WMBA 6605 Week 3 Leadership Incident Analysis Example

Course	WMBA 6605 Finding Your Inner Leader
Week	Week 3
Paper type	Incident analysis
Length	About 1,030 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 6605 Week 3

The Milk Check Went Out a Day Late: A Leadership Incident Told in Sequence, Then Taken Through the Vroom-Yetton Model to Find the Three Moments Where a Different Move Was Available

Student Name

Walden University

WMBA 6605: Finding Your Inner Leader

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title names the outcome first and promises the narrative before the analysis, the order the assignment requires.

The Milk Check Went Out a Day Late: A Leadership Incident Told in Sequence, Then Taken Through the Vroom-Yetton Model to Find the Three Moments Where a Different Move Was Available

The Situation

Brookfield Dairy Cooperative, a composite cooperative in central Wisconsin, pays its 312 member farms twice a month for the milk they ship. The payment for the first half of January 2026 was due on Friday, January 16, and totaled about $9.8 million. As accounting manager, I own the payment run: my team calculates each farm's check from milk weights, butterfat and protein tests, quality premiums and deductions, then sends a payment file to our bank by 2 p.m. on the day before payment.

On Thursday, January 15, at 10:40 a.m., the run failed. Our software vendor had applied a patch overnight, and the module that prices components now returned zero for protein on every farm. Without protein, each check would be short by roughly a third.

What this page is doingThe account is complete before any analysis begins, so the reader judges the decision on what was known at the time.

What Was Known and Unknown

By 11:30 a.m. I knew three things. The vendor confirmed the patch caused the error and said a rollback was possible but could not promise it before evening. Our bank's cutoff for a Friday payment was 2 p.m. And my senior accountant, Dana, said she could rebuild the protein prices by hand from the test lab's file, but checking 312 farms would take at least six hours.

I did not know whether the rollback would work, whether a hand rebuild would introduce errors and how farmers would react to a delay. I also did not know, because I did not ask, what our member relations manager, Luis, knew about farms with loan payments due that Friday.

What I Decided

At 11:45 a.m. I told the controller, "We'll pay Monday. I'd rather pay right than pay fast." He agreed. I asked Dana to stop the rebuild and wait for the vendor. At 1:15 p.m. I sent a short email to member relations asking them to "let the farms know payment will arrive Monday due to a system issue."

What Followed

The vendor's rollback worked at 7 p.m. Thursday. We ran the payments Friday morning and released the file for Monday.

Luis did not see my email until 3 p.m., after he returned from a farm visit. By then, two farmers had called the board chair directly, having checked their accounts. One had a feed loan payment due Friday and was charged a late fee. Over the weekend, Luis and his assistant called 41 farms. On Monday, the board chair asked the CEO why he had heard about the delay from members before management. The CEO asked me the same question. Three farms asked the cooperative to cover late fees; we did, at a cost of about $600.

Luis told me later, without anger, "If you'd called me at 11:45, I could have told you which twelve farms needed their money Friday. We could have paid them by hand."

The Framework

Vroom and Yetton (1973) proposed that leaders should match how much they involve others to the features of each decision, choosing among styles ranging from deciding alone to deciding with the group. The model asks a series of questions: whether decision quality matters, whether the leader has enough information, whether the problem is structured, whether others' acceptance matters to carrying out the decision and whether they would accept a decision made alone. Vroom and Jago (1988) refined the model to weigh additional factors such as time pressure and the development of subordinates, and Vroom (2000) later described how the model's recommendations depend on whether time or team development matters more in a given case.

Applied to January 15, the answers were these. Decision quality mattered: getting farmers' pay right was essential. I lacked important information, specifically which farms faced hardship from a delay. The problem was only partly structured. Acceptance by members mattered greatly, because member trust is the cooperative's foundation. And members would not readily accept a delay decided without warning. Under those conditions the model recommends a consultative style: gathering information and views from the people who hold them before deciding. I chose to decide alone.

What this page is doingA named model turns the story into decision points, which is where the analysis earns its credit.

The Decision Points

Three moments offered a different move.

The first was 11:45 a.m. I could have called Luis before deciding. A five-minute call would have produced the list of farms with loan payments due and opened a hybrid option: pay those few by hand, with Dana checking twelve calculations instead of 312, and pay the rest Monday. I did not call because I framed the problem as an accounting problem, which it was only partly.

The second was 1:15 p.m. I chose email for news that called for a phone call. My message reached the person who had to act on it nearly two hours later.

The third was the board chair. I did not ask the CEO to brief him, though a delayed payment to members is precisely the kind of news a cooperative's board expects to hear from management first.

Consequences, Including for Others

The financial cost was small: $600 in late fees. The other costs were larger and fell on other people. Luis and his assistant spent their weekend on the phone. The CEO was embarrassed in front of the board chair. One farmer, who had shipped to the cooperative for thirty years, told Luis he felt "like a vendor, not an owner." And my reliability, which the cooperative values, became the reason the delay happened: I chose accuracy without asking who would pay for the wait.

What the Incident Establishes

The incident establishes that under time pressure I narrow a problem to the part I own and decide alone, and that I communicate in writing when the moment needs a voice. It also shows that the instinct to "pay right rather than fast" was sound; the rollback worked and no farm was paid wrongly. The narrower lesson is that my judgment about the technical choice was good and my judgment about whom to involve was poor. The test for the rest of this term is whether, the next time a deadline forces a decision, I can first identify the people beyond accounting whose knowledge I lack.

References

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.

What the WMBA 6605 Week 3 instructions ask for

This week asks for one leadership incident from the writer's own experience, told first as narrative and then analyzed. Instructors expect the first part of the paper to set out events in sequence: the situation, what was known and unknown at the moment of decision, who said what, what the writer chose and what followed. Short quotations should appear where exact wording mattered. Only then does the paper turn to analysis through a named framework, identifying two or three decision points where a different choice was possible. A section on consequences, including effects on other people, follows. The paper closes with what the incident shows about the writer, phrased as a claim that can be tested.

Inside the WMBA 6605 Week 3 example

The paper describes the cooperative, the payment process and the failed run. A section lists what the writer knew and did not know by midday. The decision and its wording are quoted, and the aftermath follows: the vendor's rollback, the delayed notice to member relations, farmers calling the board chair and $600 in late fees. The member relations manager's later comment about twelve farms is quoted. A framework section explains the Vroom-Yetton questions and applies them, finding the writer lacked information and needed members' acceptance. Three decision points are identified: whether to call before deciding, how to notify and whether to brief the board. A consequences section covers costs to others. The conclusion separates good technical judgment from poor judgment about involvement. Margin comments flag the narrative and the framework.

WMBA 6605 Week 3 rubric: what earns full marks

Graders reward a narrative complete enough that a reader can weigh the choice against the information available then. Separating known from unknown information, and quoting key words, shows care. The analysis earns credit by applying a named framework accurately and finding specific decision points rather than general lessons. Including consequences for other people demonstrates ethical awareness. A conclusion phrased as a testable claim about the writer shows growth. Instructors also look for honesty, including admissions of error without excessive self-criticism. Correct citation of the framework's sources and clear organization complete the expectations.

WMBA 6605 Week 3 help: mistakes that cost marks

Choose an incident with a clear decision and real consequences. Write the story first, in order, without analysis, including what you knew and did not know when you decided. Then choose a framework your course covers and apply its questions to the moment of decision. Look for two or three points where another move was possible. Students often lose marks by analyzing before telling the story, by choosing an incident with no real decision or by drawing broad lessons instead of specific ones. Another common gap is ignoring the effects on other people. End with what the incident shows about you. If you need a custom sample incident analysis, send us the story you plan to use.

Get a WMBA 6605 Week 3 example written to your instructions

Give the desk the Week 3 rubric plus a few lines about the situation, and a finished incident paper comes back in 24 to 48 hours, first one free. Required frameworks and page ranges are honored. An incident from your life is not invented at this desk, and a stand-in scenario is labeled wherever one gets used.

More WMBA 6605 papers and MBA samples

WMBA 6605 Week 3 questions, answered

Where can I find a free WMBA 6605 Week 3 sample paper?

The full leadership incident analysis of a delayed milk payment is posted here.

What happened in the incident?

A software patch broke a payment run, and the writer delayed payment to 312 farms without consulting member relations.

Which framework does the paper use?

The Vroom-Yetton model of leader participation in decisions.

What does the framework recommend here?

A consultative style, because the writer lacked key information and members' acceptance mattered.

What does the incident establish?

That the writer made a sound technical choice but decided alone when others held needed information.