| Course | GB526 Global Management and Leadership |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Change leadership plan |
| Length | About 850 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB526 Unit 9
Self-Steering Teams From Rotterdam to Monterrey: A Unit 9 Change Leadership Plan That Keeps the Purpose
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB526: Global Management and Leadership
Unit 9 Change Leadership Plan
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The logistics company, the distribution center and its people are composite; the published scores and sources cited are real.
The Headquarters Design
Van Doorn Logistics, a composite Dutch logistics company, runs distribution centers for retail clients in Europe and the Americas. In its Dutch warehouses, teams of [twelve] schedule their own shifts, set daily priorities from the client's order data and hold performance conversations with each other without a supervisor. Headquarters reports higher productivity and lower turnover since the change and wants every site to adopt the model within two years.
The Monterrey distribution center employs about 280 people, organized in teams of ten to fifteen under shift supervisors who assign work, approve leave and handle problems.
Why the Design Assumes an Egalitarian Workplace
Hofstede et al. (2010) score the Netherlands at 38 on power distance and Mexico at 81. In Dutch workplaces, employees generally expect to be consulted and to challenge managers. In many Mexican workplaces, employees expect supervisors to give direction, and a supervisor who does not may seem to be failing in the role. The GLOBE study found that participative leadership is endorsed less strongly in the Latin American cluster than in Northern European societies, while team-oriented and charismatic leadership are strongly valued (Javidan et al., 2006).
The self-steering design depends on employees being willing to make decisions that supervisors used to make and to give each other performance feedback. Introduced as it stands, the model risks two outcomes: teams that wait for direction that no longer comes, and supervisors who feel their role has been removed.
The purpose of the design, faster decisions closer to the work and more ownership by the people doing it, fits Monterrey; the form, teams with no supervisor, does not yet.
Exhibit 1: Kept or Localized
Teams set daily priorities from client order data: kept. Team members see the same data the supervisor sees and agree on the day's priorities at a short start-of-shift meeting.
Teams schedule their own shifts: kept, with a team coordinator who proposes the schedule and the shift leader who approves it in the first year.
No supervisor: localized. Supervisors become team leaders whose role shifts from assigning work to coaching and removing obstacles. Their title and standing remain.
Peer performance conversations: localized. In the first year, performance conversations are led by the team leader with input gathered from teammates privately, rather than open peer feedback in the group.
Team-level results and bonuses: kept. The site already pays a quarterly bonus; it becomes team-based on accuracy, on-time shipment and safety.
Rotating team roles, such as safety lead and quality lead: kept. Rotating roles give team members responsibility while the team leader remains in place.
Exhibit 2: Three Phases
Phase 1, months 1 to 4: prepare. Explain the change and its reasons to the whole site, in Spanish, with the site manager and supervisors presenting together. Train supervisors in coaching before teams change. Choose two teams to pilot, led by supervisors who volunteer.
Phase 2, months 5 to 12: pilot and adapt. The two pilot teams run start-of-shift priority meetings, rotating roles and coordinator-proposed schedules. Results are compared monthly with other teams. Team members and leaders are interviewed at months 8 and 12, and the design is adjusted.
Phase 3, months 13 to 24: extend. Roll out to all teams in waves of four, led by pilot team members who act as coaches. Review whether peer feedback can begin in the second year for teams that want it.
Kotter (1996) emphasizes building a guiding coalition and generating short-term wins. At Monterrey, the coalition must include supervisors, because they lose the most under the headquarters design; the pilot teams' results are the short-term wins.
Working With Headquarters
The plan departs from the headquarters design in two respects: supervisors remain as team leaders, and peer feedback is delayed. Headquarters may see these as resistance. The site manager should present the plan to the Rotterdam operations team as a way to reach the same results, with the measures used in the Netherlands: productivity per hour, order accuracy, turnover and employee survey scores. Agreeing on measures, rather than on form, gives both sides a basis to judge the change.
Risks
Supervisors may resist even the coaching role, seeing it as a loss of authority. Their training and their involvement in designing the pilot address this.
Team members may doubt that decisions are really theirs. The site manager must not override priorities the teams set unless safety or a client commitment requires it, and should explain any override.
Headquarters may insist on the full model. The plan's measures and pilot results are the answer; if the pilot teams match Dutch results, the localized form has earned its place.
Measures
Productivity per hour, order accuracy, on-time shipment, safety incidents, turnover and a short survey of team members' sense of ownership will be tracked monthly for pilot and comparison teams.
References
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., de Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 67-90. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2006.19873410
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press.
GB526 Unit 9 instructions, in plain terms
In GB526 Unit 9 you plan how to lead a change designed elsewhere into a different cultural setting. Describe the design and the receiving site. Explain, with cultural research, which assumptions the design makes and why they may not hold. Sort the design's elements into those kept and those localized, with a reason for each. Set out phases for introducing the change, drawing on change leadership research. Explain how you will work with headquarters, and close with risks and measures. Expect about six pages with the table and timeline as exhibits, citing sources in APA 7.
Inside the GB526 Unit 9 example
The plan describes Van Doorn Logistics' self-steering teams and the Monterrey site's supervisor structure. It applies Hofstede and colleagues' power distance scores and Javidan and colleagues' GLOBE findings, and the highlighted sentence separates purpose from form. Exhibit 1 keeps team priorities, coordinator-proposed schedules, team bonuses and rotating roles, and localizes the supervisor and peer feedback. Exhibit 2 sets preparation, a two-team pilot and waves of rollout, citing Kotter on coalitions and short-term wins. A section proposes shared measures with Rotterdam, and risks and monthly measures close it.
Reading the GB526 Unit 9 grading rubric
GB526 instructors grade this plan on a clear account of the design's assumptions and a localization that keeps its purpose. Explaining why the design assumes an egalitarian workplace earns early credit. Sorting elements into kept and localized, each with a reason, carries significant weight. Phases with a pilot and short-term wins show change leadership understanding. Including supervisors in the coalition shows judgment about who loses most. Working with headquarters through shared measures shows maturity. Risks and measures complete it. In APA 7 the plan relies on Hofstede and colleagues, Javidan and colleagues on GLOBE and Kotter. A table with a reason for each kept or localized element lets headquarters see the plan is principled. Measures shared with the original sites, such as productivity and turnover, give both sides a fair basis for judging the localized design.
GB526 Unit 9 help: mistakes that cost points
Many GB526 Unit 9 plans either copy the headquarters design unchanged or reject it as unsuitable. Others localize elements without saying why each change keeps the design's purpose. A common gap is headquarters: a local adaptation needs measures both sides accept, or it will be seen as resistance. Some writers forget the supervisors whose role the design removes. Explain the assumptions, sort kept and localized elements, phase the change with a pilot, include those who lose most and agree measures with headquarters. A pilot whose results match the original model is the strongest case for a localized form. Explaining the localization to headquarters as a route to the same results, rather than as an exemption, makes it more likely to be accepted.
Get a GB526 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Describe the change in your Unit 9 scenario: where it was designed, where it has to land, and who leads it locally. Send that with the rubric. A custom plan that separates the change's purpose from its form, phases the transfer and measures both adoption and acceptance arrives in 24-48h. Nothing is charged for a first request. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GB526 papers and MBA samples
- GB526 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB526 Unit 2: Cultural Analysis
- GB526 Unit 3: Case Analysis
- GB526 Unit 4: Leadership Self-Assessment
- GB526 Unit 5: Virtual Team Plan
- GB526 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB526 Unit 7: Expatriate Assignment Brief
- GB526 Unit 8: Negotiation Analysis
- GB526 Unit 10: Leadership Development Report
- GB525 Unit 9: Location Recommendation
- GB520 Unit 9: Retention and Relations Analysis
- GB519 Unit 9: Balanced Scorecard and Strategy Map
- GB518 Unit 9: Financial Ratio Analysis
GB526 Unit 9 questions, answered
Does a cross-border change need different theory from a domestic one?
Usually it needs more. A general model can still supply sequence, but research on transferring practices between countries, such as Kostova's, explains why a practice adopted on paper may never take hold, and cultural frameworks explain which features will meet resistance. The plan should show how the setting changes what the general model would recommend on its own.
What if headquarters will not allow any changes to the design?
Then the plan works within that constraint and says so. Even a locked design leaves room in how it is introduced: sequence, communication, who delivers the message, and support during transition. Name what cannot change, explain the risk that creates, and describe what the local leader can still shape. Graders reward realistic plans over ones assuming authority the role lacks.
How do I measure whether a change has been accepted?
Pair a behavior measure with a belief measure. Behavior shows whether the new practice is happening; belief shows whether people value it or merely comply. Surveys, interviews and indirect signs, such as how often people route around the new process, all help. A plan measuring compliance alone can report success while the old practice continues informally.
Where can I find a free GB526 Unit 9 sample paper?
This page carries a full GB526 Unit 9 change leadership plan for introducing self-steering teams in Monterrey, with a kept-or-localized table, three phases, shared measures and APA 7 references.
Why keep supervisors as team leaders?
Removing them at once would leave teams waiting for direction and take away the supervisors' standing. As team leaders who coach rather than assign work, they support the change instead of resisting it.