| Course | MLDR 6010 Managing People and Promoting |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Peer response |
| Length | About 430 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion reply, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Leadership |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MLDR 6010 Week 9
Week 9 Discussion: Responses to Classmates on the Veterinarian Case
Opposite Verdicts From the Same Facts: Two Peer Replies That Restate Each Classmate's Rule, Name the Fact Weighted Differently and Test the Rule on an Altered Case
Reply to Jordan
Jordan, I read your decision as this rule: when exit comments name the same person twice, the matter goes straight into the formal conduct process. Please correct me if I have it wrong. We used the same facts and reached opposite verdicts, and I think the difference comes down to one fact we weighted differently: Dr. Haines has no earlier written warning. I treated that as a reason to start with a warning under the handbook's corrective steps; you treated it as irrelevant once two former employees had named him.
Here is a test of the rule. Suppose the two exit comments named Rosa, a kennel assistant hired four months ago, instead of a senior surgeon. Would you refer Rosa straight to a formal investigation on two exit comments and no warning? If you would, the rule is consistent and I understand your verdict better. If you would not, then seniority or revenue is doing work in your reasoning that the rule does not state. Leventhal (1980) counts consistency across persons among the rules people use to judge whether a procedure is fair.
My question: under your rule, what outcome could Dr. Haines himself accept as fair?
Reply to Simone
Simone, as I understand your post, your rule is: take no formal action on conduct unless the manager has verified a specific incident with the people involved. I think that is a defensible rule, and I tried to state it as you would. The fact we weighted differently is my own observation of two incidents. You set it aside because a single observer could be mistaken; I treated it as verified because I saw it.
To test your rule, imagine the same reports and resignations, but with the person named a technician who had shouted at a veterinarian twice in front of the practice manager. Would your rule still lead to no action? Badaracco (1997) writes that choices between two right options reveal what a manager actually values, and this altered case seems to me a good way to find out whether the rule protects people in senior roles more than others. Colquitt (2001) found that people judge fairness by procedure and treatment, not only by outcome, so I would also ask how the three technicians who left would describe the procedure under your rule.
My question for you: what outcome under your rule could the technicians who stayed accept as fair?
References
Badaracco, J. L. (1997). Defining moments: When managers must choose between right and right. Harvard Business School Press.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). Plenum Press.
The Walden MLDR 6010 Week 9 instructions
Week 9 pairs you with classmates whose verdicts on the shared case differ from yours, and asks you to answer them. Restate each classmate's reasoning as a rule they would agree with, and invite correction if you have it wrong. Identify the fact you both used but weighted differently, since opposite verdicts from the same facts usually trace to one such fact. Test the rule by changing one feature of the case, such as the seniority of the person involved, and ask whether the classmate would reach the same verdict. Close with a question about what outcome an affected person could accept as fair under that rule, and cite research only where a claim reaches beyond the case. Keep each reply to roughly one hundred fifty words.
How the MLDR 6010 Week 9 example is put together
The first reply restates Jordan's rule, act formally when two exit comments name the same person, identifies the absence of a prior warning as the differently weighted fact and tests the rule on a newly hired kennel assistant, citing Leventhal on consistency. It asks what outcome the veterinarian could accept. The second reply restates Simone's rule, act only on verified incidents, identifies the manager's own observations as the contested fact and tests the rule on a technician who shouted at a veterinarian, citing Badaracco and Colquitt. It asks what the technicians who stayed could accept. Neither reply restates the author's own verdict, and each stays near one hundred fifty words to suit a busy thread.
Where the marks sit in the MLDR 6010 Week 9 rubric
Peer replies earn credit for engaging the classmate's reasoning rather than defending the writer's own. A rule stated fairly enough that the classmate would sign it is weighted heavily. Identifying the single fact weighted differently moves the discussion from who is right to why readings diverge. An altered case that changes one feature tests whether a rule is principled. A closing question centered on an affected person keeps the thread practical. Concision matters in this format. Replies that restate the writer's own verdict, attack a distorted version of the classmate's position or cite sources without need tend to score lower. Ending on a question about the people affected, rather than about the theory, also keeps the exchange useful to the classmate.
MLDR 6010 Week 9 help from the desk
Read your classmate's post and write their decision as a one-sentence rule, then ask whether they would agree with that wording; revise until they would. Compare the facts you both used and find the one you treated as important and they did not, or the reverse. Then change one thing about the case, usually who the person is, and ask whether the rule still gives the same answer. That variation is the most useful sentence in the reply. Many replies spend their words explaining why the writer was right, which invites a defensive answer. Keep each reply short and end with one question. If your classmate's reasoning is hard to pin down, our writers can help you phrase their rule fairly.
Get a MLDR 6010 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Paste in the two classmate posts, the Week 9 discussion prompt and the reply rubric, and a pair of replies built on those posts returns inside 24 to 48 hours, free for a first request. Posts that disagree with each other as well as with the original make richer material, so including the whole thread helps.
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 5: Feedback Conversation Script
- 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 10: Organizational Justice Review
- MLDR 6010 Week 11: Final Management Paper
- MLDR 6175 Week 9: Working Agreement Draft
MLDR 6010 Week 9 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MLDR 6010 Week 9 sample paper?
Both peer replies appear below in full and cost nothing to read.
What does each MLDR 6010 Week 9 reply do first?
It restates the classmate's decision as a rule the classmate would accept.
What fact did the first reply find weighted differently?
The veterinarian's lack of any earlier written warning.
How is each rule tested?
By changing one feature of the case, such as the seniority of the person named.
How does each reply end?
With a question about what outcome an affected person could accept as fair under the classmate's rule.