Same training, same style, opposite results: two regional sales managers compared through path-goal theory in a GM502 Unit 7 leader comparison case, after territory differences are controlled. Searches like "gm 502 unit 7 assignment example", "gm502 unit 7 sample" and "gm502 unit 7 example" land here.
What a finished GM502 Unit 7 leader comparison case looks like
Six pages in case format with a side-by-side profile table, APA citations and a short appendix of territory data. The case section establishes how alike the two managers are: hired in the same year, trained in the same class, paid under the same plan, and both observed scripting representatives' calls in detail. The table then sets out what differs: product mix, representative tenure and account churn inherited from predecessors. A controls section asks how much of the gap the territories explain, using the distributor's own potential estimates, and finds roughly half. Path-goal theory takes the remainder. One region sells an established wound-care line to repeat buyers, where directive coaching adds little to a structured task; the other launched a new surgical stapler, where the same scripting cleared real ambiguity.
How a GM502 Unit 7 example is structured
Similarity is established before difference, since a comparison case is only as persuasive as its claim that the two leaders are genuinely alike. The opening pages document training, plan and observed behavior. Differences follow in the table, and the controls section addresses them before any theory appears, because results inherited from a territory reveal nothing about the manager now running it. Only the unexplained remainder goes to theory. Path-goal theory is introduced through House's 1996 reformulation, limited to directive and supportive behavior and the two contingencies the case needs: task structure and follower experience. The analysis applies the model to each region in turn and states what it predicts before showing results. A discussion section notes where the model fits loosely, particularly on veteran representatives' dissatisfaction, and the recommendations differ by region rather than prescribing one style for both.
Alike on paper and in the field
Hiring year, training cohort, compensation plan and a shared habit of scripting calls line up exactly. The case documents each similarity, because the comparison collapses if the managers differ in something the paper ignored.
What each manager inherited
Product mix, representative tenure and account losses left by predecessors, set side by side. The territory with the longer-serving representatives also carried the older product line and the steeper inherited churn.
Half the gap, explained away
Using the distributor's territory potential estimates, the controls section attributes roughly half the performance difference to conditions neither manager created. Only the remaining half is treated as a leadership question.
Scripting where the task is clear
On the established wound-care line, veteran representatives already knew the buyers and the pitch. Path-goal theory predicts that directive behavior there adds little and irritates, and exit interviews from [two] departed representatives say much the same.
Scripting where the task is new
On the stapler launch, representatives faced surgeons with unfamiliar objections. The same directive habit supplied the clarity the task lacked, as the model predicts, and early adoption figures follow it.
Where marks go in GM502 Unit 7
Comparison cases lose most when outcomes are read straight back into the leaders, so the manager whose region grew becomes the better leader by definition. Results carry the conditions a leader inherited, and a paper that never separates the two has compared territories rather than people. Behind that sits a subtler error: two leaders never shown to be alike, which leaves any difference open to a dozen explanations. A prediction drawn from the chosen theory, stated before any results appear, often separates the strongest cases from the rest. Applying path-goal theory with every leader behavior and every contingency at once tends to blur the analysis. Recommendations prescribing one style for both regions ignore what the comparison found, and they usually cost the application row.
Get a GM502 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Describe the two leaders, what makes them comparable and how their results differed, and add whatever is known about the conditions each inherited, together with the Unit 7 prompt and rubric. Written to your instructions, the first comparison is free and lands within 24-48h, with bracketed figures wherever only your organization's data can serve.
GM502 Unit 7 questions, answered
Do the two leaders need to work for the same organization?
It helps considerably, because shared policies, training and pay remove whole categories of explanation before the analysis begins. Leaders from different organizations can be compared if the roles are close, but then the case must account for many more differences. Many strong papers compare two supervisors, two managers or two project leads under one employer, where similarity is easiest to demonstrate.
How can inherited conditions be controlled without statistics?
Plain comparison often suffices. Set out what each leader started with, such as staffing, budget, customer base or a predecessor's problems, and ask how much of the outcome gap those differences could plausibly explain. Organizational figures like territory potential or prior-year results help where available. The aim is honesty about what the leader did not cause, not precision.
Which theory explains leader comparisons best?
It depends on what differs between the settings. Path-goal theory suits cases where tasks or followers differ, Fiedler's model where situational control differs, and behavioral frameworks where the leaders themselves act differently. The Unit 7 reading often points to one. Choosing the theory that addresses the actual difference, rather than the most familiar one, is where much of the credit sits.