| Course | LDR 321 Modern Leadership (LDR/321) |
|---|---|
| Week | 1 |
| Paper type | Individual attributes analysis |
| Length | about 1,044 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | BS in Business |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for LDR 321 Week 1
Teenagers, Retirees and Students From Eleven Countries: Understanding Individual Attributes on the Ride Crews of a Pocono Mountains Amusement Park
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
LDR/321: Modern Leadership
Week 1 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Pinecrest Park, its staff and its data are composites written for a model paper.
Pinecrest Park is a composite family-owned amusement park in the Pocono Mountains of northeastern Pennsylvania, open from May through October. It has 34 rides, from carousels to a wooden roller coaster, a water play area and food and games. The park employs about 60 year-round staff and 450 seasonal workers. Ride operations, the largest department, has 14 area supervisors and about 220 ride operators. The crew comes from three main groups: local high school and college students, about 55 percent; retirees from nearby communities, about 20 percent; and international university students working on summer visas, about 25 percent, from eleven countries including Jamaica, Turkey, Thailand and Peru. Rides manager Alicia Gomez, in her first season in the role, noticed that supervisors explain most problems by group: teenagers are careless, retirees are slow and international students do not understand instructions. She wants to know whether those explanations hold up. This paper examines research on individual attributes and applies it to Pinecrest's ride crews.
Personality and Performance
Barrick and Mount (1991) combined studies from many occupations to see which of the five broad personality traits, from sociability and calm to warmth, carefulness and curiosity, tracked with how well people did their jobs. Conscientiousness, being dependable, careful, organized and persistent, was consistently related to performance across all occupational groups and criteria. Other traits mattered for particular jobs; extraversion, for example, predicted performance in jobs involving social interaction, such as sales and management.
Age and Performance
Ng and Feldman (2008) pooled hundreds of studies to see how a worker's age lines up with ten different aspects of doing a job well. For the central duties of most jobs and for creativity, age made almost no difference. Older workers showed more citizenship behavior, more safety-related behavior and less counterproductive behavior, such as tardiness and absence. The findings contradict common stereotypes of older workers as less capable.
Surface and Deep Diversity
Harrison et al. (1998) studied work groups over time and distinguished surface-level diversity, differences in visible characteristics such as age, sex and ethnicity, from deep-level diversity, differences in attitudes, beliefs and values. Surface-level differences affected group cohesion early but became less important as members interacted, while deep-level differences became more important over time. Collaboration allowed people to learn about one another beyond first impressions.
The Crew's Evidence
Alicia gathered three kinds of evidence: ride inspection and incident logs, supervisor ratings of operators on safety, reliability and guest service and a short personality and work-style questionnaire completed voluntarily by 160 operators at orientation.
Testing the Teenager Assumption
Teenage operators had more late arrivals and more minor procedure lapses, such as forgetting a restraint check announcement, than other groups on average. But the variation within the group was large. Teens who scored high on conscientiousness performed as reliably as anyone. The lapses concentrated among a minority, most in their first two weeks.
Testing the Retiree Assumption
Retirees were slightly slower in loading guests at high-capacity rides but had the best safety records, the fewest absences and the highest guest service ratings, consistent with Ng and Feldman (2008). Several supervisors described them as the operators guests ask for directions and help.
Testing the International Student Assumption
International students' early problems traced mostly to unfamiliar terms, such as park slang and radio codes, and to training delivered quickly in English. After two weeks, their reliability matched other groups, and many showed strong guest service, especially with international families. Deep-level attributes, such as conscientiousness and motivation, mattered more than nationality, as Harrison et al. (1998) would predict.
The question that predicted a safe ride was not how old the operator was or where they came from, but how carefully they followed the checklist.
Strengths Within Each Group
Looking at individuals also reveals strengths that group labels hide. Several teenage operators are the park's fastest and most accurate at running the control panels on complex rides, and two have already trained newer operators informally. A retired school principal is unusually skilled at calming upset children separated from their parents. An engineering student from Turkey spotted a recurring sensor fault on the log flume that maintenance had missed. None of these strengths fits the stereotypes supervisors use, and each is a resource the department could use deliberately.
How Labels Affect Operators
Labels also shape how operators see themselves. In interviews, international students said they sensed supervisors expected them to struggle and hesitated to ask questions for fear of confirming that view. Teenagers said they felt watched for mistakes. When leaders expect poor performance from a group, members may disengage or avoid risks such as speaking up, which can create the very problems leaders expected.
What the Evidence Shows
Across groups, conscientiousness and experience predicted safety and reliability far better than age or origin. Group labels explained little and led supervisors to treat individuals unfairly, such as assigning all retirees to slow rides or all international students to games.
The Leader's Own Assumptions
Alicia realized she had shared some assumptions, particularly about teenagers. Recognizing her own biases is part of leading a diverse crew.
Implication 1: Assign by Attributes That Matter
Ride assignments should consider each operator's demonstrated reliability and preferences. High-consequence rides, such as the coaster, should go to operators with strong safety records, regardless of age or origin.
Implication 2: Support the First Two Weeks
Since lapses concentrate early, new operators will work alongside experienced partners, and training will include a glossary of park terms and radio codes, with demonstrations rather than speech alone.
Implication 3: Use Mixed Crews
Mixing groups on rides encourages the interaction that reduces the importance of surface differences over time. Retirees can mentor teenagers on guest service; international students can help with guests who speak their languages.
Implication 4: Coach Supervisors
Supervisors will learn to describe behaviors, not groups, when discussing problems.
Conclusion
Research shows that conscientiousness predicts performance across jobs, that older workers perform well and often better on safety and that deep-level differences matter more than visible ones over time. At Pinecrest, evidence confirms that individual attributes, not group labels, explain how operators perform. Leading the crew well means understanding each person, supporting newcomers and building mixed teams.
References
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96-107. https://doi.org/10.5465/256901
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 392-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.392
What the LDR 321 Week 1 instructions ask
The first LDR 321 assignment usually asks students to analyze how individual attributes, such as personality, values, strengths, generation, culture and background, affect team members' behavior and performance, and how leaders can respond. Expect to describe frameworks such as the Big Five personality traits, discuss diversity and its effects on teams and apply them to a real or realistic team. Some prompts include a personal assessment. A strong paper uses research rather than generational stereotypes, recognizes variation within groups, connects attributes to specific work behaviors and draws practical implications, such as how to assign roles, communicate or coach. Cite scholarly sources in APA format.
How this LDR 321 Week 1 example is built
Alicia Gomez manages ride operations at Pinecrest Park, and her supervisors tend to explain every problem by age or nationality: teenagers are careless, retirees are slow, international students do not understand. The paper tests those explanations against research. A meta-analysis finds conscientiousness the most consistent personality predictor of job performance across jobs. Another meta-analysis finds that older workers perform as well as younger ones on core tasks and better on safety and citizenship. Research on diversity shows that surface differences, such as age and nationality, matter less over time than deep-level differences in attitudes and values. Ride data and supervisor reports confirm that conscientiousness and experience, not age or origin, predict safe, reliable operation, and the paper recommends assigning and coaching by attributes that matter.
LDR 321 Week 1 grading rubric: where the points go
Papers on individual attributes are graded on accuracy, use of research and freedom from stereotypes. Strong work explains personality and diversity research correctly, applies it to a real team with evidence, recognizes variation within age, cultural or other groups and connects attributes to specific behaviors at work. Graders reward practical implications, such as assignments matched to strengths or coaching suited to individuals, and attention to fairness. A clear profile of the team, organized analysis and accurate APA references complete a strong paper. Credit also goes to writers who show how their own assumptions changed after examining the evidence, and to those who report data by individual rather than by group averages alone.
LDR 321 Week 1 help: mistakes to avoid
The most common mistake is relying on generational or cultural stereotypes, such as all young workers being disengaged. Research shows large variation within groups and small average differences. Use evidence. Another frequent problem is describing personality frameworks without applying them to actual work behaviors. Connect traits to tasks, such as following safety checklists. Some papers recommend personality testing for hiring without considering validity or fairness. Be careful and use research. Others ignore the leader's own attributes and biases. Reflect on them. Use the team's own records wherever possible. Finally, focus on what the leader can do differently, such as matching people to roles and coaching each person, rather than wishing for different team members.
Related LDR 321 sample papers
Other LDR 321 week samples
- LDR 321 Week 2: Communication Strategies for Leaders
- LDR 321 Week 3: Adaptive Leadership
- LDR 321 Week 4: Teamwork, Inclusion and Performance
- LDR 321 Week 5: Change Management and Empowerment
More BS in Business sample papers
- LDR 309 Week 1: Project Management and Change
- LDR 310 Week 1: Self-Assessment and Capstone Proposal
- MGT 312 Week 1: Personal Self-Assessment and Its Meaning for a Manager
- MGT 316 Week 1: Business Functions
LDR 321 Week 1 questions, answered
What does LDR 321 Week 1 usually cover?
It usually covers individual attributes in teams, including personality, strengths, age, culture and background, and how leaders can understand and respond to differences among team members.
Where can I find a free LDR 321 Week 1 sample paper?
The Week 1 analysis of individual attributes on the ride crews of a composite Pocono Mountains amusement park is shown above.
Which personality trait best predicts job performance?
Meta-analytic research has found conscientiousness, being dependable, organized and achievement-oriented, to be the most consistent predictor across jobs.
Do older workers perform worse than younger workers?
Research shows older workers generally perform as well as younger workers on core tasks and often better on safety, citizenship and avoiding counterproductive behavior.
What is the difference between surface-level and deep-level diversity?
Surface-level diversity refers to visible differences such as age, gender or ethnicity, while deep-level diversity refers to differences in attitudes, values and beliefs, which become more important as people work together over time.
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 University of Phoenix 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.
Request this one custom, free · All LDR 321 week samples · All courses