| Course | GM502 Leadership Theory and Practice I |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Leader comparison case |
| Length | About 1,130 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GM502 Unit 7
One Script, Two Results: A Unit 7 Leader Comparison Case of Two Regional Sales Managers
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GM502: Leadership Theory and Practice I
Unit 7 Leader Comparison Case
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The distributor, both managers, their regions and every figure are composite and illustrative; the theory and studies cited are real.
The Case
Keystone Clinical Supply sells drapes, dressings and wound therapy equipment to operating rooms and outpatient surgery centers in eleven eastern states. Its two newest regional managers, Rachel Okoye in the Carolinas region and Tom Brandt in the Ohio Valley region, were hired in the same month two years ago, attended the same three-week management program and are paid under the same plan: base salary plus a bonus tied to regional revenue growth.
Both managers lead in a directive way. Each writes call plans for representatives' major account visits, specifying the products to present, the questions to ask and the objections to expect, and each reviews notes from every major call within a day. A sales operations analyst who rode along with both managers described their approaches as "almost identical."
Their results are not. Okoye's region grew revenue 9 percent last year. Brandt's shrank 4 percent.
What Differs Between the Regions
Three features of the regions differ sharply, and all three were inherited rather than chosen. The Carolinas region was formed only three years ago by splitting a larger territory, and its eight representatives average just under two years of tenure; several were hired directly from clinical roles and had never sold before. The Ohio Valley region is one of the company's oldest, and its seven representatives average eleven years with Keystone, most with established relationships at the hospitals they serve. Product mix also differs. Carolinas accounts lean toward the company's newer negative-pressure wound therapy systems, which require clinical training and demonstrations, while Ohio Valley sales are mostly established consumables such as dressings and surgical drapes. Finally, Ohio Valley lost two large hospital accounts to a group purchasing contract signed before Brandt arrived.
How Much Do the Territories Explain?
Keystone's planning team estimates market potential for each region from hospital bed counts, surgical volumes and competitor share. Using those estimates, the Carolinas region was expected to grow about 6 percent last year because of new surgery centers opening, and the Ohio Valley region was expected to decline about 2 percent because of the lost accounts. Against those expectations, Okoye beat her region's potential by about 3 points and Brandt fell short of his by about 2. The territories explain roughly half of the 13-point gap between the regions. The other half is what needs explaining.
Half of the difference was settled before either manager arrived; the other half appeared when the same directive style met two very different teams.
Path-Goal Theory
In Robert House's path-goal account, a leader earns results by making the route to a follower's goal easier to see and easier to travel, filling whatever gap the work and the follower leave open. Which leader behavior helps depends on two sets of contingencies: characteristics of the followers, such as their experience and need for structure, and characteristics of the task, such as how routine or ambiguous it is (House, 1971). House later reformulated the theory with more leader behaviors and contingencies, but kept its core idea that leader behavior matters most where it supplies something the situation does not (House, 1996).
The theory's central prediction for directive leadership is specific: directive behavior should help when tasks are ambiguous and followers inexperienced, and it should help less, or even frustrate followers, when tasks are clear and followers experienced.
Applying the Theory
In the Carolinas, both contingencies favor directive leadership. Representatives with under two years of tenure, many of them new to sales, were selling a complex product that requires demonstrations to surgeons and wound care nurses. Okoye's scripted call plans supplied the structure they lacked. Representatives interviewed by the sales operations analyst said the call plans "told us what the surgeons actually care about."
In the Ohio Valley, both contingencies run the other way. Representatives with more than a decade of experience were selling familiar products to buyers they had known for years. Brandt's scripts told them what they already knew, and in some cases told them things they believed were wrong for particular accounts. Two representatives said they felt "managed like rookies," and one long-tenured representative left for a competitor in the spring, taking a hospital relationship with her.
A Check Within Each Region
If path-goal theory is right, the pattern should also appear inside each region, not only between them. It does, in a small way. In the Carolinas, the two representatives with the longest tenure, both former sales representatives at other companies, grew their accounts least, about 3 percent, and both told the analyst they found the call plans unnecessary. In the Ohio Valley, the newest representative, hired eight months ago, grew her accounts 6 percent, the best in the region, and described Brandt's scripts as the most useful part of her onboarding. Four representatives are too few to test anything formally, but the direction matches the theory: the directive style helped the less experienced people in both regions and did little for the experienced ones.
How Strong Is the Evidence for This Reading?
Tests of path-goal theory have produced uneven results. A meta-analysis found support for some of its predictions, particularly those involving task structure, but weaker or inconsistent support for others, and noted that many studies tested the theory incompletely (Wofford & Liska, 1993). So the theory fits this case well, but the case cannot prove the theory. Other explanations for the remaining gap are possible, including differences in the managers' relationships with key accounts or simple chance over one year.
Implications
Path-goal theory suggests different adjustments for each manager. Okoye's directive approach fits her team now, but as her representatives gain experience, the same scripts will provide less value. She should plan to move gradually toward more supportive and participative behavior, giving experienced representatives more latitude account by account. Brandt's team needs less direction and more of what experienced representatives lack in his region: help competing against the group purchasing contract and recovering the lost accounts. Shifting his effort from scripting calls to removing obstacles, such as negotiating pricing exceptions with headquarters, would match the theory's prescription.
Conclusion
The two managers lead the same way and got opposite results. About half the gap comes from the territories they inherited. Path-goal theory explains much of the rest: the directive style fits a team of new representatives selling a complex product and frustrates a team of veterans selling familiar ones. The theory's evidence is mixed, but in this case it points to a clear adjustment for each manager.
References
House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321-339. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391905
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7
Wofford, J. C., & Liska, L. Z. (1993). Path-goal theories of leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 19(4), 857-876. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639301900407
GM502 Unit 7 instructions, in plain terms
Unit 7 of GM502 gives you two leaders and asks why their results differ. Establish how alike they are first, including hiring, training, pay and observed style, since shared features rule out whole categories of explanation. Then describe what differs between their units, especially conditions they inherited. Estimate how much of the gap those conditions explain, using the organization's own data where available. Only then apply a leadership theory to the remainder, stating the theory's prediction and showing how the evidence fits. A check within each unit strengthens the argument if the same pattern appears there. Characterize the theory's evidence base so the reader knows how much weight the case can bear. Close with implications for each leader. Write about six pages in case format with a side-by-side profile and APA 7 citations, putting territory or unit data in a short appendix.
How this GM502 Unit 7 example is built
The case section establishes that Okoye and Brandt were hired in the same month, trained in one program, paid under one plan and observed scripting calls in nearly the same way. The regional section contrasts eight representatives averaging under two years with seven averaging eleven, wound therapy systems with drapes and dressings, and two accounts lost to a purchasing contract. Planning estimates expected 6 percent growth and a 2 percent decline, so the territories explain about half of the 13-point gap, as the highlighted sentence states. House's 1971 theory and 1996 reformulation predict where directive behavior helps. The regions fit both contingencies, and a within-region check finds the same pattern among the least and most experienced representatives. Wofford and Liska's meta-analysis limits the claim. Implications ask Okoye to loosen gradually and Brandt to shift from scripting to removing obstacles.
GM502 Unit 7 rubric: what earns full points
Most of the credit in this GM502 case goes to disciplined comparison. Instructors check that the writer establishes similarity between the leaders and estimates how much inherited conditions explain before turning to theory. Quantifying that share with the organization's data is a mark of a strong paper. The theory should be stated with its specific prediction, and the evidence should be matched to its contingencies, follower experience and task ambiguity in the case of path-goal theory. A within-unit check earns credit because it tests the explanation a second way. Characterizing the theory's mixed empirical support keeps the conclusion proportionate. Implications are graded on whether each follows from the theory and differs by leader. House's two articles in Administrative Science Quarterly and The Leadership Quarterly and Wofford and Liska's Journal of Management meta-analysis provide the theoretical and empirical base in APA 7.
Common GM502 Unit 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
GM502 Unit 7 cases often blame or praise leaders for results that their territories largely determined. Controlling for inherited conditions first prevents that. Others apply a theory that fits the conclusion without testing its prediction. A common mistake is describing the two leaders' styles as different when the evidence shows they are the same, which hides the real puzzle. Some writers skip the evidence record for the theory and present one case as proof. Implications are often identical for both leaders, though the theory usually calls for different adjustments. Show how alike the leaders are, list what differs between their units, estimate how much those differences explain, apply the theory to what remains, check the pattern within each unit if you can, state the theory's limits and recommend a specific change for each leader.
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. 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 GM502 papers and MS in Management samples
- GM502 Unit 1: Best Leader Traits and Behaviors Post
- GM502 Unit 2: Hiring Memo Trait Claims Analysis
- GM502 Unit 3: Night Shift Manager Behavior Paper
- GM502 Unit 4: Extraversion Score Self-Assessment
- GM502 Unit 5: Fiedler Model at a Newspaper Metro Desk
- GM502 Unit 6: Substitutes Seminar Reflection
- GM502 Unit 8: Situational Analysis
- GM502 Unit 9: Influence and Power Paper
- GM502 Unit 10: Leadership Development Plan
- GM501 Unit 7: Four-Day Week Pilot Decision Memo
- GM500 Unit 7: Per-Stop Pay Motivation Theory Case
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.
Where can I find a free GM502 Unit 7 sample paper?
This page carries a full GM502 Unit 7 leader comparison case of two sales managers with the same directive style and opposite results, controlling for territory before applying path-goal theory, with APA 7 references.
How much of the gap did the territories explain?
Market potential estimates expected the Carolinas to grow about 6 percent and the Ohio Valley to fall about 2 percent. That accounts for roughly half of the 13-point gap, leaving the rest for the leadership analysis.