his leadership style was situational with a little transformational thrown
in. General impression: great candidate but maybe more qualified than the
job entailed. Too good to be true???!

Candidate
Four-Adrianna Coyote

Graduate
of Blackfeet Community College in Browning, Montana with an AA in business
studies. Coyote went to work with 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 was excited to have the opportunity to move forward
in her career. She is quite familiar with GDD shipping methods,
deadlines, and policy. Coyote has many innovative ideas besides the mobile vans
that would encourage the business boutique market. The Myers-Briggs test
scored her primarily as an Extrovert with some Introvert influence,
N intuition Thinking, Perceiving. Coyote’s evaluations are superior and
she works well with her team. Her colleagues suggest that she is flexible
and a people-first person. She does not always make decisions with data;
sometimes her decisions are based more on feelings.

Coyote is
an attractive woman but does not present herself as well as she could.
Her eye contact is good and she comes off very authentic. However,
her use of English is not always good. She describes her leadership style
as transformational. Her team seems to concur. She has little knowledge of the
mobile business but has researched Mail on Wheels and looked at the business.
General impression of candidate: could do the job but worried about the
impression she may make on the bigger customers who were more likely to spend
the money on boutique service. Overall impression: strong candidate.

Required
Elements for Project Two

• As was noted earlier Rockfish has decided that you
  should participate in the call back interview because he realizes that you
  will be working with the new CEO the most and is anxious to get your input
  in the decision. Prior to participating in the interview, Rockfish
  wants you to:

• Rank each candidate based on his interview notes so
  that you can give him some idea going into the interview as to what your
  “fresh eyes” reaction is to each candidate.
• He has also given you two articles that he wants you to
  read because they will help explain the Myers-Briggs personality types
  that he referenced. They are:

Read:
Effects of Each Preference in Work Situations

• http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:o8DCcCnzS24J:www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/dfs/fiu/interview-work-preferences.doc+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

and

Read:
Preferred Methods of Communication

http://www.csun.edu/~hcpsy002/Type_Methods_Communication.pdf

• Using Rockfish’s notes rank each candidate using a
  scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best fit and 1 being the worst fit for
  the company. Explain you’re the reasoning for the ranking. Select
  the top two people whom you will work the best;
• As you are the manager who will be working with the
  newly hired candidate, you also want to get a person in the position that
  will work well with you and will fit the organization.
• Take the Free Personality Test at:https://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality

Identify
your personality type, the effects of the type preferences in a workplace
situation and preferred methods of communication;

• Now that you have completed a pre-interview evaluation
  of the candidates, both for yourself and for Rockfish, create at least
  three interview questions for each candidate. These questions should
  address points about individual leadership “people skills” that the candidates
  need and that have not been addressed by Rockfish’s notes, and that are
  important to you working with the new person. Refrain from typical HR
  questions like where do you see yourself in five years? Focus on those
  themes found in weeks 4-6 to create the questions.

Step 13:
Create the introductory paragraph. Within this paragraph, provide a brief
overview of the scenario. Then, provide a thesis statement and tell the
reader the main topics covered in the paper. The introductory paragraph
is the first paragraph of the paper but is typically written after writing the
body of the paper (Questions students responded to above). View this
website to learn how to write an introductory paragraph: http://www.writing.ucsb.edu/faculty/donelan/intro.html

Step 14:
Respond to the questions in Part One and Part Two following the format
provided. Be clear and concise in the writing and make sure the questions
are comprehensively answered.

Step 15: Using
the grading rubric as a comparison, read through the paper to ensure all
required elements are presented.

Step 16: Proofread
the paper for spelling and grammatical issues, and third person writing.

• Use the spell and grammar check in Word as a first
  measure;
• Have someone who has excellent English skills to proof
  the paper;
• Consider submitting the paper to the Effective Writing
  Center (EWC). The EWC will provide 4-6 areas that may need
  improvement.

Step 17:
Submit the paper in the Assignment Folder.

·
Rubric
Name: Assignment #2

Criteria Outstanding Superior Good Substandard Failure Content: Ranking of Candidates 2 points Demonstrates an exceptional ability to use Rockfish’s notes to rank each candidate providing thorough and insightful reasoning for ranking candidates using a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best fit and 1 being the worst fit for the company. (1.8 – 2.0) 1.7 points Demonstrates an excellent ability to use Rockfish’s notes to rank each candidate providing thorough and insightful reasoning for ranking candidates using a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best fit and 1 being the worst fit for the company. (1.6 – 1.79) 1.5 points Demonstrates a satisfactory ability to use Rockfish’s notes to rank each candidate providing good reasoning for ranking candidates using a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best fit and 1 being the worst fit for the company. (1.4 – 1.59) 1.3 points Demonstrates a limited ability to use Rockfish’s notes to rank each candidate providing little to no reasoning for ranking candidatesusing a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best fit and 1 being the worst fit for the company. (1.2 – 1.49) 0 points Failed torank candidates using a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best fit and 1 being the worst fit for the company. (0) Content: Take Personality Test 2 points Takes free personality test. Clearly identifies personality type and provides an exceptional,thorough and insightful discussion of the effects of the type preferences in a workplace situation and preferred methods of communication for type. (1.8 – 2.0) 1.7 points Takes free personality test. Clearly identifies personality type and provides an excellent,thorough and insightful discussion of the effects of the type preferences in a workplace situation and preferred methods of communication for type. (1.6 – 1.79 ) 1.5 points Takes free personality test. Clearly identifies personality type and provides a satisfactory discussion of the effects of the type preferences in a workplace situation and preferred methods of communication for type. (1.4 – 1.59) 1.3 points Takes free personality test and identifies personality type and provides a discussion of the effects of the type preferences in a workplace situation and preferred methods of communication for type but there are missing elements; or takes free personality test but dies not discuss effects of the type preferences in a workplace or preferred methods of communication for type. (1.2 – 1.39) 0 points Fails to takes free personality test or provide a discussion of the effects of the type preferences in a workplace situation and preferred methods of communication for type but there are missing elements (0) Content: Interview Questions 2 points Creates five (5) interview questions that address leadership “people-skills that candidate needs that are not addressed in Rockfish’s notes and are important to you. (1.8 – 2.0) 1.7 points Creates four (4) interview questions that address leadership “people-skills that candidate needs that are not addressed in Rockfish’s notes and are important to you. (1.6 – 1.79) 1.5 points Creates three (3) interview questions that address leadership “people-skills that candidate needs that are not addressed in Rockfish’s notes and are important to you. (1.4 – 1.59) 1.3 points Creates one or two interview questions that address leadership “people-skills that candidate needs that are not addressed in Rockfish’s notes and are important to you. (1.2 – 1.39) 0 points Fails to create interview questions that address leadership “people-skills that candidate needs that are not addressed in Rockfish’s notes and are important to you. (0) Critical Thinking/Reasoning 4 points Comments reflect a highly accomplished level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting in accurate, thorough, and soundly reasoned conclusions. (3.6 – 4.0) 3.4 points Comments reflect an excellent level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting in accurately reasoned conclusions. (3.2 – 3.59 ) 3 points Comments reflect a satisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting in partially correct conclusions that lack development or detail that demonstrates insight into reasoning. (2.8 – 3.19) 2.6 points Comments reflect an unsatisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts, resulting in conclusions that are underdeveloped or lack soundly reasoned conclusions. (2.4 – 2.79) 0 points Comments reflect an unsatisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts, resulting in failure to draw little to no conclusions. (0 – 2.39) Application of Resources 4 points 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. (3.6 – 4) 3.4 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. (3.2 – 3.59) 3 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. (2.8 – 3.19) 2.6 points Arguments are frequently illogical and unsubstantiated; Limited use of facts in case study and essential information presented in course readings. (2.4 – 2.79) 0 points Arguments lack meaningful explanation or support of ideas. Does not provide facts presented in case study. (0 – 1.79) Attention to Instructions 3 points 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. (2.7 – 3.0) 2.55 points Demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements; missed one minor aspect of assignment. (2.4 – 2.69) 2.25 points Demonstrates satisfactory understanding of requirements; missed a key element or two minor aspects of assignment. (2.1 – 2.39) 1.95 points Fails to show a firm understanding of requirements; missed two key elements or several minor aspects of assignment. (1.8 – 2.09) 0 points Fails to demonstrate understanding of assignment requirements. (0 – 1.79) Writing Mechanics 2 points 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. (1.8 – 2.0) 1.7 points Excellently adheres to standard usage of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. One to three errors found. (1.6 – 1.79) 1.5 points Satisfactorily adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. Four to 10 errors found. (1.4 – 1.59) 1.3 points Minimally adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. More than 10 errors found. (1.2 – 1.39) 0 points Does not adhere to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of written English largely incomprehensible; or errors are too plentiful to count. (0 – 1.19) APA Style (6th ed.) 1 point 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. (0.9 – 1.0) 0.85 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. (0.8 – 0.89) 0.75 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. (0.7 – 0.79) 0.65 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. (0.6 – 0.69) 0 points No attempt at APA style; or attempts either in-text citations or reference list but omits the other. (0 – 0.59) Overall Score Outstanding 18 or more Superior 16 or more Good 14 or more Substandard 12 or more Failure 0 or more