| Course | LDR-3050 Foundations of Leadership |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 12 |
| Paper type | Final paper: current approach to leadership and a personal development plan |
| Length | About 1,114 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for LDR 3050 Module 12
From Fastest Selector to Night-Shift Leader: My Approach to Leadership and a Plan for the Next Year
Student Name
Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership, Thomas Edison State University
LDR-3050: Foundations of Leadership
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
From Fastest Selector to Night-Shift Leader: My Approach to Leadership and a Plan for the Next Year
Introduction
When the company moved me off the pick floor eighteen months ago, I took charge of 24 selectors and loaders on the night shift. I was the fastest selector on the shift and assumed that would make me a good leader. It did not. Over this course I have reflected on that gap module by module. This paper brings those reflections together: it describes my approach to leadership when I started, evaluates it against the major theories in Northouse (2020), considers the risk of destructive leadership and sets out a plan for the next twelve months. The paper is organized around that case so each theory is judged by what it explains about real events rather than by how it sounds in the textbook.
The Case: My First Year
When I started, I led the way my first supervisor, Ray, had led. I made every decision, explained few of them and watched the pick rate. During the holiday peak I was authoritarian; on slow nights I disappeared into the office. I managed people for their weaknesses, avoided conflicts until they exploded and formed an in-group of veterans like me. Turnover was the highest of the three shifts, half of new hires left within six weeks, and a near miss went unreported because people feared discipline. Our numbers were acceptable, but the shift was not a place people wanted to stay.
Evaluating the Theories in Practice
Trait and Skills Approaches
Drive and confidence, in the view of Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991), make leadership possible without making it happen. I had drive and technical skill; I lacked the interpersonal and conceptual skills that Katz (1955) and later Mumford et al. (2000) showed become more important as responsibility grows. The skills approach was the most useful theory for me, because it treats leadership as learnable and gave me a way to see what I lacked.
Style and Task-Relationship Approaches
The style approach explained my two modes, authoritarian under pressure and laissez-faire when calm, and showed that both rested on low expectations of my crew. Research on task and relationship behaviors (Judge et al., 2004) convinced me that attending to people is not optional; consideration was strongly tied to followers' satisfaction and motivation. These approaches describe what leaders do well but offer less guidance on when to do what.
Path-Goal Theory
Path-goal theory filled that gap. House (1996) argued that leaders should supply what followers and the situation lack. My new hires needed direction, then support, then participation, and I had given them almost none of each. The six-week ramp from Module 11 is the most concrete change the course produced, and early results are encouraging: of the first six new hires to go through it, five are still with us.
Ethical Leadership
The overtime request in Module 10 tested both halves of ethical leadership in the sense Treviño et al. (2000) use: being a moral person myself and acting as a moral manager for others. Refusing was the first part; proposing alternatives that solved the budget problem was the second. Ethical leadership turned out to be less about dramatic choices than about consistency in small ones.
Was I a Destructive Leader?
The final module asked a question I did not want to face. Tepper (2000) defined abusive supervision as subordinates' perceptions of sustained hostile verbal and nonverbal behavior, excluding physical contact, and found it was associated with turnover and lower job and life satisfaction. Schyns and Schilling (2013) found in a meta-analysis that destructive leadership was strongly related to negative attitudes toward the leader and to counterproductive work behavior. I was never abusive in the sense of insulting people. But laissez-faire leadership has been identified as a destructive form in its own right (Skogstad et al., 2007), and my habit of disappearing on slow nights and avoiding conflict fits that description. The lesson is that destruction does not require cruelty; absence can do damage too. I also asked two selectors I trust whether I had ever made them feel belittled. Both said no, but one said that on slow nights she sometimes wondered whether I cared what happened on the floor, which confirmed what the research suggested.
My Approach to Leadership Now
My approach now rests on four commitments drawn from the course. First, leadership is a process of influence I can learn, not a trait I have or lack. Second, I will balance task and relationship behaviors, keeping high standards while paying attention to people. Third, I will adapt my behavior to what each person needs, especially new hires. Fourth, I will treat the climate, who speaks up, who is included and how conflicts are handled, as my responsibility. These commitments are not abstract. They show up in where I spend my time each night, whose ideas I ask for at huddles and how quickly I respond when something goes wrong. They also mean accepting that leading well will sometimes slow the shift down in the short run, for example when I stop to coach a new selector, and trusting that the investment pays back in retention and accuracy.
Twelve-Month Development Plan
I will review the plan with my operations manager every quarter and adjust it if a measure shows no progress.
| Goal | Actions | Measure | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Build conceptual skill | Write and present the reslotting proposal; attend quarterly planning meetings | Proposal presented; two planning meetings attended | Month 3 |
| Strengthen relationships | Biweekly check-ins with every crew member; recognition at huddles | Voluntary turnover below the building average | Month 12 |
| Lead inclusively | Bilingual huddles; rotating assignments; monthly in-group mapping | Out-group members' suggestions adopted; no aisle complaints | Month 6 |
| Handle conflict early | Conversation within one week on any work conflict | No conflict lasting over two weeks | Ongoing |
| Develop new hires | Six-week ramp with directive, supportive and participative stages | 80 percent of new hires retained at six weeks | Month 9 |
| Avoid destructive habits | Two aisle walks a night; ask a trusted selector for quarterly feedback on my presence | Feedback shows I am visible and approachable | Quarterly |
Conclusion
The fastest selector is not automatically a leader, but a selector can learn to lead. The course gave me the theories to understand why my first year went as it did and the practices to change it. My approach is now built on influence, balance, adaptation and attention to climate, and the plan above makes each of those commitments specific enough to check. The plan also has a personal side. I want to be ready for an operations manager role within two years, and the conceptual skills goal is the step that matters most for that move.
References
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36-51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.36
Katz, R. L. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33-42.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 48-60. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1991.4274679
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 11-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00041-7
Northouse, P. G. (2020). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice (5th ed.). Sage.
Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001
Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(1), 80-92. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375
Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral person and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California Management Review, 42(4), 128-142. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166057
What the LDR 3050 Module 12 instructions ask for
The LDR-3050 final paper carries 30 percent of the grade and asks you to analyze the major theories and models of leadership, evaluate how well they work in a practical context and describe your current approach to leadership along with a personal development plan that integrates the course's best practices. Use your own experience as the case, drawing on your reflections and self-assessments. Organize the paper so the theories are evaluated against real events, not summarized. Include the module on destructive leadership honestly, and end with a plan that has goals, actions, measures and dates. Plan the paper before writing: decide which theories you will evaluate, which events from your own experience test them and which goals the evidence points to.
Inside the LDR 3050 Module 12 example
The paper introduces the writer's promotion and the gap between individual skill and leadership. A case section summarizes the first year candidly. Four sections evaluate trait and skills, style and task-relationship, path-goal and ethical leadership against that case, noting what each explains and where each falls short. A section applies destructive leadership research to the writer's own habits. A section states the writer's current approach in four commitments, and a table sets a twelve-month plan with measures and dates. The paper reads as one argument because each section refers back to the case and forward to the plan. The plan table turns each finding into a goal, an action, a measure and a date the writer can review with his manager.
Reading the LDR 3050 Module 12 grading rubric
Mentors grade the final paper on accurate analysis of major leadership theories, evaluation of their usefulness in a real case, honest description of the writer's approach and a specific development plan. Papers that judge theories against events, and say which helped most and why, show synthesis. An honest look at destructive tendencies demonstrates the self-awareness the course aims for. A plan with goals, actions, measures and dates shows the writer will continue developing after the course ends. Clear organization with headings, consistent use of the case and accurate APA citations make the paper easy to evaluate. Using the course's research to question one's own habits, as the destructive leadership section does, shows the depth the final paper rewards.
LDR 3050 Module 12 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students lose points by summarizing theories chapter by chapter, by describing an ideal approach rather than their actual one or by writing a plan without measures. Others skip the destructive leadership module or apply it only to bad bosses they have known. Use your own record as the case. Evaluate each theory against what happened. Describe your approach honestly. Build a plan someone could check in a year. Proofread the plan table against the text so goals, measures and dates match. Keep the theory sections short and tied to events; the plan is what the paper builds toward. A free first sample on your own LDR-3050 final paper is available on request.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More LDR 3050 and Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership sample papers
- LDR 3050 Module 1: Reflection Paper: What Leadership Means on a Night Shift
- LDR 3050 Module 2: Reflection Paper: Which Leadership Style Do I Actually Use?
- LDR 3050 Module 3: Reflection Paper: Balancing the Pick Rate and the People
- LDR 3050 Module 4: Reflection Paper: Building the Skills a Supervisor Needs
- LDR 3050 Module 5: Reflection Paper: Leading With My Strengths and Theirs
- LDR 3050 Module 6: Reflection Paper: A Vision for the Night Shift
- LDR 3050 Module 7: Reflection Paper: Building a Climate Where People Speak Up
- LDR 3050 Module 8: Reflection Paper: Who Is in the Out-Group on My Shift?
- LDR 3050 Module 9: Reflection Paper: Two Selectors, One Aisle and My Conflict Style
- LDR 3050 Module 10: Reflection Paper: The Overtime Sheet and My Ethics
- LDR 3050 Module 11: Reflection Paper: Clearing the Path for New Hires
- MAN 3760 Module 5: Application Paper: Johnson and Johnson's 1982 Tylenol Crisis Communication
- PSY 3600 Module 4: Written Assignment: Estimates, Crews and a New App Through Systems and Communication Theory
- LDR 3450 Module 2: Written Assignment: What Kind of Change Agent Am I?
- LDR 4220 Module 3: Case Study: Procter and Gamble's Organization 2005 and the Matrix Problem
LDR 3050 Module 12 questions, answered
Where can I find a free LDR 3050 Module 12 sample paper?
Eighteen months on a night shift, judged against the course's theories and turned into a twelve-month plan, form the final paper above.
What does the LDR-3050 final paper require?
An analysis of major leadership theories, an evaluation of them in a practical case, a description of your own approach and a personal development plan.
What is destructive leadership?
Leader behavior that harms followers or the organization, including abusive supervision and passive, absent leadership.
Is laissez-faire leadership destructive?
Research has identified it as a destructive form, associated with role conflict and coworker conflict.
How much is the LDR-3050 final paper worth?
Thirty percent of the course grade.