| Course | DDBA 8521 Seminar in Change Management |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Sponsor memo |
| Length | About 600 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DDBA 8521 Week 9
Memorandum
To: Doctoral seminar colleagues and the practice's chief operating officer
From: DBA candidate, practice administrator
Date: October 11, 2026
Re: The chief medical officer's exposure in the referral standardization
The Change and Its Sponsor
A composite multispecialty physician group of 140 physicians in the Raleigh area plans to standardize referral rules: which tests a primary care physician must order before referring a patient to cardiology, orthopedics or gastroenterology, and which specialists receive referrals first. The aim is to cut referral wait times, which reached 47 days for gastroenterology, and avoid repeated testing. The sponsor is the group's chief medical officer, a family physician who practiced in the group for 18 years before taking the role three years ago and still sees patients one day a week. Most change analyses treat the sponsor as a bystander who launches the change. This memo asks what she personally puts at risk.
Relationships With Colleagues
Standardization will tell physicians she trained beside how to practice. Eleven of the group's primary care physicians completed residency in the same program she did; several are close friends. The rules will limit some of their referral habits, including sending patients to specialists they know personally. Interviews with four primary care physicians showed respect for her and wariness about the rules; one said, "She knows how we practice, so it's hard to hear this from her." Battilana and Casciaro (2012) showed that the web of personal ties around a change agent, who trusts whom and who talks to whom, helps decide whether a change takes hold, and that close ties to people who might resist can help with modest changes but constrain agents pursuing changes that break sharply with existing practice. Her close ties are an asset and a risk at once.
Standing as a Clinician
She still practices, so the rules will apply to her own referrals. If her patients wait longer for a specialist because of a rule she wrote, colleagues will notice. Her standing as a clinician, which gives her credibility in the role, now depends partly on the rules working well in her own clinic.
Reputation Tied to the Program
She is the visible author of the change. Ashford et al. (1998) found that people deciding whether to raise an issue with leaders weigh the risk to their own image, and that context shapes how willing they are to take that risk. Having raised this issue and led it, she has accepted that risk. If wait times fall, she gains; if specialists or primary care physicians blame the rules for problems, the blame will land on her. That exposure may push her toward caution, such as softening rules to avoid conflict with colleagues, or toward overcommitment, such as defending rules after evidence shows they need revision.
What This Means for the Change
Three steps would reduce her exposure without weakening the change. Share authorship with a committee that includes specialists and primary care physicians, so the rules are not seen as hers alone. Build in a scheduled review at six months, so revisions are planned rather than read as retreats. And have another leader, perhaps the chief operating officer, handle enforcement conversations with individual physicians, so her clinical relationships are not spent on compliance. Ford et al. (2008) noted that how change agents behave shapes the responses they later call resistance; reducing the sponsor's exposure also reduces the chance that colleagues' doubts about her become doubts about the rules.
Limits
The memo rests on four interviews and the author's knowledge of the group, and the chief medical officer has not reviewed it.
References
Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998). Out on a limb: The role of context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1), 23-57. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393590
Battilana, J., & Casciaro, T. (2012). Change agents, networks, and institutions: A contingency theory of organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 381-398. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0891
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193235
Reading the DDBA 8521 Week 9 instructions
The ninth week asks you to analyze the sponsor of a change as someone who stands to gain or lose personally. Describe the change and the sponsor's role and history. Identify what the sponsor puts at risk, such as relationships with colleagues, professional standing and reputation tied to the program, with evidence from interviews or documents. Explain how that exposure might shape the sponsor's decisions, for better or worse, during the change. Recommend steps that reduce the sponsor's exposure without weakening the change. Use research on change agents, networks and the risks of raising issues. Acknowledge the limits of your analysis, especially if the sponsor has not reviewed it. Write in memo form to an appropriate audience. About two to three pages is typical.
How this DDBA 8521 Week 9 example is built
The memo introduces the referral standardization and the chief medical officer's background, including shared residency with eleven primary care physicians. A section on relationships uses interviews and Battilana and Casciaro's finding that close network ties both help and constrain change agents. A section on clinical standing notes that the rules will govern her own referrals. A section on reputation applies Ashford and colleagues' work on image risk and explains how exposure could push her toward softening or overcommitting. Recommendations share authorship with a mixed committee, schedule a six-month review so revisions are planned and assign enforcement to the chief operating officer, with Ford and colleagues on how agents shape later resistance. Limits note four interviews.
Reading the DDBA 8521 Week 9 rubric
Credit begins with treating the sponsor as a participant. Instructors look for specific forms of exposure, relationships, standing and reputation, each supported with evidence rather than speculation. Explaining how exposure might shape the sponsor's decisions, in both directions, shows analytic depth. Research on networks and image risk should be applied to the sponsor's situation. Recommendations earn credit when they reduce exposure while protecting the change, such as shared authorship and planned reviews. Acknowledging that the sponsor has not reviewed the memo and that evidence is limited shows integrity. Tact matters: the memo should analyze, not criticize, the sponsor. Inviting the sponsor's response, where possible, shows fairness.
DDBA 8521 Week 9 help: mistakes that cost marks
Sponsor analyses often praise or criticize the leader. Instead, list what the leader could lose if the change goes badly and what relationships it strains. Ask colleagues how they see the leader's role in the change. Consider how that exposure might affect the leader's choices, such as avoiding conflict or refusing to revise. Suggest arrangements that spread ownership and plan for revision. Be respectful; the sponsor may read it. A tutor can help you frame sensitive findings about a leader. Share the memo with the sponsor if you can and record any response. Keep the sponsor's dignity in view throughout.
Get a DDBA 8521 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 9 memo prompt and rubric, and say who the sponsor is by role. A memo inventorying the sponsor's personal stakes and predicting their effect returns within 24 to 48 hours, a first request carrying no fee. Keep private details about a real executive out of what you send.
More DDBA 8521 papers and DBA samples
- DDBA 8521 Week 1: Planned or Emergent Discussion
- DDBA 8521 Week 2: Rejected Change Diagnostic
- DDBA 8521 Week 3: Process Workaround Audit
- DDBA 8521 Week 4: Incentive Conflict Analysis
- DDBA 8521 Week 5: Change History Brief
- DDBA 8521 Week 6: Organizational Identity Brief
- DDBA 8521 Week 7: Diagnosis Peer Critique
- DDBA 8521 Week 8: Change Theory Comparison
- DDBA 8521 Week 10: Adoption Evidence Plan
- DDBA 8521 Week 11: Change Ordering Seminar Paper
- DDBA 8522 Week 9: Commitment Reversal Case
- DDBA 8511 Week 9: Business Model Analysis
- DDBA 8524 Week 9: Sales Team Case Analysis
- DDBA 8307B Week 9: Crosstab Output Interpretation
DDBA 8521 Week 9 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DDBA 8521 Week 9 sample paper?
The change sponsor memo appears further down this page and is free for any reader.
Who is the sponsor in the DDBA 8521 Week 9 memo?
A physician group's chief medical officer who wants to standardize specialist referral rules.
What does the sponsor put at risk?
Relationships with colleagues she trained beside, her standing as a practicing clinician and a reputation tied to the program.
How might that exposure affect her decisions?
It could lead her to soften rules to avoid conflict or to defend them after evidence shows they need revision.
What does the memo recommend?
Shared authorship with a mixed committee, a scheduled six-month review and enforcement handled by another leader.