| Course | MLDR 6905 Capstone: A Case for Leaders as Change Agents |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 3 |
| Paper type | Literature section |
| Length | About 1,060 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Leadership |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MLDR 6905 Week 3
Sources Called as Witnesses: A Literature Section Organized by the Three Questions a Shared-Services Position Must Answer, From Whether the Model Is Sound to Who Can Lead It From the Middle and How It Should Begin
Student Name
Walden University
MLDR 6905: Capstone: A Case for Leaders as Change Agents
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Sources Called as Witnesses: A Literature Section Organized by the Three Questions a Shared-Services Position Must Answer, From Whether the Model Is Sound to Who Can Lead It From the Middle and How It Should Begin
How This Section Is Organized
This section does not survey the field of organizational change. It asks three questions that the position on consolidating Cedar Hollow's continuing education services must answer and calls each source for what it can say about one of them. The questions are whether the shared-services model is sound for this kind of work, who can lead a change like this from a position without formal authority, and how such a change should begin. Where a source's evidence comes from a setting unlike a community college, the section says so.
Is the Shared-Services Model Sound?
The case's main support comes from writing on shared services. Ulrich (1997) distinguished shared services from centralization. A centralized function serves the organization's center and tends to set its own priorities; a shared-services unit treats the operating units it serves as internal customers, sets service levels with them and earns its place by serving them at scale. This distinction matters for Cedar Hollow, because the earlier attempt was a centralization: registration moved to the Main campus, with Main campus staff deciding how it would work. A shared-services unit would instead agree service standards with all four campus directors.
Research on shared services in the public sector offers more cautious support. Janssen and Joha (2006) studied the creation of a shared service center in Dutch public administration and found that the motives went beyond cost reduction to include quality, expertise and political considerations, and that several expected benefits did not materialize, at least at first. A review of two decades of research on shared service centers concluded that most studies focused on the private sector and on finance and HR back offices, and that evidence on outcomes was mixed and often drawn from case studies (Richter & Brühl, 2017).
Two limits follow for the position. First, nearly all of this writing concerns corporate or government back offices, not colleges, and not services that learners use directly. Registration is a front-office service for continuing education learners, which makes the walk-in concern raised by the Linden director more serious than the literature would suggest. Second, the evidence that shared services reduce costs is weaker than the evidence that they standardize processes. The position's second ground, inconsistent billing, therefore rests on firmer ground than its third, staff time saved.
Who Can Lead From the Middle?
The author of this capstone is a program manager with no authority over three of the four campuses. Two bodies of work address whether such a person can lead a change like this.
Battilana and Casciaro (2012) examined clinical managers leading change in England's public health system and showed that their place in informal networks shaped how much they could change. Agents whose ties spanned otherwise separate groups did better with changes that broke sharply from routine, while agents inside tight-knit groups did better with modest changes. Consolidation departs sharply from Cedar Hollow's practice, so this finding suggests the author's position in the network, not her title, will determine what she can do. In a later study, Battilana and Casciaro (2013) found that strong ties to potential resisters could help a change agent win support, through a process they called affective cooptation, but that the effect depended on the kind of change. This finding shapes how the stakeholder case is argued.
Meyerson and Scully (1995) described tempered radicals: people who identify with their organization and are committed to it, yet also hold values or goals at odds with its dominant culture, and who work for change from within. Meyerson (2001) later described the tactics such people use, from small acts of resistance to strategic alliances. The concept fits a program manager who is loyal to Cedar Hollow, wants to keep working there and is pushing a change that some colleagues see as a threat. It also names a risk the author faces: that pressing too hard will cost her the standing she needs, while pressing too softly will mean nothing changes.
The limit here is that both bodies of work describe how change agents operate, not whether their changes were right. The literature can tell the author how to lead from the middle; it cannot tell her whether consolidation is the right change to lead.
How Should the Change Begin?
Weick (1984) argued that large social problems can feel so overwhelming that people stop acting, and that breaking them into small wins, concrete and completed outcomes of moderate importance, makes progress possible and builds momentum. Each small win reveals new allies and new opportunities. For Cedar Hollow, this suggests beginning with changes that show the shared-services model working before moving registration itself, which was the step that failed six years ago.
Kotter (1996) laid out an eight-stage sequence whose early stages, building urgency and assembling a coalition to guide the effort, come before any vision is broadcast. The sequence has been widely used and widely criticized, but its emphasis on building a coalition before announcing a change matches what the network research suggests. Ford et al. (2008) argued that resistance is partly produced by how change agents behave, for example by breaking agreements or failing to explain, which places some responsibility for the earlier failure on how it was led.
The limit is that these sources describe sequences in general terms. Neither Weick nor Kotter says which small win comes first in a community college's continuing education division. That choice is made in the implementation plan, and the plan will need to justify it.
What the Literature Settles and What It Leaves Open
The literature settles three things for the position. Shared services differ from centralization, and the case should be built as the first rather than a repeat of the second. A change agent without formal authority depends on her place in informal networks and her ties to those likely to resist. And the change should begin with small, visible wins rather than a single large move. It leaves open whether consolidation will reduce costs in a college setting and how learners who rely on walk-in help will experience it. Those questions belong to the measurement plan, where the position can be tested on its own terms.
References
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
Battilana, J., & Casciaro, T. (2013). Overcoming resistance to organizational change: Strong ties and affective cooptation. Management Science, 59(4), 819-836. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1583
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
Janssen, M., & Joha, A. (2006). Motives for establishing shared service centers in public administrations. International Journal of Information Management, 26(2), 102-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2005.11.006
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press.
Meyerson, D. E. (2001). Tempered radicals: How people use difference to inspire change at work. Harvard Business School Press.
Meyerson, D. E., & Scully, M. A. (1995). Tempered radicalism and the politics of ambivalence and change. Organization Science, 6(5), 585-600. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.5.585
Richter, P. C., & Brühl, R. (2017). Shared service center research: A review of the past, present, and future. European Management Journal, 35(1), 26-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.08.004
Ulrich, D. (1997). Human resource champions: The next agenda for adding value and delivering results. Harvard Business School Press.
Weick, K. E. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist, 39(1), 40-49. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.1.40
MLDR 6905 Week 3 instructions, in plain terms
Week 3 asks you to write the literature section of your capstone. Organize it around the questions your position must answer, not around topics or authors. Under each question, say what a source adds and why your case needs it. State the limits of the evidence plainly, such as research drawn from different settings or mixed findings. Bring in work that cuts against your position alongside work that backs it. Close by summarizing what the literature settles for your position and what it leaves open, and say where in the capstone the open questions will be addressed, so the reader sees how the section connects to the rest of the case.
Inside the MLDR 6905 Week 3 example
The section opens by explaining its question-led structure. Under the first heading, Ulrich's distinction supports the position, and Janssen and Joha and Richter and Brühl temper it, with two limits stated. Under the second, Battilana and Casciaro's network findings and their later work on ties to resisters sit beside Meyerson and Scully and Meyerson on tempered radicals, with a note that these describe how to lead change, not whether a change is right. Under the third, Weick, Kotter and Ford and colleagues address how to begin, with a note that none chooses the first step. A closing section summarizes what is settled and open. Each heading is phrased as a question, so a reader can see at once which part of the position a source supports.
MLDR 6905 Week 3 rubric: what earns full marks
Literature sections are assessed on how directly sources serve the argument. Organization by question, rather than by author, is weighted heavily because it shows purpose. Explaining what each source settles for the case, not merely what it says, demonstrates synthesis. Stating limits, such as evidence from different sectors, shows critical reading. Including sources that complicate the position shows fairness. A closing summary of what is settled and what remains open links the section to the rest of the capstone. Sections that summarize sources one after another, cite only supportive work or overstate how far research from other settings applies tend to receive lower marks. Faculty also check that every source is used for a reason the position needs.
MLDR 6905 Week 3 help from the desk
List the three or four questions a skeptical reader would ask about your position, and make each one a heading. Under each, place only the sources that help answer it, and write one sentence on what each settles before you summarize it. For every source, ask where its evidence comes from and how far that setting is from yours, and say so in the text. Students often write a literature review that could sit in front of any capstone on the topic, which tells the reader nothing about their case. Another common gap is leaving out research that cuts against the position. If you are unsure whether a source belongs, our writers can help you decide which question it answers.
Get a MLDR 6905 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Include the literature section prompt, its rubric and your position statement, since each source has to answer to that sentence. Headings phrased as the questions your position must settle, sources credited with their central ideas, and a stated reason for any model set aside arrive within 24 to 48 hours; your first is free. The college the sources are applied to is fictional.
More MLDR 6905 papers and MS in Leadership samples
- MLDR 6905 Week 1: Capstone Topic Proposal
- MLDR 6905 Week 2: Capstone Position Statement
- MLDR 6905 Week 4: Organizational Context Analysis
- MLDR 6905 Week 5: Stakeholder Case
- MLDR 6905 Week 6: Ninety-Day Implementation Plan
- MLDR 6905 Week 7: Change Measurement Plan
- MLDR 6905 Week 8: Capstone Progress Post
- MLDR 6905 Week 9: Program Integration Pass
- MLDR 6905 Week 10: Capstone Coherence Edit
- MLDR 6905 Week 11: Leadership Change Capstone
- MLDR 6010 Week 3: Lead Technician Selection Case
- MLDR 6175 Week 3: Positions and Interests Analysis
MLDR 6905 Week 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MLDR 6905 Week 3 sample paper?
The literature section is shown in full below and can be read free.
How is the MLDR 6905 Week 3 section organized?
Under three questions the position must answer, rather than by topic or author.
What is the main support for shared services?
Ulrich's distinction between shared services, which serve units as internal customers, and centralization.
What limits does the section admit?
Most shared services research concerns corporate and government back offices, and cost evidence is weaker than evidence of standardization.
Which sources address leading from the middle?
Battilana and Casciaro on network position and Meyerson on tempered radicals.