WMBA 6882 Week 5 Contrarian Peer Replies Example

Course	WMBA 6882 Initiating and Managing Change
Week	Week 5
Paper type	Discussion replies
Length	About 410 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 6882 Week 5

Week 5 Discussion: Responding to Classmates' Resistance Cases

Arguing the Other Side From the Classmate's Own Details: Why the Assistant Managers Were Right About the Closing Checklist and the Tellers Were Right About the Cross-Selling Script

Response to Jordan

Jordan, you wrote that "the assistant managers dragged their feet on the new closing checklist for three months." I want to argue that they had the better read on the design, using two details from your own post.

First, you mention that the checklist requires a photo of each of eleven stations, uploaded before the alarm is set. Second, you mention that most closers ride the 12:40 a.m. bus. If photos and uploads add the twenty-five minutes your post estimates, a closer who finishes at the old time misses the last bus. The assistant managers were not resisting a checklist; they were protecting their crews' only ride home, and slow compliance was the only lever they had.

The checklist will probably go ahead, and food safety is a good reason for it. But the objection exposes a flaw the post treats as attitude: the design added time to the one part of the shift with a hard end. Ford et al. (2008) argued that resistance can be a resource that tells change agents something about their plan. Would cutting the photos to the four stations with food-safety risk have kept the bus?

What this page is doingThe reply quotes one line from the post and then uses a detail from the same post, so the argument cannot be dismissed as outside the case.

Response to Alicia

Alicia, you described the tellers at your branch as "unwilling to embrace the new cross-selling script." Your post also says the branch scorecard still ranks tellers by transactions per hour, and that average lobby waits rose from four minutes to eleven in the first month of the script.

Put those together and the tellers were doing what the scorecard paid for. Every scripted conversation lowered their transaction count, and the line behind each customer made the cost visible. Kerr (1975) described exactly this pattern: an organization asks for one behavior while its measures reward another. The tellers read the measure correctly.

I agree the branch will keep some version of the script, since cross-selling is in the regional plan. The design problem is that the script was added without changing what tellers are measured on. Oreg (2006) found that both personality and context were associated with how employees responded to a large change, so labeling the tellers unwilling skips the context your post describes so clearly. If the scorecard had counted referrals alongside transactions, do you think the waits would have looked different to the tellers?

What this page is doingOne sentence concedes the change will proceed, which leaves room for the harder claim about what the objection shows.

References

Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193235

Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 769-783. https://doi.org/10.2307/255378

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

What the WMBA 6882 Week 5 instructions ask for

Week 5 asks students to reply to classmates' resistance cases by arguing that the people the classmate described as obstacles were right about something. The argument must be built from details already in the classmate's post, because outside arguments let the writer say their case was different. A reply typically opens by quoting one line from the post, then brings in a second detail from the same post that changes how the first reads. It concedes, in a sentence, that the change will probably proceed, and then states the design flaw the objection exposed. The criticism should be aimed at the plan or the reading of evidence, never at the classmate. Back the claim with a source, then hand the last word to the classmate with a question about their own case. Two short replies are expected.

How this WMBA 6882 Week 5 example is built

The reply to Jordan quotes his line about assistant managers dragging their feet for three months. It then combines two details from his post: photos of eleven stations before the alarm is set, and closers who ride the 12:40 a.m. bus. With the added twenty-five minutes, closers miss the bus, so the managers' slow compliance protected their crews. The reply concedes food safety justifies a checklist, cites Ford and colleagues on resistance as information and asks whether photos at only four stations would have kept the bus. The reply to Alicia quotes "unwilling to embrace the new cross-selling script," then uses her own figures: a transactions-per-hour scorecard and waits rising from four to eleven minutes. It cites Kerr and Oreg and asks whether counting referrals would have changed the tellers' reading.

Where the marks sit in the WMBA 6882 Week 5 rubric

The best replies cannot be dismissed as being about a different case. Graders reward a quoted line from the classmate's post and a second detail from the same post that turns it around. Credibility comes from conceding what is true, especially that the change will likely proceed, before arguing what the objection revealed. The claim should be about a specific design flaw, stated plainly. Sources earn credit when they explain the mechanism, such as rewards that contradict requests. Courtesy is assessed through precision: every critical sentence should be about the plan or the evidence, not the person who wrote the post. Ending on a question only the classmate's knowledge of the case can settle completes a strong reply.

WMBA 6882 Week 5 help: mistakes that cost marks

Read the classmate's post twice, the second time looking only for facts: times, counts, measures, schedules. Ask which group the post blames and what those facts would look like from that group's side. Quote the line that blames them, then put a second fact beside it. Concede what the classmate has right before making your claim. Replies lose marks for importing outside examples, for arguing with the classmate rather than the evidence and for vague praise followed by a weak "but." Another error is claiming the change should be stopped, which is rarely the point. Keep each reply to a few short paragraphs. If you would like model contrarian replies to posts in your own section, share the passages you plan to answer.

Get a WMBA 6882 Week 5 example written to your instructions

One classmate's post plus the Week 5 reply instructions and rubric give the desk what it needs; two drafted replies land inside 24 to 48 hours, the first at no charge. Where a section sets a word floor or wants a closing question, say so. That pasted post feeds the draft and nothing else.

More WMBA 6882 papers and MBA samples

WMBA 6882 Week 5 questions, answered

Where can I find a free WMBA 6882 Week 5 sample paper?

Both contrarian replies, the closing-checklist one and the cross-selling one, are printed here in full and cost nothing.

What makes the WMBA 6882 Week 5 replies contrarian?

Each argues that the group a classmate described as resisting was right about a flaw in the design.

Why use only details from the classmate's post?

Arguments built from the classmate's own evidence cannot be dismissed as being about a different situation.

What did the assistant managers protect?

Their closing crews' last bus home, which a twenty-five-minute photo checklist would have caused them to miss.

What does each reply concede?

That the change will probably go ahead, which leaves room to argue about what the objection exposed in the design.