| Course | MGMT 8405M Challenging Conventional Leadership and Influence |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 1 |
| Paper type | Position post |
| Length | About 530 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion post, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGMT 8405M Week 1
Week 1 Discussion: A Leadership Claim I Intend to Contest
The CEO Effect, Contested at One Joint: A Position Post Naming a Published Claim That Who Leads a Firm Explains Much of Its Performance, the Variance Evidence Beneath It and the Study That Would Change My Mind
The Target
The claim I will contest this term is that the identity of a firm's chief executive explains a large and growing share of the differences in performance between firms. Quigley and Hambrick (2015) advanced it most directly: partitioning the variance in performance across 60 years and more than 18,000 firm-years, they reported that the portion attributable to individual CEOs rose substantially over the decades, and they proposed that Americans came to see CEOs as more important because CEOs actually became more important.
The Evidence Beneath It
The evidence is a particular design: variance decomposition of archival performance data. The method assigns each slice of variation to a level, such as year, industry, firm and CEO tenure, and reports the CEO slice as the CEO effect. It does not observe what any executive did. Mackey (2008) used the same design and argued that earlier versions had understated the CEO slice, finding it in some settings larger than the industry and firm slices.
My Objection, Kept to One Joint
My objection is not that leaders do not matter. It is narrower: the CEO slice in a variance decomposition captures anything that varies with a CEO's tenure, including luck. Fitza (2014) showed that random variation in performance, distributed across tenures, would produce a sizable apparent CEO effect even if CEOs had no influence at all. If that is right, part of the reported rise could reflect more volatile performance rather than more influential executives.
What Would Change My Mind
I will concede the target if a design that separates the executive from chance shows large effects, for example a study using events that remove a CEO from work for reasons unrelated to firm performance. If such a study finds performance moving when the CEO is absent, and not when other senior executives are absent, the claim stands on firmer ground than variance shares.
Why This Target Matters
The CEO effect is not an academic curiosity. Boards cite the importance of the chief executive when they justify pay packages, succession searches and the attention given to a single person in a company's public story. If the variance evidence overstates how much the person at the top determines results, those decisions rest on an inflated premise. Contesting the claim at its evidential joint, rather than dismissing leadership altogether, keeps the argument useful to the people who make those decisions, and it gives me a target I can test across the term rather than a position I can only assert.
Reply to Dana
Your post contests the idea that charismatic leaders improve team morale, but I could not tell whose claim that is. Which author makes it, and in which study or book? Your objection about self-reported morale may fit one study and not another.
Reply to Marcus
You argue that servant leadership is oversold. Is there a meta-analysis you have in mind as the target? Knowing its design would tell us whether your concern about cross-sectional surveys applies.
References
Fitza, M. A. (2014). The use of variance decomposition in the investigation of CEO effects: How large must the CEO effect be to rule out chance? Strategic Management Journal, 35(12), 1839-1852. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2192
Mackey, A. (2008). The effect of CEOs on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(12), 1357-1367. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.708
Quigley, T. J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2015). Has the "CEO effect" increased in recent decades? A new explanation for the great rise in America's attention to corporate leaders. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6), 821-830. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2258
What the MGMT 8405M Week 1 instructions ask for
The first discussion asks you to choose one conventional claim about leadership that you intend to challenge during the term. A general complaint about leadership theory will not do; the prompt wants a specific claim, attributed to an author or study that actually made it. Expect to describe the kind of evidence supporting the claim, by research design, because the design determines which objections are fair. State your objection briefly and tie it to that evidence. Close by stating what finding would persuade you that the claim is correct. Sections generally want the main post somewhere near four hundred words, with two replies pressing classmates on the sources behind their targets.
How the MGMT 8405M Week 1 example is put together
The post's first section states the CEO-effect claim and its source in two sentences, with the six-decade, 18,000-firm-year scope of the original study. A second section explains the design: variance decomposition that assigns slices of performance variation to year, industry, firm and CEO tenure, and notes Mackey's argument that earlier versions understated the CEO slice. The objection section narrows the challenge to one point, that the CEO slice captures anything aligned with a tenure, luck included. The mind-changer section names the kind of study that would make the writer concede: events removing a CEO for reasons unrelated to performance. Two replies follow, each asking a classmate which published work holds the view being contested and what its design was.
Where the marks sit in the MGMT 8405M Week 1 rubric
Most of the credit in this opening post goes to specificity. A post contesting leadership in general, or a claim no named author made, cannot be checked and usually scores in the middle. Instructors look for a claim attributed accurately, a correct description of the evidence by design and an objection matched to that design rather than to the idea. The stated mind-changer is often the deciding element: it shows the writer is testing a claim, not defending a conclusion. Replies gain credit by steering a classmate toward a named source or a question about design. Accurate APA citations for the target and the objection complete the MGMT 8405M Week 1 grade.
MGMT 8405M Week 1 help: mistakes that cost marks
Posts that start from a feeling about leadership tend to drift. Begin with a sentence you could find in a published article, and cite where it appears. Then read the method section to see what kind of evidence the claim rests on. Pick one weakness in that evidence and state it plainly; you do not need to refute the whole claim this week. Write down what result would make you change your mind before you write the objection, so the objection stays honest. In replies, ask for the author and design behind a classmate's target. If you cannot decide which claim to contest for the term, a tutor can talk through options with you, and the CEO effect post above is one complete model.
Get a MGMT 8405M Week 1 example written to your instructions
Paste the Week 1 thread prompt and the discussion rubric into a request, and the post with both replies arrives in 24 to 48 hours, first one free. The orthodoxy under attack is your call; name it, or take a sample built on a common target and replace it with yours before posting.
More MGMT 8405M papers and PhD in Management samples
- MGMT 8405M Week 2: Trait Critique
- MGMT 8405M Week 3: Steelman Exercise
- MGMT 8405M Week 4: Counter-Evidence Brief
- MGMT 8405M Week 5: Followership Analysis
- MGMT 8405M Week 6: Influence Memo
- MGMT 8405M Week 7: Power Reading
- MGMT 8405M Week 8: Critical Reading
- MGMT 8405M Week 9: Critique Paper
- MGMT 8405M Week 10: Alternative Account
- MGMT 8405M Week 11: Bounded Claim Paper
- MGMT 8415M Week 1: Opening Post
- MGMT 8009M Week 1: Process Critique
- MGMT 8003M Week 1: Readiness Self-Assessment
MGMT 8405M Week 1 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MGMT 8405M Week 1 sample paper?
The CEO effect position post above, with both replies, is the full Week 1 sample and costs nothing to read.
What claim does the MGMT 8405M Week 1 sample contest?
That differences between chief executives explain a large and growing share of differences in firm performance, as Quigley and Hambrick argued.
Why name the evidence by design in the Week 1 post?
The design decides which objections are fair; variance decomposition invites different criticisms than an experiment would.
What would change the sample writer's mind?
A study using events that remove a CEO for reasons unrelated to performance and finding that results move.
How long is the MGMT 8405M Week 1 post?
Around 350 to 500 words, plus two replies asking classmates for the sources behind their targets.