| Course | BU 530 Business Leadership Foundations |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Ethics and influence paper |
| Length | About 1,050 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 530 Unit 6
The Saturday I Blamed on the General Contractor: An Ethics and Influence Paper Testing Four of a Composite Roofing Superintendent's Influence Attempts Against a Kantian Line
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 530: Business Leadership Foundations
Instructor Name
February 16, 2026
The Saturday I Blamed on the General Contractor: An Ethics and Influence Paper Testing Four of a Composite Roofing Superintendent's Influence Attempts Against a Kantian Line
Influence and Manipulation
Leaders influence people all day, and most of it is unremarkable. The question this paper examines is where influence becomes manipulation. Sunstein (2016) defines manipulation as an attempt to influence someone that does not sufficiently engage or appeal to their capacity for reflection and deliberation. Influence, by contrast, gives the other person something they can weigh. From that definition and the course reading, three criteria are used to test each attempt below. The first is transparency: could the other person see what I was doing and why? The second is freedom to refuse: could they say no without a penalty they would reasonably fear? The third is whose interest the attempt served: theirs, a shared one, or only mine.
The Ethical Framework
The framework is the Kantian approach to business ethics set out by Bowie (2017), built on Kant's principle that a person must always be respected as an end and never used merely as an instrument. Bowie translates that into a requirement that managers respect the rational agency of the people they work with. In practice, an influence attempt respects a person when it gives them true information and reasons they could accept, and it fails when it works by deceiving them or by going around their judgment. The three criteria above are ways of asking that question about a specific act.
To describe what each attempt was, I use the influence tactics identified by Yukl and Falbe (1990), such as rational persuasion, pressure, legitimating tactics and inspirational appeals. The tactics describe the method; the criteria and the framework judge it.
Four Influence Attempts
Attempt 1: the Saturday
In early December I moved Crew A off a store re-roof for two days to cover a problem on another job. That decision put the store behind. On the Thursday, I told the crew's foreman that the general contractor was requiring us to work Saturday to finish by Monday. The general contractor had asked for completion by Monday, which was true. What I left out was that we would have finished on time without Saturday if I had not moved the crew. The foreman relayed the message, and four of the six roofers worked the Saturday.
The tactic was legitimating: I invoked an outside authority to make a request look unavoidable. On transparency it fails, because the crew could not see the real reason. On freedom to refuse it is weak, since Saturday work is voluntary under company policy but the crew believed refusing would damage the company's relationship with the contractor. On interest, it served mine, by hiding a mistake. Verdict: manipulation. It treated the crew's weekend as a means to repair my schedule while withholding the fact that would have let them decide.
Attempt 2: the extra flashing
On a warehouse re-roof I found the parapet walls more deteriorated than the estimate assumed. I sent the estimator photographs, the manufacturer's flashing detail and a material list, and asked for approval of the additional material. The tactic was rational persuasion. The estimator could see everything I saw, could refuse, and did push back on one item, which I dropped. The interest served was the project's and the owner's. Verdict: influence.
Attempt 3: the morning heat briefing
I wanted Crew D's foreman to begin a short morning briefing on heat and hydration, which Crew A's foreman already runs. At the weekly superintendents' meeting I praised Crew A's briefing at length, with Crew D's foreman present, and said I hoped to see it on every crew. The tactic was pressure through public comparison. The foreman could see what I was doing, and could in principle refuse, but the comparison was designed to embarrass him into agreeing. The interest served was the crew's safety, which is legitimate. Verdict: influence, but on the line. The goal was good and nothing was concealed, yet the method worked through discomfort rather than reasons. I never asked him why he did not run a briefing.
Attempt 4: the weekend tear-off
At an occupied office building, the facility manager wanted tear-off during the week. I told her that tenants had complained about noise during the previous phase, which they had, and laid out two options with their noise, cost and schedule effects, recommending the weekend. The tactic was rational persuasion with consultation. She could see my reasons and choose either option. The interest served was shared. Verdict: influence.
Power and the Direction of Influence
The two attempts that came out worst were both directed downward, at people whose hours and assignments I control. French and Raven (1959) distinguished bases of power, among them legitimate, reward and coercive power, all of which a superintendent holds over crews. Yukl and Falbe (1990) found that people choose different tactics depending on whether they are influencing subordinates, peers or superiors, with pressure used more often downward. That pattern fits my four attempts: with the estimator and the facility manager, who could ignore me, I gave reasons; with crews, who could not easily refuse, I used authority and comparison.
The implication is that the bar for transparency should be higher, not lower, when I have power over the person. A roofer's freedom to refuse a Saturday is real on paper but constrained in fact, and the less freely someone can refuse, the more they depend on the information I give them being true.
What I Take From the Verdicts
Attempt 1 was manipulation and I should tell the foreman so, with the real reason. Attempt 3 was not dishonest, but a conversation would have respected the foreman more than a performance in front of his peers. The rule I take into the development plan is simple to state: when I ask a crew for something, I give the actual reason, including when the reason is my own mistake. Applying it costs something. Admitting that Saturday was my error may make the next Saturday harder to ask for, and a crew that hears the real reason may say no. That cost is the point of the rule: a request that only works when the reason is hidden was never one the crew had agreed to.
References
Bowie, N. E. (2017). Business ethics: A Kantian perspective (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). University of Michigan.
Sunstein, C. R. (2016). Fifty shades of manipulation. Journal of Marketing Behavior, 1(3-4), 213-244. https://doi.org/10.1561/107.00000014
Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 132-140. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.132
BU 530 Unit 6 instructions, in plain terms
In Unit 6, BU 530 asks students to distinguish influence from manipulation and apply an ethical framework to their own influence attempts. Expect to define both terms from the reading, set out criteria for telling them apart, attribute the framework your section teaches and describe it fully enough to apply, then present several specific influence attempts and give each a verdict. Attempts need not have failed to be worth analyzing; successful ones can still be manipulative. Instructors expect at least one uncomfortable verdict, and a paper in which every attempt passes is usually read as incomplete. Quoting actual messages from work brings colleagues' words into a graded paper, so describe what was said by role and in your own words.
How the BU 530 Unit 6 example is put together
Sunstein's definition anchors the opening, which derives three criteria for separating influence from manipulation. The framework section sets out Bowie's Kantian approach and explains how Yukl and Falbe's tactics will describe each attempt. Four attempts follow under run-in headings, each giving what was said, to whom by role, what was withheld, the tactic, the test on each criterion and a verdict: manipulation, influence, influence on the line, influence. A section on power uses French and Raven and the direction of influence to explain why the two worst verdicts were downward. The close states the writer's corrective and the rule carried into the development plan, along with the cost of keeping that rule.
Reading the BU 530 Unit 6 rubric
The ethics and influence rubric usually allots points to clear definitions, an attributed and applied framework, specific influence attempts, honest verdicts, attention to power and reflection. Definitions earn credit when drawn from the reading and turned into usable criteria. The framework scores when it is described well enough to produce verdicts, not just named. Attempts are judged on specificity: what was said and withheld. Verdicts carry significant weight, and full marks usually require at least one that goes against the writer. Power earns points when the writer considers how their position affected the other person's freedom to refuse. Reflection is credited when it ends in a concrete commitment. Using an established tactic list keeps the descriptions consistent across attempts.
BU 530 Unit 6 help before you submit
Ethics papers lose marks by analyzing only attempts that come out well, which reads as self-promotion. Another weakness is naming a framework and never applying it. Writers often describe attempts vaguely, so a reader cannot judge them. Some confuse a good goal with a good method, approving manipulation because the outcome helped someone. Others ignore power, though a request from a supervisor is harder to refuse. Quoting real messages from colleagues raises privacy concerns. Verdicts given without the criteria applied one by one also lose credit, because the reader cannot follow the reasoning. If admitting a manipulative attempt feels risky, our writers can help you frame it as analysis with a corrective, built on your own examples.
Get a BU 530 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Ship the Unit 6 instructions over with the BU 530 rubric your classroom carries and whichever ethical framework your section assigns. We write a custom example that defines influence against manipulation from the reading, tests specific attempts including the unflattering ones, and treats authority as its own condition. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 530 papers and MBA samples
- BU 530 Unit 1: Leadership theory overview
- BU 530 Unit 2: Trait and behavioral approaches
- BU 530 Unit 3: Contingency and situational analysis
- BU 530 Unit 4: Self-assessment with limits
- BU 530 Unit 5: Theory comparison
- BU 530 Unit 7: Feedback analysis
- BU 530 Unit 8: Leadership development plan
- BU 525 Unit 6: Retention case
- BU 531 Unit 6: Mitigation and cost
- BU 502 Unit 6: Psychological safety analysis
- BU 506 Unit 6: Implementation plan
BU 530 Unit 6 questions, answered
Does an influence attempt have to have failed to be worth analyzing?
No, and successful attempts are often more revealing, because a move that worked is one the writer has a stake in defending. Take one that succeeded and test it honestly: was the other party able to see what was happening, could they have declined without cost, and whose interest did it serve. The verdict is more interesting when something is at stake.
Is it risky to admit I manipulated someone?
Handled well it is the strongest part of the paper, and instructors read this unit expecting candor rather than confession. Describe the move factually, test it against the criteria, reach the verdict and say what you would do instead. Avoid dramatizing it and avoid anything that would identify the other person, who is not a character in your paper.
Can I quote the messages the exchange actually happened in?
Retell them in your own words instead. Emails, chat threads and meeting notes are records your organization holds, and they carry names and detail that a graded paper should not distribute. Nothing from a performance file, review record or 360 summary belongs here either. Your own recollection, with people carried by role, is sufficient evidence for this analysis.
Where can I find a free BU 530 Unit 6 sample paper?
The whole BU 530 Unit 6 ethics and influence paper is free to read above, with the three criteria, four judged attempts, the power section and margin notes. For your own attempts, pass along the prompt and a short description of each and a custom paper is drafted free, generally within two days.
Is it risky to admit manipulation in BU 530 Unit 6?
It is expected, and handled as analysis. The sample judges one of its four attempts as manipulation, explains why with the criteria, and ends with the corrective the writer will apply.