| Course | WMBA 6627 Stakeholder Management and Organizational Behavior |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 1 |
| Paper type | Discussion post |
| Length | About 520 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion post, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Business Administration (MBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for WMBA 6627 Week 1
Week 1 Discussion: A Stakeholder Who Withheld Support
Four Hundred Twelve Accounts That Never Moved: An Office Principal's Quiet Withholding of Her Client List From a Brokerage's Shared Agency System, and the Stake She Was Protecting
The initiative is "One Book" at Harbor Point Insurance Group, a composite independent insurance brokerage of eleven offices in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut, built over a decade by acquiring family agencies. One Book moves every office's client records onto a single agency management system so that any account manager can serve any client and renewals can be handled from two regional service centers.
The person I want to discuss is the principal of the Worcester office, a former owner who sold her agency to Harbor Point in 2019 and stayed on as a partner. She attended every planning meeting, voiced support for the project and signed the migration schedule. When her office's cutover came in March, 1,860 personal lines accounts moved on schedule. Her 412 commercial accounts did not. They stayed in the old system, which she had arranged to keep under a "read-only" license, and her two senior account managers kept servicing them there. She never refused anything. The data team simply received no file.
What she was protecting was her book. Commercial clients generate most of an office's commission income, and in an acquired agency the principal's relationships are her main source of standing and bargaining power within the larger firm. Once those accounts sit in a shared system, any service center can handle them, and the principal's control over who calls the client, and over who might inherit the book if she leaves, weakens. Freeman et al. (2010) count as a stakeholder anyone able to shape an organization's aims or exposed to their results, and she sits on both sides of that line: the project affects her standing, and she can stall it without saying no.
Her behavior fits what Oreg (2006) found in his study of resistance to organizational change: resistance has emotional, cognitive and behavioral components, and they need not line up. She may agree with One Book in principle while acting against it on the accounts that matter most to her.
Her case also shows why sign-offs on a plan say little about support. The signature cost her nothing; the file would have cost her a great deal. Any project plan that counts signatures as commitment will miss people like her.
Have you seen support given in meetings and withheld in practice? What made it safe for the person to withhold?
Reply to Diane
Diane, the charge nurse you described who "forgot" to use the new handoff tool: what did the old paper sheet give her that the tool takes away? If the paper sheet let her shape what the next shift heard, the tool may feel like losing judgment, not gaining efficiency.
Reply to Victor
Victor, your sales director who kept his forecasts in a private spreadsheet sounds like my office principal. Mitchell et al. (1997) argued that a stakeholder's salience depends on power, legitimacy and urgency. He has power over the forecast and legitimacy as director. What would create urgency for him?
References
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University Press.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320500451247
Reading the WMBA 6627 Week 1 instructions
The opening discussion asks students to describe a person who withheld support from an initiative in their workplace. Instructors expect the post to name the initiative, identify the person by role rather than name and describe the specific act of withholding, ideally something observable rather than an attitude. The analysis should then explain what the person was protecting, such as income, standing, control or identity, and connect that to a concept from stakeholder theory or organizational behavior. Posts that separate what the person said from what the person did usually earn the strongest marks. Two replies follow, each addressing the person in a classmate's case and asking what that person stood to lose.
How this WMBA 6627 Week 1 example is built
The post describes the brokerage, its acquisitions and the shared-system initiative, then introduces the Worcester principal and the numbers: 1,860 personal lines accounts moved on time and 412 commercial accounts did not. A paragraph explains what she was protecting and cites Freeman and colleagues on who counts as a stakeholder. Another paragraph cites Oreg on the components of resistance and notes that her agreement in principle and her action diverged. A short paragraph argues that signatures say little about support, followed by a question for classmates. One reply asks what a paper handoff sheet gave a charge nurse; the other cites Mitchell and colleagues on salience. Margin comments flag the specific act and the say-do distinction.
Reading the WMBA 6627 Week 1 rubric
Credit begins with a concrete case: a named initiative, a role and a specific act of withholding that someone could verify. Graders reward analysis of what the person was protecting, grounded in a stakeholder or behavioral concept rather than in a judgment of character. Distinguishing stated support from actual behavior shows insight. Replies are judged on whether they focus on the person in the classmate's case and ask a question about that person's stake. A post that quotes what the reluctant person actually did, not what they said in meetings, gives graders the evidence they want. Posts that show the gap between stated and actual support with evidence earn the strongest marks.
WMBA 6627 Week 1 help: mistakes that cost marks
Think of a change at work where someone agreed in meetings but did not follow through. Write down exactly what they did or did not do, with numbers if you can. Then ask what the change threatened for them: money, control, reputation or the way they like to work. Students often lose marks by describing a person as difficult or negative, by naming a group instead of a role or by skipping the stake. Another frequent gap is a reply that gives advice rather than asking about the other person. Ask what they stood to lose. With names stripped out, the situation from your own workplace can become a custom model post.
Get a WMBA 6627 Week 1 example written to your instructions
Paste the Week 1 prompt and your section's rubric into the request, along with a sentence naming the initiative and the person at the center of it, and a post comes back arguing from that case with both replies drafted. The first sample is free and reaches you inside 24-48 hours.
More WMBA 6627 papers and MBA samples
- WMBA 6627 Week 2: Stakeholder Identification Register
- WMBA 6627 Week 3: Power Interest Grid Analysis
- WMBA 6627 Week 4: Stakeholder Grid Peer Replies
- WMBA 6627 Week 5: Workplace Motivation Analysis
- WMBA 6627 Week 6: Workplace Conflict Case Analysis
- WMBA 6627 Week 7: Stakeholder Engagement Plan
- WMBA 6627 Week 8: Stakeholder Influence Strategy
- WMBA 6627 Week 9: Team Norms Behavior Memo
- WMBA 6627 Week 10: Executive Stakeholder Briefing Note
- WMBA 6627 Week 11: Final Stakeholder Management Report
- WMBA 6623 Week 1: Named Risk Discussion Post
- WMBA 6620 Week 1: Missed Project Target Post
- WMBA 6615 Week 1: Culture First Impression Post
- WMBA 6608 Week 1: Third-Party Payment Post
WMBA 6627 Week 1 questions, answered
Where can I find a free WMBA 6627 Week 1 sample paper?
Both the post about withheld support and the two replies under it are printed here without cuts.
What did the person withhold?
The file for 412 commercial accounts, while moving all personal lines accounts on schedule.
What was she protecting?
Her book of business, her bargaining power in the firm and her control over client service.
Which concepts does the post use?
Freeman and colleagues' definition of stakeholders and Oreg's components of resistance to change.
What do the replies ask?
What each classmate's resisting person stood to lose from the change.