| Course | WMBA 6000 Dynamic Leadership |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 7 |
| Paper type | Charter |
| Length | About 1,040 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 7
Eight Decisions the Founders Make Today, Each Assigned a Style From Vroom and Yetton's Model: A Delegation Charter for Downbeat Software With a Review Date
Student Name
Walden University
WMBA 6000: Dynamic Leadership
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Eight Decisions the Founders Make Today, Each Assigned a Style From Vroom and Yetton's Model: A Delegation Charter for Downbeat Software With a Review Date
The Charter
Downbeat Software's founders make nearly every significant decision themselves, which Week 1 identified as the core of the company's crisis of leadership. This charter assigns eight of those decisions a decision style using the normative model of Vroom and Yetton (1973), later refined by Vroom and Jago (1988). The company and its people are composites.
Table 1
Delegation Charter: Eight Decisions and Their Assigned Styles
| Decision | Quality important? | Leader has enough information? | Team acceptance needed? | Style assigned | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Customer discounts above 20 percent | Yes | No; sales knows the account | Moderate | Consult individually: COO decides after hearing the account lead | |
| Hiring within each team | Yes | No; managers know the work | Yes | Delegate to the team manager, with founder veto on senior roles | |
| Quarterly roadmap priorities | Yes | Partly | Yes | Consult the group, then the CEO decides | |
| Refunds under $2,000 | Low | No; support knows the case | Low | Delegate to support lead | |
| Vendor contracts over $25,000 a year | Yes | Partly | Low | COO decides alone after finance review | |
| Remote work policy | Moderate | No | High | Group decides, with founders as members | |
| On-call rotation | Moderate | No; engineers know the load | High | Engineering team decides | |
| Customer communication during incidents | High | No; incident lead knows the facts | Moderate | Delegate to incident lead within a template | |
The styles range from a leader deciding alone, to consulting one person at a time or the whole group, to letting the group decide or handing the decision over entirely. The charter takes effect next month and is reviewed in six months.
The Model
Vroom and Yetton (1973) argued that no single decision style is best and that leaders should choose a style for each decision by asking a short series of diagnostic questions. The most important concern the quality of the decision, whether the leader has enough information to make a good one, whether the problem is structured, whether subordinates' acceptance is critical to carrying it out and whether subordinates share the organization's goals. The answers point to one of several styles, from the leader deciding alone with available information, through consulting individuals or the group and then deciding, to sharing the problem with the group and accepting its decision. Vroom (2000) later emphasized that the model is meant to make leaders' choices deliberate, not to remove judgment.
Three Hard Assignments
Quarterly roadmap priorities
This is the decision the founders most want to keep. Quality matters greatly, and the chief executive has the clearest view of product strategy. But the founders do not have full information about what customers ask for or what engineering can deliver, and the team's acceptance determines whether the roadmap is followed or quietly worked around. The model points to consulting the group before deciding. The charter keeps the decision with the chief executive but requires a structured session with the engineering manager, the head of support and two account leads before each quarter's roadmap is set.
Customer communication during incidents
The Week 5 outage showed what happens when this decision waits for the founders: five hours of silence. Quality is high, but the founders do not have the facts in the first hours; the incident lead does. The charter delegates first messages to the incident lead, within a template the founders approve in advance, with the chief executive taking over if an incident runs past four hours. The template is what keeps quality high while speeding the decision.
Remote work policy
The founders lean toward requiring three office days a week. Acceptance is critical, since employees can leave, and the founders lack information about how teams actually work. The model points toward a group decision with the founders as members rather than as deciders. That is uncomfortable for founders used to deciding, but a policy imposed on a team that rejects it would be followed poorly and might cost the company engineers it cannot replace.
What the Founders Keep
The charter is not an abdication. The founders keep fundraising, the company's product strategy beyond the quarterly roadmap, senior hiring, board relations and any decision with legal exposure. They also keep a veto over three items in the table: senior hires, vendor contracts and the incident template. Listing what the founders keep matters as much as listing what they give away, because new managers need to know where their authority ends as well as where it begins. The two managers who left in the past year described the opposite problem: they did not know which of their decisions would stand.
Risks of the Charter
Three risks follow from the assignments. Decisions made by others will sometimes be worse than the founders' would have been, at least at first; the charter accepts that cost in exchange for speed and development. Founders under pressure may reclaim decisions informally, through a comment in a meeting or a message to a manager, which would undo the charter without anyone revoking it. And employees given group decisions, such as the remote work policy, may be unsure how far their authority extends. The founders should agree in writing not to reopen delegated decisions except through the review process, and each group decision should begin with a clear statement of its limits, such as budget or legal constraints.
Connection to Greiner
The growth model in Greiner (1997) describes the resolution of the crisis of leadership as a move to a phase of direction, in which a capable management team takes on functional responsibilities, followed later by a phase of delegation. The charter does both in modest form: it gives the chief operating officer and new engineering manager clear authority over specific decisions, which is direction, and pushes several operational decisions to the people closest to them, which anticipates delegation. It does not yet decentralize strategy, which remains with the founders.
Review
The charter will be reviewed in six months by the founders and the people now holding each decision. The review will ask, for each decision, whether it was made faster, whether its quality held and whether anyone reopened it informally. Reopened decisions are the clearest sign that a delegation exists on paper only.
References
Greiner, L. E. (1997). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Family Business Review, 10(4), 397-409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.1997.00397.x
Vroom, V. H. (2000). Leadership and the decision-making process. Organizational Dynamics, 28(4), 82-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(00)00003-6
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Prentice Hall.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. University of Pittsburgh Press.
WMBA 6000 Week 7 instructions, in plain terms
Delegation and decision-making assignments ask students to apply a model of participation in decisions, most often Vroom and Yetton's normative model or its later versions, to a set of real decisions. Prompts usually ask students to list recurring decisions, apply the model's questions to each and assign a style, from deciding alone to delegating to the group. Instructors expect the model's logic to be visible for every assignment, with extended argument for the decisions where the answer is not obvious. Many prompts also ask what the leader should keep, what could go wrong and when the arrangement will be reviewed. A charter of three to four pages with a table is typical. Linking the charter to earlier course diagnoses is often encouraged in a course that follows one organization.
Inside the WMBA 6000 Week 7 example
The charter opens by connecting the problem to the Week 1 diagnosis: two founders make nearly every significant decision. A table lists eight decisions with answers to the model's questions and the assigned style. A section summarizes the model and its revision by Vroom and Jago, explaining how the questions lead to a style. Three hard assignments get their own sections: roadmap priorities, where the chief executive decides after consulting the group; customer communication during incidents, given to the incident lead within a template approved in advance; and remote work policy, where the team's acceptance drives the choice. A section lists what the founders keep, such as fundraising and senior hires. The paper ends with the charter's risks, its tie to Greiner's phase of direction and a review date, and its margin notes point readers to the table, the hard cases and the Greiner link.
Reading the WMBA 6000 Week 7 rubric
Graders reward a charter where every assignment can be traced to the model's questions. Showing the answers in a table lets the reader audit the logic quickly. Extended argument for the contested decisions, rather than equal space for all eight, shows judgment about where analysis is needed. Naming what leaders keep, and why, earns credit because delegation without limits is not a plan. Identifying risks, such as decisions drifting back to the founders or managers deciding without the information they need, shows realism. A review date turns the charter into something that can be corrected. Instructors in a course built around one organization also value links to earlier analyses. Accurate descriptions of the model, clear headings and correctly cited sources complete what most rubrics measure.
WMBA 6000 Week 7 help from the desk
List decisions that recur, not one-off choices, and write each in a few words. For every decision, answer the model's questions honestly: does quality matter, does the leader have the information, is acceptance needed? Let the answers choose the style, then check whether the result feels right and explain any override. Choose two or three decisions where reasonable people would disagree and argue those at length. Students commonly lose marks by assigning styles by instinct and adding the model afterward, or by delegating everything to show they trust the team. State what the leader keeps and when the charter will be reviewed. Note the risks honestly. We can write a custom sample charter for decisions in your own team if you send the list.
Get a WMBA 6000 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 7 prompt and rubric, plus a list of the decisions your leader or team currently handles. A charter with a style assigned to every decision is delivered within 24 to 48 hours, first one free. Thresholds shown are illustrative and can be matched to the ones your organization uses.
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 6: Credibility Ledger
- WMBA 6000 Week 8: Scaling Leadership Proposal
- WMBA 6010 Week 7: People Management Plan Draft
- WMBA 6020 Week 7: Culture Change Proposal
- WMBA 6030 Week 7: Rental Platform Proposal
- WMBA 6040 Week 7: Improvement Plan Draft
WMBA 6000 Week 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free WMBA 6000 Week 7 sample paper?
A full delegation charter covering eight startup decisions, with its table and hard cases, is available on this page.
What model does the charter use?
The normative decision model of Vroom and Yetton, as later refined by Vroom and Jago.
What questions decide each style?
Whether decision quality matters, whether the leader has enough information and whether the team's acceptance is needed.
Which decisions are argued at length?
Quarterly roadmap priorities, customer communication during incidents and remote work policy.
How does the charter connect to Greiner?
It moves the company toward the phase of direction, in which a capable management team takes on functional responsibilities.