| Course | MLDR 6905 Capstone: A Case for Leaders as Change Agents |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Integration pass |
| Length | About 810 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Leadership |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MLDR 6905 Week 9
Which Earlier Courses Still Carry the Case? An Integration Pass Testing Each Borrowed Contribution by Removal and Sorting It as Load-Bearing, Supporting or Ornamental
Student Name
Walden University
MLDR 6905: Capstone: A Case for Leaders as Change Agents
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Which Earlier Courses Still Carry the Case? An Integration Pass Testing Each Borrowed Contribution by Removal and Sorting It as Load-Bearing, Supporting or Ornamental
The Test
A capstone can cite every course in a program and depend on only a few. This pass checks which earlier courses the Cedar Hollow case actually needs. For each course the case borrows from, identified here by subject, it asks one question: what would the position lose if this contribution were removed? The answer falls into one of three verdicts. A contribution is load-bearing if one of the position's three grounds, or its response to the rival view, would fail without it. It is supporting if it strengthens a ground or a section but the argument would still stand. It is ornamental if removing it changes nothing the reader needs. Booth et al. (2016) describe a research argument as a set of claims, reasons and evidence; the pass asks which earlier courses supply reasons and evidence, and which supply decoration.
The Pass
Table 1
Contributions From Earlier Courses, Tested by Removal
| Course, by subject | What the case borrows | Where it appears | Loss if removed | Verdict | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Finance | Cost-per-registration comparison across the four offices | Position, second and third grounds; stakeholder case | The staff-time ground has no figure behind it | Load-bearing | |
| Organizational change | Network lens and research on failed change | Literature, context, implementation plan | The order of conversations has no rationale | Load-bearing | |
| Research methods | Paired measures and preset thresholds | Measurement plan | Falsifiers lose their discipline | Load-bearing | |
| Ethics | Fairness argument about rural learners' access | Stakeholder case, second falsifier | The Linden commitment loses its principle | Supporting | |
| Communication | Ordering the stakeholder case from loss to invitation | Stakeholder case | The case reads less persuasively but still argues | Supporting | |
| Team leadership: working group design | Structure of the calendar working group | Implementation plan, first small win | The group could be described without it | Supporting | |
| Team leadership: personality-type exercise | Personality types assigned to the four directors | Two paragraphs in the context section | Nothing the argument uses | Ornamental | |
Composite case. Courses are identified by subject only.
The Load-Bearing Contributions
Three contributions are load-bearing. The finance course supplied the method for comparing the cost of processing a registration across the four offices. Without it, the third ground, that duplicated processing takes time from employer outreach, would be an assertion, and the stakeholder case's offer of about 200 hours to the Linden director would have no basis. The finance comparison is also where the case is weakest, since its figures are estimates, which is why Week 7 treats staff time as a watch measure rather than a threshold.
The organizational change course supplied the network lens of Battilana and Casciaro (2012) and the research on why earlier changes failed. Without it, the implementation plan's choice to speak with the registration specialist first and the Linden director second would look arbitrary. With it, the order follows from who staff turn to when registration breaks.
The research methods course supplied the habit of pairing measures and fixing thresholds before collecting data. Without it, the falsifiers in the position statement would be promises with no instrument to test them.
Supporting Contributions
The ethics course's argument about fair access for rural learners strengthens the Linden commitment and the second falsifier, but the commitment could be justified on enrollment grounds alone. The communication course shaped the order of the stakeholder case, opening with the director's loss before any benefit; the case would still argue without that order, though less persuasively. The team leadership course's guidance on designing working groups shaped the calendar group, with one member per campus and a chair from outside management, but the plan could describe the group without citing it.
What Was Cut
One contribution was ornamental. The context section had two paragraphs assigning each campus director a personality type from an exercise in the team leadership course and suggesting how each type might respond to change. Removing them took nothing from the argument. Worse, they described people's characters rather than their positions and interests, which sits uneasily with the stakeholder case's respect for the Linden director. Oreg et al. (2011) found that reactions to change depend heavily on how the change is introduced, not only on recipients' dispositions, which suggests the paragraphs pointed the analysis in the wrong direction. Both were cut.
What the Pass Changed
The pass removed two paragraphs, strengthened one weak point by noting in the position statement that the staff-time figures are estimates pending the finance comparison and confirmed that three courses carry the case. The capstone's reference to the program as a whole will now name those three and describe the others as support. Kotter (1996) observed that change efforts often fail by declaring victory too early; a capstone can fail in a similar way, by citing everything it has learned instead of what it needs.
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
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & FitzGerald, W. T. (2016). The craft of research (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press.
Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients' reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461-524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310396550
MLDR 6905 Week 9 instructions, in plain terms
Week 9 asks you to test how your capstone integrates the program. List each earlier course your case draws on and what it borrows. For each, ask what the position would lose if that contribution were removed, and give a verdict: load-bearing, supporting or ornamental. Explain your load-bearing verdicts in detail, since those are the parts your case cannot lose. Describe the supporting contributions briefly. Cut anything ornamental, and explain why it did not belong. Finish by recording what the pass changed in the capstone, including any weak point it exposed, and how the final paper will describe the program's contribution in light of the results.
How this MLDR 6905 Week 9 example is built
The pass opens by stating the removal test and the three verdicts, citing Booth and colleagues. A table lists seven contributions with what each lends, where it appears, what removing it would cost and a verdict. A section explains the three load-bearing contributions, noting that the finance figures are estimates, citing Battilana and Casciaro for the network lens. A section explains the three supporting contributions. A section describes cutting the personality-type paragraphs, citing Oreg and colleagues on why dispositions explain less than how change is introduced. A closing section records the changes, citing Kotter. Courses are identified by subject only, so the pass reads clearly to anyone outside the program. The table's fourth column carries the argument, since it states what the position would lose.
Reading the MLDR 6905 Week 9 rubric
Integration passes are judged on whether the test is applied honestly. A clear removal test and fixed verdicts earn credit. A table that shows what each contribution supplies and where is weighted heavily. Detailed reasoning for load-bearing verdicts shows the writer understands what holds the case up. Cutting ornamental material, with an explanation, demonstrates editorial discipline. Recording what the pass changed, including weaknesses exposed, shows the pass did real work. Passes that rate every course load-bearing, list courses without testing them or keep material that adds nothing usually score lower, because they treat integration as a checklist rather than an argument. Explaining why a cut item did not belong, not only that it was cut, shows judgment. A note on what the pass changed in the final paper is also expected.
Common MLDR 6905 Week 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Make a list of every place your capstone draws on an earlier course, then imagine deleting each one in turn and rereading the argument. If a ground collapses, the contribution is load-bearing; if a section weakens but stands, it is supporting; if nothing changes, it is ornamental. Be ready to cut the ornamental items, even ones you worked hard on. Students often keep material from a favorite course because it shows effort, not because the case needs it. Another common slip is calling everything essential. Write a sentence on what each load-bearing contribution supplies. If you find it hard to judge your own work, our writers can apply the removal test with you.
Get a MLDR 6905 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Provide the integration pass instructions and rubric with your current draft, listing the earlier courses it borrows from. A table testing each course by removal, verdicts of load-bearing, supporting or ornamental, recorded cuts and any gap the argument needs filled are delivered within 24 to 48 hours; the first costs nothing. Courses are named by subject, and the college they serve 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 3: Question-Led Literature Section
- 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 10: Capstone Coherence Edit
- MLDR 6905 Week 11: Leadership Change Capstone
- MLDR 6010 Week 9: Peer Response on a Conduct Case
- MLDR 6175 Week 9: Working Agreement Draft
MLDR 6905 Week 9 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MLDR 6905 Week 9 sample paper?
The integration pass, with its seven-row table, appears below and is free to read.
What test does the MLDR 6905 Week 9 pass use?
Removal: what the position would lose if each contribution were taken out.
Which courses are load-bearing?
Finance, organizational change and research methods.
What was cut?
Two paragraphs assigning personality types to campus directors, judged ornamental.
Why was the personality material cut?
It added nothing to the argument and described people's characters rather than their positions and interests.