MGMT 8405M Week 3 Steelman Exercise Example

Course	MGMT 8405M Challenging Conventional Leadership and Influence
Week	Week 3
Paper type	Steelman exercise
Length	About 850 words, 6 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	PhD in Management
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for MGMT 8405M Week 3

The Case for the CEO Effect, Written by a Skeptic: A Steelman of the Claim That Chief Executives Shape Firm Performance, Its Mechanism, Its Best Evidence and the Replies Its Authors Give to the Usual Attacks

Student Name

Walden University

MGMT 8405M: Challenging Conventional Leadership and Influence

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title signals that the paper argues for a claim its writer intends to contest later, which is the exercise's discipline.

The Proposition in the Theory's Terms

Supporters of the CEO effect hold that chief executives differ in ways that matter for what their firms do and achieve, and that these differences show up as systematic variation in firm performance associated with who holds the top job. The proposition is not that CEOs control outcomes; it is that, among the many forces acting on a firm, the person at the top is one whose influence is large enough to measure. Quigley and Hambrick (2015) added a historical claim: that this influence has grown in American firms over the past half century, so that rising public attention to CEOs reflects a real change rather than a fashion.

What this page is doingThe proposition is stated in the vocabulary its supporters use, so they could sign it without edits.

The Mechanism Supporters Propose

The mechanism runs through choices. Chief executives decide, or decisively shape, a firm's strategy, its major investments and acquisitions, its top team and the allocation of capital among units. Those choices differ across executives facing similar conditions, because executives bring different experience, beliefs and preferences to them. Over a tenure of several years, the accumulated differences in choice produce differences in results. Upper echelons research, of which these authors are a central part, treats the executive as a lens through which the firm's situation is interpreted and acted on.

Best Evidence, Reported Fairly

Three kinds of evidence support the claim. The first is variance decomposition. Mackey (2008) reexamined earlier decompositions and argued that their methods had understated the CEO component; correcting for those problems, she found that at the corporate-parent level the CEO effect was substantially larger than the industry and firm effects. Quigley and Hambrick, drawing on six decades of data covering upward of 18,000 firm-years, found that the share of performance variance attributable to individual CEOs increased substantially across the decades studied.

The second kind of evidence comes from designs that come closer to causal inference. Bennedsen et al. (2020) used hospitalization events as a source of variation in a firm's exposure to its CEO. When CEOs were hospitalized, profitability and investment fell; when other senior executives were hospitalized, there was no comparable effect. The effects were larger for younger CEOs, growing firms, family-controlled firms and industries that depend on human capital. For supporters, this is the strongest evidence, because hospitalization is unlikely to be caused by the firm's performance.

The third kind is the pattern of conditions. If CEOs matter through their choices, their effect should be larger where they have more room to choose. Supporters point to evidence that CEO effects differ across national systems that grant executives more or less latitude, larger in the United States than in Germany or Japan, where national values, ownership patterns and board arrangements constrain executives more (Crossland & Hambrick, 2007), which is what the mechanism predicts.

Replies the Proponents Would Give

The first common attack is the constraint argument associated with Lieberson and O'Connor (1972), whose study of 167 large corporations over twenty years found that industry and company factors accounted for far more variance in sales and earnings than leadership changes did. Supporters reply in three parts. Lieberson and O'Connor themselves found the leadership effect larger for profit margins once lags were considered. Their method counted only successions and so blended the effects of good and bad leaders. And later decompositions with better methods found larger CEO components, which suggests the early estimate was low.

The second common attack is that attention to leaders is a romance, a habit of crediting outcomes to the person at the top because that is a satisfying story. Supporters agree that attributions can run ahead of evidence. Their reply is that the romance argument explains why people believe CEOs matter but does not show that they do not, and that Quigley and Hambrick's contribution was to test whether the belief tracked reality. The hospitalization evidence, which does not depend on anyone's attributions, adds a separate answer.

What this page is doingEach objection is answered as supporters answer it, not as a critic would like them to.

The Fidelity Test

I reread each paragraph and asked whether Quigley, Hambrick or Mackey would object to any sentence. The likely sticking point is the description of the mechanism, which emphasizes choice; supporters might add that executives also matter through the people they appoint and the norms they set. I added appointments to the list of choices above for that reason. The account uses no evidence its authors would disown and omits none of their main findings that I know of.

Where the Later Critique Will Press

My critique later this term will press on one place only: whether the variance shares that anchor the historical claim separate executive influence from chance, a concern raised by Fitza (2014). I note it here and argue nothing about it yet.

Why Write the Steelman First

Writing the strongest case first changes what the later critique can say. The hospitalization evidence, in particular, means the critique cannot claim that CEOs have no measurable effect. It can only question how large the effect is and whether it has grown.

References

Bennedsen, M., Pérez-González, F., & Wolfenzon, D. (2020). Do CEOs matter? Evidence from hospitalization events. Journal of Finance, 75(4), 1877-1911. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12897

Crossland, C., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). How national systems differ in their constraints on corporate executives: A study of CEO effects in three countries. Strategic Management Journal, 28(8), 767-789. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.610

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

Lieberson, S., & O'Connor, J. F. (1972). Leadership and organizational performance: A study of large corporations. American Sociological Review, 37(2), 117-130. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094020

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 3 instructions ask for

In Week 3 you write the strongest version of a leadership claim you disagree with. Expect to state the claim in the vocabulary its authors use, explain the mechanism they propose, report their best evidence accurately and answer the most common objections the way supporters would answer them. Instructors usually ask for a short test of fidelity: would the claim's authors accept every sentence? Criticism is almost entirely withheld; at most, the final paragraph names where your later critique will press, without arguing it. The paper typically runs three to five pages. Using the same claim you named in Week 1 keeps your term's work connected and makes the later critique fairer.

How the MGMT 8405M Week 3 example is put together

The sample's first section states the CEO-effect proposition and its historical extension. A mechanism section explains how executives' choices about strategy, investment, acquisitions and appointments could cumulate into performance differences. The evidence section reports decomposition studies, then the hospitalization design, then the cross-national pattern in which effects are larger where executives face fewer institutional constraints. A replies section answers Lieberson and O'Connor's constraint finding and the romance-of-leadership objection in supporters' own terms. A fidelity test explains one revision made after rereading. The final sections name the single point the later critique will press and explain why writing the steelman first changes what that critique can claim. Margin notes mark where the writer's own view was set aside.

MGMT 8405M Week 3 rubric: what earns full marks

Fidelity carries the grade in a steelman. Graders read the paper asking whether the claim's own authors would sign it, and any caricature, selective reporting or hidden criticism loses marks. Credit concentrates in the evidence section, which should include the strongest supporting study even if it is inconvenient for the writer's later position, and in the replies section, which must answer objections as supporters do. A visible fidelity check, with any revisions it prompted, shows care. The reserved objection should be named briefly and not argued. Clear organization and accurate APA citations for every study described round out the MGMT 8405M Week 3 assessment. Steelmans that leave out the most inconvenient study are usually caught.

Common MGMT 8405M Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Steelmans usually fail by leaking the critique into the summary. Read the main supporting studies yourself and note their strongest findings in their own terms. Write the mechanism as a supporter would explain it to a skeptical audience. When you answer objections, look for replies the authors have actually published rather than inventing weaker ones. Afterward, reread each paragraph as if you were the claim's author and fix anything you would object to. Save your criticism for one sentence at the end. If you find it hard to argue for a claim you doubt, a tutor can play the supporter with you, and the CEO effect steelman above shows how the full paper reads.

Get a MGMT 8405M Week 3 example written to your instructions

Tell the desk which claim your section assigns for the steelman, or which one you plan to contest by Week 9, and attach the prompt with its rubric. Expect the draft in 24 to 48 hours, first one free. Theorists are represented only by what their published work supports, never by a convenient paraphrase.

More MGMT 8405M papers and PhD in Management samples

MGMT 8405M Week 3 questions, answered

Where can I find a free MGMT 8405M Week 3 sample paper?

The CEO effect steelman shown above is the complete Week 3 sample, open with margin notes.

What is a steelman exercise in MGMT 8405M?

Restating a claim you disagree with so faithfully, with its best evidence and replies, that its own authors would accept it.

Which evidence does the Week 3 sample treat as strongest?

The hospitalization study by Bennedsen and colleagues, which found profitability and investment fell when CEOs were absent.

How do supporters answer the romance of leadership objection?

They say it explains why people believe CEOs matter but does not show that they do not, and they point to causal evidence.

Does the Week 3 steelman include any criticism?

Only one sentence at the end, naming chance in variance shares as the point the later critique will press.