WMBA 6605 Week 5 Self-Assessment Peer Replies Example

Course	WMBA 6605 Finding Your Inner Leader
Week	Week 5
Paper type	Peer replies
Length	About 440 words, 3 pages
Format	Discussion reply, APA 7 citations
School	Walden University
Program	Master of Business Administration (MBA)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for WMBA 6605 Week 5

Week 5 Discussion: Responding to Classmates' Self-Assessments

"A Natural Collaborator" and "Wired for Results": Two Peer Replies That Find the Evidence Under Each Self-Description, Ask the Question That Would Test It and Return Something Useful

Response to Andre

"A natural collaborator" is how you summed up your agreeableness score at the 88th percentile, Andre, and your example was the product launch where you "brought marketing and engineering together." I want to look at what that example establishes. As you told it, you scheduled the joint meetings and kept the shared tracker. That is evidence of coordination, which is valuable, but it is a description of your habitual role rather than of collaboration in the harder sense, where you changed your own position because of what someone else said.

So my question is one you can answer from memory: in those launch meetings, was there a decision where you started on one side and ended on the other because an engineer or marketer persuaded you? If so, that episode would support the label far better than the meetings you organized.

One thing to give back. High agreeableness on the IPIP-NEO is partly a measure of avoiding conflict, and Judge et al. (2002) found it had the weakest link to leadership of the five traits. That does not mean it is a weakness, but it may mean your score says more about how you handle disagreement than about how well you collaborate.

What this page is doingOpening on the classmate's own words keeps the reply on the claim instead of the person.

Response to Keisha

"Wired for results" is your reading of an achievement-striving facet at the 96th percentile, Keisha, supported by your record of hitting every quarterly sales target for three years. That record is strong evidence that you deliver results. It is weaker evidence that the instrument explains why.

Here is the question I would ask: what result on the inventory would have made you doubt that reading? If you had scored at the 60th percentile on achievement striving, would you have concluded that you are not results-driven, despite three years of targets met? If not, the score is confirming a story you already held rather than testing it.

One thing to offer in return. Self-ratings on evaluative traits like ambition are the ones others often judge more accurately than we do (Vazire, 2010). Your sales manager or a peer who watched you through a bad quarter might tell you whether "wired for results" holds under pressure, or whether the results came from a market that was kind to you. Johnson (2014) notes that each facet score is built from just four items, which also argues for checking a single high facet against other people's views before building a self-description on it.

What this page is doingThe reply asks what result would have changed the classmate's reading, which tests whether the reading could be wrong.

References

Johnson, J. A. (2014). Measuring thirty facets of the five factor model with a 120-item public domain inventory: Development of the IPIP-NEO-120. Journal of Research in Personality, 51, 78-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.05.003

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765

Vazire, S. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The self-other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 281-300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017908

Reading the WMBA 6605 Week 5 instructions

The week's discussion moves from writing about oneself to reading classmates' self-descriptions critically and helpfully. Each reply is expected to open with the classmate's own phrase in quotation marks rather than with praise. The reply then identifies the evidence offered and says what it does and does not establish, often finding that a self-description rests on a summary of habitual behavior. A genuinely answerable question follows: what a colleague would have said, which items produced a score or what result would have changed the reading. The last part gives something back, such as an instrument limitation, a parallel from the writer's record or a useful source. Replies usually run one hundred to two hundred words each.

Inside the WMBA 6605 Week 5 example

The first reply quotes Andre's phrase and examines his product launch example, separating coordination from collaboration in the harder sense of changing one's own position. It asks whether he changed sides in any launch decision, then notes that agreeableness had the weakest link to leadership in Judge and colleagues' review and may reflect conflict avoidance. The second reply quotes Keisha's phrase, accepts her sales record as evidence of results but questions what the score explains, and asks what result would have changed her reading. It then cites Vazire on others judging evaluative traits more accurately and Johnson on the four-item basis of facet scores. Margin comments flag the opening quotations and the testing question. Each reply stays under two hundred fifty words.

Reading the WMBA 6605 Week 5 rubric

Graders reward replies that engage the classmate's actual claim and evidence. Opening with the classmate's own words shows attention. Separating what the offered evidence proves from what it merely suggests demonstrates critical thinking. An answerable question, rather than a rhetorical one, earns significant credit. Giving something back, especially an accurate point about the instrument or research, adds value to the discussion. Respectful tone and concise length matter, as does citing sources correctly when they are introduced. Replies that only praise or agree typically earn little.

WMBA 6605 Week 5 help: mistakes that cost marks

Read the classmate's post and copy the phrase that best captures their claim. Then ask what evidence they offered and whether it actually supports that claim or something narrower. Write one question they could answer from memory or by checking their results. Finally, offer something useful: a limitation of their instrument, a source or a comparable experience. Students often lose marks by opening with praise, by asking questions that cannot be answered or by offering opinions without evidence. Another common gap is a reply that restates the original post. Keep one point per reply, and check any research claim against the source before citing it. If you need a custom sample set of peer replies, send us the posts you are answering.

Get a WMBA 6605 Week 5 example written to your instructions

Two classmate posts and the participation policy are enough to work from, and both replies arrive inside 24 to 48 hours, first one free. Sections with a word floor, a source requirement or split posting days get replies written to those constraints. Whatever a classmate wrote stays theirs; replies get built from the text you hand over and nothing more.

More WMBA 6605 papers and MBA samples

WMBA 6605 Week 5 questions, answered

Where can I find a free WMBA 6605 Week 5 sample paper?

Both peer replies on classmates' self-assessments are published in full on this page.

How do the replies open?

With each classmate's own phrase in quotation marks rather than praise.

What does the first reply question?

Whether coordinating meetings is evidence of collaboration in the sense of changing one's own position.

What does the second reply ask?

What inventory result would have made the classmate doubt her reading.

What do the replies give back?

Research findings on agreeableness and leadership, self-other accuracy and facet reliability.