| Course | MLDR 6010 Managing People and Promoting |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 5 |
| Paper type | Feedback conversation |
| Length | About 940 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Leadership |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MLDR 6010 Week 5
The Conversation After the Decision: A Feedback Script for the Technician Who Missed the Lead Role, Built on Situation, Behavior and Impact, With Her Likely Replies Written In and a Rationale for Each Choice
Student Name
Walden University
MLDR 6010: Managing People and Promoting
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
The Conversation After the Decision: A Feedback Script for the Technician Who Missed the Lead Role, Built on Situation, Behavior and Impact, With Her Likely Replies Written In and a Rationale for Each Choice
Setting
The conversation happens in my office at the clinic on the morning after the lead technician panel's decision, before the appointment is announced to the floor. It is scheduled for thirty minutes. Kelsey, a senior technician of nine years and the floor's favorite for the role, knows the decision has been made but not its outcome. The feedback follows the situation, behavior and impact model associated with the Center for Creative Leadership (Weitzel, 2000), and every item is drawn from the work-sample exercise, which both of us observed.
Script
Manager: Thank you for coming in early. I'll start with the decision: the panel chose Andrea for lead. The main reason was how each candidate handled the board during the exercise, and I'd like to walk you through what we saw.
Kelsey: So nine years doesn't count for anything.
Manager: Your nine years count for a great deal in the job you do now, and your appraisal will say so. For this role, we judged everyone on four things we wrote down before anyone applied. I'll be specific about the two that decided it.
Manager: The first is from the opening of the exercise. When the double booking for suite one came up at 8:00, you scrubbed in on the second procedure yourself. That solved the suite conflict, but for about twenty minutes nobody was at the board, and in the exercise two procedures started late and the kennel assistant waited without instructions.
Kelsey: That's not what happened. The dental was going to start late anyway because the patient wasn't prepped.
Manager: You may be right that the dental patient wasn't ready; the board showed it as prepped, and you would have known more from the floor. What all three of us saw, though, was the board unattended between 8:05 and 8:25, and that's the part the lead role can't do without. I'm not asking you to agree that every minute was your doing.
Manager: The second is about the kennel assistant. When she asked what to do, you told her to help wherever she could, and she ended up in recovery, where she hasn't been trained. The impact in a real morning would be a patient monitored by someone not cleared to do it.
Kelsey: (silent)
Manager: I can see this is hard to hear. Take a moment. I'm not in a hurry.
Kelsey: I just don't see how someone with less experience gets it.
Manager: That's a fair question. Andrea has less clinical experience than you, and nobody on the panel would say otherwise. The lead role is mostly running the board and assigning people, and on those parts she was stronger in the exercise. Your clinical work is the best on our floor, and I want you to hear that as clearly as the rest.
Manager: I'd like to propose a next step. There will be lead openings in the chain within the next year or two. If you're interested, I'd like us to write a development plan together, with commitments from me as well as from you, aimed at the two things the exercise showed. Can we meet next week to start it?
Kelsey: I'll think about it.
Manager: That's fine. I'll hold Thursday at 2:00, and you can tell me then whether you want to use it.
Rationale
The decision comes in the first two sentences. Ilgen et al. (1979) found that feedback is better received when its source is seen as credible and its message is clear; withholding the outcome while delivering feedback would turn every sentence into a clue for Kelsey to decode and would undermine both.
Two feedback items are used, both from the exercise. I chose the exercise over Kelsey's broader record because both of us observed it and the panel's notes document it; feedback drawn from things only I had seen would be easier to dispute and harder to act on. Each item was drafted as situation, behavior and impact and then checked for adjectives. An early draft said Kelsey "lost control of the board," which names a judgment; the final version says the board was unattended for twenty minutes, which names an event.
Kelsey's replies were written before my responses. I expected two kinds of resistance and prepared for both. The first is a disputed account, the claim about the dental patient. The script accepts the part I cannot know and holds to the part all three panelists saw. Stone and Heen (2014) describe how people receiving feedback often reject it because they believe it is wrong in some detail, and that conceding a true detail can make the rest easier to hear. The second is silence. The script waits and says so, rather than filling the silence with reassurance that would dilute the message.
Several things were deliberately left unsaid. The script does not compare Kelsey with Andrea point by point beyond the two criteria; it does not mention that the Dublin lead initially rated her weak on scheduling, since that would invite a debate about one panelist; and it does not describe the floor's support for her, which is real but was not a criterion. It also does not promise her the next opening, which I cannot guarantee.
What Comes Next
The conversation ends with an offer and a date, not a demand. If Kelsey accepts, the development plan will be drafted in the following weeks, with the clinic's commitments written beside hers.
References
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349-371. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.64.4.349
Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well. Viking.
Weitzel, S. R. (2000). Feedback that works: How to build and deliver your message. Center for Creative Leadership.
Reading the MLDR 6010 Week 5 instructions
Week 5 asks you to script a feedback conversation that follows a difficult decision. Write it as dialogue, with the other person's likely replies included, from the opening line to an agreed next step. State the decision at the start. Choose feedback items both people observed, and build each as situation, behavior and impact, replacing adjectives with actions. Write at least one reply that disputes your account and one that shows withdrawal, and show how you respond. Follow the script with a rationale explaining why you ordered it as you did, what you chose not to say and where you expected resistance, using research on feedback to support your choices.
How this MLDR 6010 Week 5 example is built
One opening paragraph fixes the setting: the morning after the decision, thirty minutes, before the announcement. The script follows with speaker labels. The manager states the decision, answers a remark about nine years, delivers two situation, behavior and impact items about the unmanaged board and the kennel assistant sent to recovery, concedes a disputed detail, waits through silence and offers a planning meeting. A rationale section explains the order, citing Ilgen and colleagues, the choice of exercise evidence, the adjective check, planned resistance, citing Stone and Heen, and four things left unsaid. A closing paragraph explains the offer. Each feedback item names a time, an action and its effect in the exercise both people watched.
MLDR 6010 Week 5 rubric: what earns full marks
Feedback scripts are evaluated on realism and precision. Stating the decision at once earns credit because it removes guesswork. Items drawn from shared observation and built as situation, behavior and impact are weighted heavily. Writing the other person's resistance into the script, and showing a response that concedes what is uncertain while holding to what is known, demonstrates skill. A rationale that explains omissions as well as content shows judgment. An agreed next step with a date gives the conversation somewhere to go. Scripts in which the employee simply agrees, or feedback that relies on traits such as "lacks leadership," tend to receive lower marks. Naming the omissions, with reasons, tends to show judgment more clearly than anything else in this assignment.
MLDR 6010 Week 5 help: mistakes that cost marks
Start by writing the decision in two sentences you could say aloud. Then pick no more than two pieces of feedback, each from an event you and the other person both saw. Write the situation, the behavior and the impact for each, then delete every adjective and replace it with what happened. Next, write the reply you most dread hearing, and write your answer to it. Writers often script a cooperative listener, which leaves them unprepared for the real conversation. Another common slip is opening with praise to soften the decision, which makes the listener wait for the blow. If you are not sure how to answer a disputed detail without giving up the main point, our writers can draft that exchange with you.
Get a MLDR 6010 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Share the Week 5 prompt, the rubric and a few lines on the situation, including what the employee is likely to say back, and a scripted conversation with its rationale returns inside 24 to 48 hours, the first at no cost. A different assigned feedback model changes the scaffolding but not the dialogue format, so mention it when one applies.
More MLDR 6010 papers and MS in Leadership samples
- MLDR 6010 Week 1: Popular vs Defensible Post
- MLDR 6010 Week 2: Lead Technician Role Analysis
- MLDR 6010 Week 3: Lead Technician Selection Case
- MLDR 6010 Week 4: Performance Appraisal Write-Up
- MLDR 6010 Week 6: Two-Sided Development Plan
- MLDR 6010 Week 7: Difficult Conduct Case Analysis
- MLDR 6010 Week 8: Handbook Policy Check
- MLDR 6010 Week 9: Peer Response on a Conduct Case
- MLDR 6010 Week 10: Organizational Justice Review
- MLDR 6010 Week 11: Final Management Paper
- MLDR 6175 Week 5: Negotiation Prep Plan
MLDR 6010 Week 5 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MLDR 6010 Week 5 sample paper?
The feedback script and its rationale are open to read in full below, free.
What model does the MLDR 6010 Week 5 script use?
Situation, behavior and impact, the feedback model associated with the Center for Creative Leadership.
Why does the decision come first?
Withholding it would turn every sentence into a clue the listener has to decode.
How does the manager handle the disputed account?
She concedes the detail she cannot verify and holds to what all three panelists saw.
What was deliberately left unsaid?
A point-by-point comparison with the winner, one panelist's first rating, the floor's support and any promise of the next opening.