Kelley's followership styles, mapped for three engineers at an imagined startup, become a promotion choice in Week 4 of WMBA 6000, and the quietest candidate is the one favored. Searches like "wmba 6000 week 4 assignment example", "wmba6000 week 4 sample" and "wmba 6000 week 4 example" land here.
What a finished WMBA 6000 Week 4 follower style map looks like
Four pages with a two-axis chart on the first. The chart plots Robert Kelley's dimensions, independent critical thinking on one axis and active engagement on the other, and places three engineers by initials only. A short concept section defines the five styles that result: exemplary, alienated, conformist, passive and pragmatist. Evidence follows for each engineer. The founders' favorite volunteers for everything and has never objected in a design review, a conformist pattern. The second raised a sharp architecture objection last year, was overruled, proved right, and has been withdrawn since, an alienated pattern with a known cause. The third writes the most challenged design documents on the team and covers on-call without being asked, but rarely speaks in meetings, which the founders had read as passivity. The decision section recommends the third.
How a WMBA 6000 Week 4 example is structured
The chart comes first because the map is the deliverable; everything after it justifies a position on the page. Kelley's model is defined briefly, with its central argument that followership is an active role and that the best followers think critically while staying engaged. Evidence for each engineer is drawn from records the founders already have, design review comments, on-call logs and written proposals, which keeps the placements from resting on impressions formed in meetings. The alienated engineer receives an explanation as well as a placement, since Kelley treats alienation as often produced by how a follower was treated. The decision section then links map to promotion, and it names what the founders should do about the alienated engineer separately. Risks close the map, among them the possibility that the quiet engineer's style fails in a role that requires speaking up.
Two axes, three initials
Independent critical thinking runs across, active engagement runs up, and three engineers appear by initials. The chart lets a founder see the argument in one glance before reading the evidence that places each point.
Agreement mistaken for fit
The founders' favorite volunteers constantly and has never pushed back in a design review. On Kelley's map that is engagement without critical thinking, a conformist pattern that promotion would reward and amplify.
An objection that was right
The second engineer's overruled warning about the data architecture proved correct, and her engagement fell afterward. Kelley's account of alienation fits closely, and the map records the cause alongside the placement.
Critical thinking on paper
The third engineer's design documents draw the most comments and the fewest reversals, and on-call coverage is steady. Quiet in meetings, this engineer sits closest to Kelley's exemplary follower.
The promotion, and the other two
The map recommends the third engineer and adds two actions: a direct conversation acknowledging the overruled objection, and a clear development path for the favorite that rewards disagreement.
Where marks go in WMBA 6000 Week 4
Evidence behind each placement carries the bulk of the grade. A map that places people on Kelley's dimensions from general impressions has drawn a chart of the author's opinions, and neat presentation does not rescue it. Credit grows once every placement is backed by behavior a founder could check, such as design review records and on-call logs. The decision section carries the next share, since this course expects frameworks to produce decisions and a map that ends without one leaves the assignment half done. Explaining the alienated engineer's placement rather than just assigning it is rewarded, because Kelley's model treats alienation as a response to treatment. Honesty about risks earns a smaller portion. Treating followership styles as fixed personality traits is a conceptual error and loses accuracy points.
Get a WMBA 6000 Week 4 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 4 prompt and rubric, and describe the people or roles your decision involves without naming anyone. The map and its recommendation come back in 24 to 48 hours, first one free, with every placement tied to behavior. Individuals in the sample appear by initials or role, and the startup is invented.
WMBA 6000 Week 4 questions, answered
What are Kelley's followership styles?
Robert Kelley described followers along two dimensions, independent critical thinking and active engagement. Combining them yields five styles: exemplary followers, who think critically and engage actively; alienated followers, who think critically but have disengaged; conformists, who engage but rarely question; passive followers, who do neither; and pragmatists, who sit in the middle and adapt to circumstances.
Is it fair to map real colleagues on a chart like this?
It can be, if placements rest on observable behavior and the paper uses roles or initials rather than names. Kelley's styles describe patterns of behavior in a setting, not permanent traits, so the map should say what produced each pattern. Avoid anything a colleague could recognize, and treat the exercise as analysis of roles rather than judgment of people.
Should the best follower always be promoted?
Not automatically. Kelley's work suggests exemplary followers often make strong leaders, but the role still has to fit. A map should say what the new role requires and whether the chosen person's pattern matches it, and it should name the risk if not. The strongest papers treat the map as one input to the decision rather than the whole of it.