WMBA 6605 Week 6 Feedback Analysis Paper Example

Seven Answers to Three Questions: What My Controller, Peers and Team Said About How I Lead, Sorted Into Agreement, Disagreement and What Nobody Inside Me Had Noticed

Student Name

Walden University

WMBA 6605: Finding Your Inner Leader

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Seven Answers to Three Questions: What My Controller, Peers and Team Said About How I Lead, Sorted Into Agreement, Disagreement and What Nobody Inside Me Had Noticed

Method

In the third week of August 2026 I asked seven people at Brookfield Dairy Cooperative, the composite central Wisconsin cooperative where I manage the month-end close, to answer three questions. They were the controller, to whom I report; two peers, the plant controller and the member relations manager; three of the six accountants who report to me, chosen by our human resources partner rather than by me; and the treasury analyst, who works with my team weekly but reports elsewhere.

The questions were: When do I help a decision move forward? When do I slow things down? What should I do more of? Responses went through a form administered by human resources, which removed names before passing them to me. With seven respondents, several in identifiable roles, anonymity was partial at best, and I assume some answers were softened as a result.

All seven responded. The quotations below are exact or closely paraphrased, grouped by theme rather than by respondent.

The Raw Material

On Moving Decisions Forward

Six of the seven said I help when a disagreement lacks structure. "You put both sides on one page and suddenly it's a smaller argument." "When there's a fight about a number, you're the one who asks what would change our minds." "You make the close feel like it has rails."

On Slowing Things Down

Five of the seven named the same pattern in different words. "When it's your process, you want one more test before changing anything." "The reconciliation tool took weeks longer than it needed to." "You say you're open to new ideas, and you mean it, but the bar for actually switching is very high." One respondent said I slow nothing down.

On What to Do More Of

The answers here were scattered. Two asked for more explanation of why the close calendar is built as it is. Two said I should "call more, email less." One said I should "celebrate when the close goes well; you move straight to next month." Two said I should delegate the farm payment review, which I still check personally every cycle.

Sorting the Material

Table 1

Feedback Set Beside My Earlier Self-Description

Earlier claims are from my Week 1 post and Week 2 inventory paper.

The agreement is the least informative pile, since it confirms what I already believed. Smither et al. (2005), in a meta-analysis of multisource feedback studies, found that improvement after feedback was generally small and was most likely when recipients saw a need to change and set goals in response. The disagreements and the unnoticed items are where the need to change lives.

The Disagreement

My Week 2 paper concluded that I hold on to working routines even after saying I want them changed. I wrote that as a modest admission. Five of seven respondents name it as my chief brake on the team, and one gave a cost: weeks of delay on the reconciliation tool.

My working explanation is that I see my caution as protecting accuracy, while others see it as protecting my process. Both can be true. The test I keep asking for usually does catch something, which reinforces the habit, but the respondents are pointing to the cost I do not count: the weeks the team spends on a worse process while I wait to be sure about a better one. Vazire (2010) found the self to be a weaker judge than outsiders on traits loaded with social value, and "open to change" is exactly the kind of flattering trait I would be expected to overrate.

What Nobody Outside Had Noticed, and What I Had Not

The communication comment matches the January payment delay, when I emailed member relations news that needed a call, and it came from two people, which suggests a pattern rather than one bad day. The recognition comment surprised me, because I believe I give credit; but giving credit for fixes is different from marking a good close, which I never do. The delegation comment is fair. I keep the farm payment review because a mistake would reach 312 farms, but that reason also prevents anyone else from learning to do it.

How I Will Use the Disagreement

The disagreement will shape the development plan, but only after I have tested it. I will ask two of the five respondents who raised it, through our human resources partner, whether they can name a second example besides the reconciliation tool. If they can, the pattern is established. If they cannot, it may rest on one memorable episode that several people saw, which would still matter but would call for a different response.

What the Sample Cannot See

The sample leans toward finance. No farmer, plant manager or board member was asked, and they see me mostly when something goes wrong. The three accountants were chosen by human resources, but all three are people I hired. Ashford et al. (2003) noted that people seeking feedback face both the cost of hearing unwelcome information and the image cost of asking, and both may shape which answers reach the person asking. A larger sample, including the plant managers, would test whether the "call more" comment holds outside finance.

A Revised Statement

I help others move stalled decisions, but my own processes are the decisions I am slowest to move, and I rely on writing in moments that need my voice.

References

Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & VandeWalle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 29(6), 773-799. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00079-5

Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 33-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.514_1.x

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