| Course | WMBA 6000 Dynamic Leadership |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 6 |
| Paper type | Analysis paper |
| Length | About 1,010 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Business Administration (MBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for WMBA 6000 Week 6
Five Promises, Two Broken, Three Kept: A Credibility Ledger for Downbeat's Founders and the Hardest Call, Whether to Keep Repeating the No-Layoff Pledge
Student Name
Walden University
WMBA 6000: Dynamic Leadership
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Five Promises, Two Broken, Three Kept: A Credibility Ledger for Downbeat's Founders and the Hardest Call, Whether to Keep Repeating the No-Layoff Pledge
Why Keep a Ledger
Kouzes and Posner (2011) argue that credibility is the foundation of leadership, and they reduce the way leaders earn it to a short rule: do what you say you will do. Employees judge leaders less by their values statements than by whether promises are kept. Research on behavioral integrity, the perceived match between a manager's words and deeds, has found that employees notice gaps between the two and that those gaps reduce trust (Simons, 2002). Trust in turn is associated with job performance, commitment and willingness to stay, according to a meta-analysis pooling research on trust in leaders (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). This paper lists five promises the founders of Downbeat Software, the composite company used in this course, have made to employees over the past year, records what has happened since, and assigns each an action.
The Ledger
Table 1
Credibility Ledger: Five Founder Promises
| Promise, in the founders' words | Where made | What has happened | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|
| "You will have a written promotion framework by the end of Q2." | All-hands, January | No framework has appeared; Q2 ended two months ago | Broken | |
| "Fridays are meeting-free from now on." | All-hands, March, with a team lunch to mark it | Meetings crept back; most Fridays now have two or three | Eroded | |
| "Early employees will get an equity refresh this year." | One-on-ones, February | Refresh granted in June, on schedule | Kept | |
| "We will hold open question sessions every quarter." | All-hands, January | Held in March, June and September | Kept | |
| "There will be no layoffs this year." | All-hands, January | No layoffs so far; runway has since fallen to twelve months | Kept so far, at risk | |
Quotations are paraphrased from the founders' statements; the company and its people are composite.
The tally is two broken or eroded, three kept. Employees are unlikely to weigh them equally. The two broken promises were both made publicly, one of them with ceremony, and both concern daily working life, which keeps them in view. The kept promises are less visible: equity grants are private, and question sessions happen four times a year.
How the Gaps Show Up
The broken promises are already visible in small ways. In the last question session, two of the twelve submitted questions asked about the promotion framework, one of them sarcastically. Several engineers have begun blocking Friday mornings on their calendars as "focus time," a quiet attempt to restore what the founders announced and then let lapse. A manager hired in the spring said she had heard about meeting-free Fridays during her interviews and was surprised to find they did not exist. None of these is a crisis, but each shows employees comparing what they were told with what they see, which is exactly the comparison behavioral integrity research describes.
Actions by Promise
Promotion framework: the founders should acknowledge publicly that they missed the deadline, explain why and set a new date only if they can meet it, ideally with a draft shared for comment within a month. Kouzes and Posner's rule implies that a missed promise is best repaired by owning it, not by quietly delivering late.
Meeting-free Fridays: either restore them, with the founders setting the example by declining Friday meetings themselves, or retire the promise openly and explain the trade-off. Letting it erode silently is the worst option, because every Friday meeting renews the gap.
Equity refresh and question sessions: say so. A short note at the next all-hands listing promises kept is not boasting if it sits beside the promises missed.
The Hardest Case: The No-Layoff Pledge
The no-layoff pledge has held, but the runway has fallen from about eighteen months to twelve after the loss of the largest customer. The founders face a choice: repeat the pledge at the next all-hands, stay silent about it or withdraw it.
Repeating it would reassure employees in the short term. But if the company later needs to cut costs, a pledge repeated after the runway fell would be the most damaging broken promise of all, because employees would conclude the founders knew the risk and spoke anyway. Staying silent would be noticed, since employees remember the January pledge and will listen for it.
The paper recommends a third course: restate the pledge as what it now can honestly be. The founders should say that they made the pledge when the runway was eighteen months, that it has held, that the company's situation has changed, and what they will do instead of promising: tell employees immediately if layoffs become possible, explain the alternatives considered first, such as the hiring pause and spending review already under way, and give as much notice as the law and the company's finances allow. This replaces a promise they may not be able to keep with one they can. It also treats employees as adults who can handle uncertainty, which is itself a signal of respect that may do more for trust than a repeated guarantee.
Fewer, Better Promises
The deeper problem is how promises are made. Three of the five were announced at all-hands meetings in January, when the company was growing quickly and optimism was high, and none had an owner or a way to track it. A better practice is to attach three things to any promise made to the whole company: a date, a person responsible and a public place where progress is reported. Promises that cannot carry those three should be stated as intentions, not commitments.
What the Ledger Teaches
Credibility at Downbeat is not failing; three of five promises have been kept. But the founders make promises casually and in public, and they track them nowhere. A simple practice would help: keep this ledger, review it at each quarterly question session and make fewer promises, each with a date and an owner. Simons (2002) noted that managers often do not notice their own word-deed gaps, which is why a written record matters.
References
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611-628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2011). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers' words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13(1), 18-35. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.1.18.543
The Walden WMBA 6000 Week 6 instructions
Credibility assignments in leadership courses ask students to examine whether leaders' words and actions match, usually through Kouzes and Posner's work or research on behavioral integrity. A common format is a ledger or audit of promises: what was said, where, what happened and what should be done next. Prompts often ask students to analyze one difficult case in depth, such as a promise that may soon be broken. Instructors expect quoted or paraphrased promises rather than general impressions, evidence of how employees perceive the gaps and actions specific to each promise. Four or five pages, built around a ledger table, is the usual size. Students may use their own organization with identifying details removed, or a composite case, and should say which they have chosen.
How this WMBA 6000 Week 6 example is built
A short section explains why credibility matters, citing Kouzes and Posner, Simons on behavioral integrity and a meta-analysis of trust in leaders by Dirks and Ferrin. The ledger table lists five promises with where each was made, what has happened and a status. A section describes how the broken promises show up in daily life: sarcastic questions at an open session, engineers blocking Friday mornings, a new manager surprised that meeting-free Fridays do not exist. Actions follow for each promise. The no-layoff pledge gets its own section, weighing repetition, silence and restatement before recommending the third. A section on making fewer, better promises proposes a date, an owner and a public tracking place for any company-wide commitment. Margin notes point to the ledger, the hard case and the closing practice.
WMBA 6000 Week 6 rubric: what earns full marks
Graders reward a ledger built from specific statements with dates and places, so the status of each promise can be checked. Showing how employees experience the gaps, with concrete signs, demonstrates that the analysis is grounded. Actions that fit each promise, rather than one general fix, earn credit. The hard case usually carries the most weight: weighing more than one option and choosing a path that protects credibility over time shows judgment. Linking the findings to research on word-deed alignment and trust makes the argument more than opinion. A closing practice that would prevent future gaps shows leadership thinking beyond the immediate problem. Instructors also expect balance, so recognizing promises kept matters. Clear tables, concise prose and correctly formatted APA references make up the final portion of the grade.
WMBA 6000 Week 6 help from the desk
Collect the promises first, in the leaders' own words where possible, with the date and setting of each. Mark each as kept, broken, eroded or at risk, and note the evidence. For every promise, ask what action would repair or confirm it. Pick the promise with the most riding on it for your deep analysis, and weigh three or more options before you settle. A common weakness is a ledger of vague values statements, such as a commitment to openness, which cannot be marked kept or broken. Another is criticizing leaders without noting the promises they kept. Remember that repeating a risky promise can damage trust more than withdrawing it honestly. If you want a custom sample ledger for your own leaders' promises, send us the list with names removed.
Get a WMBA 6000 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 6 prompt and rubric along with the commitments your organization's leaders have made, in their words if you have them. The ledger arrives within 24 to 48 hours, first one free, with each promise rated and assigned an action. Every quotation shown belongs to a composite company, never to a real one.
More WMBA 6000 papers and MBA samples
- WMBA 6000 Week 1: Growth Phase Post
- WMBA 6000 Week 2: Founder Transparency Memo
- WMBA 6000 Week 3: Leadership Self-Assessment
- WMBA 6000 Week 4: Follower Style Map
- WMBA 6000 Week 5: Outage Crisis Leadership Post
- WMBA 6000 Week 7: Delegation Charter
- WMBA 6000 Week 8: Scaling Leadership Proposal
- WMBA 6010 Week 6: Cross-Site Collaboration Design
- WMBA 6020 Week 6: Leadership Practices Design
- WMBA 6030 Week 6: RFID Hype Evaluation
- WMBA 6040 Week 6: Constraint Intervention Brief
WMBA 6000 Week 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free WMBA 6000 Week 6 sample paper?
The five-promise credibility ledger, including the no-layoff pledge analysis, is posted in full on this page.
What is Kouzes and Posner's rule for credibility?
Do what you say you will do.
Which promises were broken?
The written promotion framework, which never appeared, and meeting-free Fridays, which eroded.
What does the paper recommend about the no-layoff pledge?
Restating it honestly: explaining what has changed and promising early notice and alternatives instead of a guarantee.
How should future promises be made?
Each company-wide promise should carry a date, an owner and a public place where progress is reported.