| Course | BU 502 Leadership and Team Dynamics |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Leadership style assessment |
| Length | About 940 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 502 Unit 5
Active on the Details, Passive on the Question: A Leadership Style Assessment That Tests a Self-Report Profile Against Eight Weeks of a Composite Team Lead's Own Conduct
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 502: Leadership and Team Dynamics
Instructor Name
May 4, 2026
Active on the Details, Passive on the Question: A Leadership Style Assessment That Tests a Self-Report Profile Against Eight Weeks of a Composite Team Lead's Own Conduct
The Instrument and the Result
For this unit I completed the self-report leadership profile assigned in our section, an instrument built on the model that Bass and Riggio (2006) call the full range of leadership. The model arranges leader behavior from laissez-faire, the absence of leadership, through two transactional patterns, management by exception and contingent reward, to four transformational components (consideration for individuals, intellectual stimulation, idealized influence and inspirational motivation). The tool returns an average for each element on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently, if not always). The descriptions below paraphrase the model's elements and are not the instrument's wording.
The profile describes a lead who is strongly transactional, moderately considerate and weakest at setting direction. Judge and Piccolo (2004), in a meta-analysis of the model's validity, found that contingent reward was nearly as strongly related to leader effectiveness as transformational leadership and that laissez-faire was negatively related to it, so the profile, taken at face value, would be a comfortable one.
| Element | My self-rating | What the element describes, paraphrased |
|---|---|---|
| Management by exception, active | 3.4 | Watching for errors and deviations and correcting them early |
| Contingent reward | 3.3 | Making clear what people get for meeting agreed goals |
| Individualized consideration | 3.2 | Attending to each person's needs and development |
| Idealized influence | 2.6 | Acting in ways that earn trust and respect |
| Intellectual stimulation | 2.4 | Inviting people to question assumptions and try new approaches |
| Inspirational motivation | 2.1 | Stating a compelling direction for the team |
| Management by exception, passive | 1.2 | Waiting until problems become serious before acting |
| Laissez-faire | 0.6 | Avoiding decisions and involvement |
What a Self-Report Can and Cannot Establish
The profile shows how I described myself on one evening in April, answering questions about my own behavior. It cannot establish how often I actually do those things or how my team experiences them. Self-report measures share a source and a method, and Podsakoff et al. (2003) describe how answers from a single respondent can be shaped by the wish to appear consistent and favorable rather than by the behavior being rated. Fleenor et al. (2010) reviewed research comparing leaders' self-ratings with ratings from others and found that self-ratings often run higher, and that the gap between the two is itself informative about effectiveness.
For those reasons the profile is treated as a set of claims about me. The rest of this paper takes each element the tool flagged and asks whether the eight-week log from Units 1 to 4 supports it, contradicts it or says nothing.
Testing the Profile Against Behavior
Management by exception, active: supported
The log is full of it. On 36 of 38 mornings I reviewed the board before the 8:15 huddle and corrected at least one problem, 41 corrections in total, most of them crew or arrival-window conflicts. The rating matches what I do.
Contingent reward: supported, with an uncomfortable twist
I do make the link between effort and reward clear: I approve overtime promptly and thank people for difficult days. Unit 3 showed what that link rewards in practice. Of 19 evening rebuilds, I approved overtime for all 19, and I have never thanked anyone for a week that needed no rebuild. The behavior the element describes is present, but it is contingent on firefighting, which is the pattern the team is trying to leave.
Individualized consideration: supported for some members only
I hold a fortnightly check-in with each coordinator and each dispatcher, 24 in the eight weeks. I held none with an estimator. The rating of 3.2 describes how I treat the people who were my peers, and it says nothing about the three members who joined after I became lead.
Inspirational motivation: supported as low
The lowest transformational rating is accurate. In 38 huddles I never stated what the team is for beyond getting the day's moves out. The huddle is a logistics meeting, and nobody on the team could repeat a direction I have given because I have not given one.
Management by exception, passive: contradicted
The profile rates me as rarely waiting for problems to become serious. On the details that is true. On the structural question at the center of this course, control of a promised move date, it is false. Unit 2 dated that question to November; I had not raised it with the general manager or the team in the four months since, and the March 12 episode in Unit 4 is what waiting looks like when the problem does become serious.
What the Comparison Shows
The profile and the behavior agree on most points, and where they differ the difference has a pattern. I am active and attentive on the daily schedule and with the people I have known longest, and passive on the question that would require me to disagree with the general manager and change how the estimators work. The instrument cannot see that split because it asks about behavior in general, and in general I am active. Its averages blend two different leaders: the one on the board at 7:40, and the one who has not raised the date question in four months.
This matters for the rest of the course. The intervention in Unit 7 has to be one that an active, detail-focused lead can run, and it has to include the structural conversation the profile says I am comfortable with and the log says I avoid.
Limits and Next Steps
The test uses my own log, so it shares some of the self-report problem it is meant to correct, though counts of dated actions are harder to flatter than ratings. A stronger test would ask the team. A formal multi-rater survey would need the general manager's approval and would place colleagues' ratings of their manager in a graded paper, so I have not used one. Instead, before Unit 8, I will ask two coordinators, one estimator and the senior dispatcher a single open question in person, what I should do more of, and use their answers in the development plan without recording who said what.
References
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fleenor, J. W., Smither, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Braddy, P. W., & Sturm, R. E. (2010). Self-other rating agreement in leadership: A review. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1005-1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.006
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Reading the BU 502 Unit 5 instructions
The fifth BU 502 unit asks students to complete the leadership instrument their section assigns and then assess what it says. Requirements generally include reporting the result accurately, attributing the model behind the tool, explaining what self-report instruments can and cannot establish, and testing each element against behavior you can point to. The weighting favors the test over the result, so the limits and test sections usually run longer than the report itself. Where the result does not match how you actually lead, the mismatch is the most valuable part of the paper. Do not reproduce the instrument's items, which are usually copyrighted, and leave out any assessments your employer had the team complete.
How this BU 502 Unit 5 example is built
A results table opens the paper, listing eight elements, the self-ratings and paraphrased descriptions, introduced by Bass and Riggio's model and a note that the instrument's wording is not reproduced. Judge and Piccolo's meta-analysis is used to show why the profile looks comfortable. The limits section draws on Podsakoff on shared-method bias and Fleenor on self-other agreement. The test section then gives each element its own run-in heading and a verdict, supported, contradicted or supported for some members only, with counts from the log. A comparison section explains the split between detail and structure, and the close describes a modest way to gather the team's view without a formal multi-rater survey.
Reading the BU 502 Unit 5 rubric
Rubrics for the leadership style assessment tend to reward accurate reporting, attribution of the model, understanding of self-report limits, a behavior-based test and implications for practice, plus APA mechanics. Reporting gains full marks when scores or profile elements are given plainly and the publisher's descriptions are paraphrased. The limits criterion looks for specific reasons a self-rating may mislead, supported by research. The test is usually the largest block of points and rewards element-by-element verdicts tied to observable conduct. Implications score when the writer explains what the comparison means for how they will lead. Verdicts that go against the writer are typically credited as evidence of honest analysis rather than penalized.
BU 502 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points
Weak style papers spend most of their length describing the model and restating the scores, then add a paragraph agreeing with the result. Accepting a self-rating as fact misses the point of the unit. Some writers test only the flattering elements. Others offer behavior in general terms, such as I support my team, which proves nothing. Quoting instrument items or attaching a company-run assessment can breach copyright or confidentiality. In the sample, the most useful finding is a contradiction. If your result feels wrong, our writers can help you turn that mismatch into a structured test using your own records and draft it for your section.
Get a BU 502 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Copy the Unit 5 instructions and rubric out of your BU 502 classroom and send them with the name of whichever instrument your section uses. We write a custom example that reports the result briefly, places its limits early, attributes the tool's language and tests every element against observed behavior. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 502 papers and MBA samples
- BU 502 Unit 1: Team context and evidence base
- BU 502 Unit 2: Development stage analysis
- BU 502 Unit 3: Behavioral diagnosis
- BU 502 Unit 4: Conflict episode analysis
- BU 502 Unit 6: Psychological safety analysis
- BU 502 Unit 7: Intervention design
- BU 502 Unit 8: Team development plan
- BU 506 Unit 5: Change approach and resistance
- BU 525 Unit 5: Build or buy analysis
- BU 530 Unit 5: Theory comparison
- BU 531 Unit 5: Scenario analysis
BU 502 Unit 5 questions, answered
Which instrument does this unit use?
Whichever one your instructions name, since sections and terms differ and the tools come from different publishers with different categories. Use the one assigned, cite the publisher's description of its elements, and do not import categories from another instrument you happen to know. If no tool is provided, ask your instructor rather than choosing one, because the rubric usually assumes the assigned vocabulary.
What if the result does not match how I actually lead?
That is the most useful outcome the unit can give you, and it should be written up as the finding rather than explained away. Show the element, show the behavior that contradicts it, and consider why the two diverge: a self-report describes intention, and behavior under pressure often describes something else. Papers reporting a mismatch honestly tend to score well.
Can I include results my company had the team complete?
No. Profiles run at work belong to the employer that paid for them, and other people's results are theirs alone even when a facilitator shared the room. Report only your own outcome from whatever the classroom assigns, describe colleagues by role and by what they did, and keep any workplace instrument report out of the submission entirely.
Where can I find a free BU 502 Unit 5 sample paper?
The whole BU 502 Unit 5 leadership style assessment is free above, with the profile table, the element-by-element test and margin notes. If your section uses a different instrument, pass along the instructions and a matching assessment is written for you free, usually within two days.
What if my BU 502 Unit 5 scores seem too high?
Treat that as a finding. Research on self-other agreement shows leaders often rate themselves above how others see them, and the sample tests each high score against logged behavior before accepting it.