WMBA 6605 Week 8 Claim Reconciliation Memo Example

Course	WMBA 6605 Finding Your Inner Leader
Week	Week 8
Paper type	Reconciliation memo
Length	About 710 words, 4 pages
Format	Memo, APA 7 citations
School	Walden University
Program	Master of Business Administration (MBA)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for WMBA 6605 Week 8

Memorandum

To: Course Instructor, WMBA 6605

From: Accounting Manager, Brookfield Dairy Cooperative

Date: August 30, 2026

Re: Reconciling my original leadership claim with the evidence gathered since Week 1

The Original Claim

In my Week 1 post I wrote: "Stalled decisions come to me."

I added, in the same post, that the claim did not hold when I had a stake in the decision, and I narrowed it to "I unstick decisions I do not own." Both versions are tested here against what has arrived since.

What this page is doingQuoting the claim word for word lets the reader compare it directly with the revision below.

What Has Arrived Since

Four new pieces of evidence matter here.

The first is my IPIP-NEO-120 result from July (Johnson, 2014). Conscientiousness was at the 94th percentile, with orderliness and cautiousness the highest facets, and openness at the 41st, with adventurousness at the 23rd. It shows a strong preference for structure and a low appetite for novelty, which fits the structuring part of the claim and predicts trouble with decisions that require abandoning a routine.

The second is the incident I analyzed in Week 3: the January 2026 milk payment delay. It shows that under time pressure I decided alone on a decision I owned, without asking the member relations manager what he knew. It does not bear on whether others come to me; it bears on what I do when the stalled decision is mine.

The third is feedback from seven colleagues collected in August. Six of seven said I help decisions move when a disagreement lacks structure, with specific examples. Five of seven said my own processes are the hardest things for the team to change.

The fourth is a conversation the course prompted. After reading my feedback, I asked the controller whether he had ever avoided bringing me a decision. He said yes: "When it's about changing the close, I go to the CFO first, because I know you'll want to test it." Smither et al. (2005) found that the people most likely to improve after feedback are those who accept that change is needed, and this conversation was the point at which I did.

Reconciliation

The original claim survives, but only in a narrower form, and the narrowing goes further than my Week 1 qualification.

The evidence supports that colleagues bring me stalled disagreements between other people, and that I move them by imposing structure. Six of seven respondents said so, and the March 2025 accrual episode is a documented example.

The evidence also shows that the Week 1 qualification was too generous to me. I said I am slow when I "own" a decision. The feedback and the controller's comment show something more specific: I am slow when a decision would change a process I built. And the January incident shows a second, separate failure: when a decision is mine and urgent, I move fast but alone. In neither case do others come to me; in the first, they go around me.

What this page is doingThe center of the memo states plainly whether the claim survives and in what form.

The Revised Statement

I move other people's stalled disagreements by giving them structure, but decisions that would change my own processes stall because of me, and urgent decisions I own, I make too much alone.

The revision is less flattering than the original, and that is the evidence that it was tested rather than restated. It is also more useful, because it tells my team where to push.

What Remains Unsettled

Two questions remain open. First, whether the slowness on my own processes is caution that protects accuracy or attachment to what I designed. The feedback cannot separate these, because both produce the same behavior. Second, whether the "deciding alone under pressure" pattern appeared once, in January, or is general. I have one documented incident and one consistent comment about emailing instead of calling, which is suggestive but thin. Vazire (2010) suggests that others may see such patterns more accurately than I can, so the test should come from others.

The next occasion to test both questions is the September transfer of the farm payment review to my senior accountant. If I accept her first changes to the review steps within two cycles, the first question leans toward caution that can be managed. If a payment problem arises and I call her before deciding, the second leans toward a single bad day. I will report both results in my development plan.

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

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

The Walden WMBA 6605 Week 8 instructions

The reconciliation memo returns to the claim the writer made at the start of the course and tests it against everything gathered since. It opens with a header and the original claim quoted exactly. A block follows listing the evidence that has arrived, such as an inventory, outside feedback, an incident or a conversation, with a sentence on what each shows. The center of the memo states plainly whether the claim survives, and in what altered form. Instructors expect a revised statement printed on its own so it can be compared directly with the original. The memo closes on what remains unsettled, what would settle it and the next occasion to test it.

How the WMBA 6605 Week 8 example is put together

The memo quotes the Week 1 claim and its first narrowing. An evidence section reports the inventory's conscientiousness and openness results, the January payment incident, the August feedback and the controller's admission that he takes close changes to the CFO first, with Smither and colleagues on accepting the need to change. The reconciliation states that colleagues bring the writer others' disagreements but go around the writer on process changes, and that urgent decisions the writer owns are made alone. The revised statement follows on its own line. A section on unsettled questions separates caution from attachment and asks whether deciding alone is a pattern, citing Vazire, and names the September payment review handover as the test. Margin comments flag the quotation and the verdict.

Where the marks sit in the WMBA 6605 Week 8 rubric

Graders reward a memo that quotes the original claim exactly and weighs each new piece of evidence briefly and accurately. A plain verdict on whether the claim survives carries the most weight. The revised statement should be specific and comparable with the original. Naming what remains uncertain, and the occasion that would test it, shows intellectual honesty. Research cited on feedback and self-knowledge should support the reasoning. Memo format, concise writing and consistency with earlier assignments complete the expectations. Memos that simply restate the original claim with more confidence typically score low.

WMBA 6605 Week 8 help: mistakes that cost marks

Find your original claim and copy it exactly. List every piece of evidence you have gathered since and write one sentence on what each shows about the claim. Then decide honestly whether the claim survives as written, survives in a narrower form or fails. Write the revised version as one sentence. Students often lose marks by paraphrasing the original, by treating all evidence as supportive or by avoiding a verdict. Another common gap is ignoring what remains unknown. Name the next situation that will test your revised claim, and when it is likely to arise. If you would like a custom sample reconciliation memo, send us your original claim and the evidence you have gathered.

Get a WMBA 6605 Week 8 example written to your instructions

The Week 8 memo prompt and the earlier paper it revisits both go into the request, and a finished memo returns in 24 to 48 hours, first one free. Required headers, a page ceiling or a named earlier assignment are all matched. Your earlier submission is not rewritten without it in hand, and none of its claims are guessed at.

More WMBA 6605 papers and MBA samples

WMBA 6605 Week 8 questions, answered

Where can I find a free WMBA 6605 Week 8 sample paper?

The reconciliation memo testing a Week 1 leadership claim is posted in full on this page.

What was the original claim?

"Stalled decisions come to me."

Does the claim survive?

Only in narrower form: it holds for others' disagreements but not for changes to the writer's own processes.

What new evidence changed it?

Seven colleagues' feedback and the controller's admission that he goes around the writer on close changes.

What remains unsettled?

Whether slowness on process changes is caution or attachment, and whether deciding alone is a pattern.