| Course | GM503 Leadership Theory and Practice II |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 10 |
| Paper type | Relational leadership portfolio |
| Length | About 1,120 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 GM503 Unit 10
Three Relationships, None at the Top: A Unit 10 Relational Leadership Portfolio on a State Parks Division
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GM503: Leadership Theory and Practice II
Unit 10 Relational Leadership Portfolio
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The parks division, its staff and every event are composite and illustrative; the frameworks and studies cited are real.
Cover Synthesis
The Division
The visitor services division of a state parks department runs reservations, visitor centers, interpretive programs and volunteer services for 31 state parks. It has 54 permanent staff and about 120 seasonal employees each summer, under a division superintendent who reports to the department's deputy director. Over the term, my papers examined a reservation system rollout, a summer staffing crisis, a volunteer program redesign and a breakdown in communication during a wildfire closure.
The Thesis
Read together, the artifacts show that the division's leadership, in the sense of producing direction, alignment and commitment, came mainly from three recurring relationships: between a senior park ranger and the reservations office's lead clerk; between a seasonal crew lead and the maintenance foreman at the largest park; and between the volunteer coordinator and the president of the parks' friends group. None of the three involves the superintendent, who appears in the record mainly as an approver of decisions that formed elsewhere.
This is not a claim that the superintendent was ineffective. It is a claim about where leadership, understood relationally, actually took place. In Mary Uhl-Bien's relational account, leadership is whatever social process produces coordination and change, and it sits between people rather than inside any one of them (Uhl-Bien, 2006). Wilfred Drath and colleagues proposed identifying leadership by its outcomes, direction, alignment and commitment, rather than by its holders (Drath et al., 2008). Both views lead away from the superintendent's office.
Every time the division solved a hard problem, the record traces the solution to one of the same three pairs of people, and never to the person whose title says she leads.
How the Artifacts Support the Thesis
The reservation rollout (Unit 2). When the new online reservation system launched with booking errors at twelve parks, the fix came from the senior ranger at the busiest park and the reservations lead clerk, who spent two weekends matching campsite records by phone and then wrote the correction procedure the division adopted.
The staffing study (Unit 3). An exchange analysis of seasonal crews showed the strongest relationship in the division was not between any crew and its supervisor but between one seasonal crew lead and the maintenance foreman at the largest park, who trained new seasonals together and whose crews had the lowest turnover.
The volunteer redesign (Units 4 and 5). The volunteer program's shift from one-day events to ongoing site stewardship was negotiated between the volunteer coordinator and the friends group president over a winter of meetings, and both followership and authenticity analyses located its success in that partnership.
The wildfire closure (Units 8 and 9). When a wildfire forced three parks to close in August, information reached visitors fastest through the ranger and clerk pair, who had built a phone tree after the reservation crisis, while official messages from the superintendent's office lagged by several hours.
What the Portfolio Does Not Claim
The thesis does not say the superintendent contributed nothing. She approved the correction procedure, protected the volunteer coordinator's time and requested the budget for seasonal training. Those were real contributions to conditions. James Meindl's romance of leadership warns against crediting visible leaders for outcomes they did not produce (Meindl et al., 1985); the opposite error, ignoring conditions that leaders create, is also possible, and the portfolio tries to avoid both. Where the record shows her shaping conditions, the synthesis says so; where it shows a decision forming without her, the synthesis says that instead, and the revision record below shows how often an earlier paper had blurred the two.
Revision Record
Each earlier artifact is listed below with its original claim, the later unit that challenged it and the revised claim.
Unit 2, relational framework analysis. *Original claim:* credit for fixing the reservation rollout was spread loosely across seasonal staff. *Challenged by:* Unit 3's exchange study, which showed one specific relationship carried most of the coordination. *Revised claim:* the fix came mainly from the senior ranger and the lead clerk, and the paper now names their relationship and the correction procedure they wrote.
Unit 3, leader-member exchange study. *Original claim:* differences in seasonal crews' turnover reflected differences in their supervisors' exchange quality. *Challenged by:* Unit 8's distributed leadership paper, which found that the most effective coordination happened between a crew lead and a foreman outside the formal reporting line. *Revised claim:* exchange quality between peers across units, not only between supervisors and members, explains much of the turnover difference. Exchange theory itself treats such lateral relationships as part of the wider leadership network (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
Unit 4, followership analysis. *Original claim:* the friends group president was an exemplary follower of the volunteer coordinator. *Challenged by:* Unit 5's authentic leadership case, which showed the president often set direction. *Revised claim:* the two operated as partners, with leadership shifting between them by issue.
Unit 5, authentic leadership case. *Original claim:* the volunteer coordinator's transparency explained the redesign's success. *Challenged by:* Unit 9's trust analysis, which showed trust in the coordinator depended on the president's vouching for her with volunteers. *Revised claim:* trust ran through the partnership, not from one person.
Units 8 and 9, distributed leadership and trust. *Original claims:* the wildfire response showed weak leadership from the superintendent's office. *Challenged by:* the synthesis itself, which placed the response within the ranger and clerk relationship built during the reservation crisis. *Revised claim:* the wildfire response showed strong relational leadership that formed months earlier, alongside slow formal communication.
Implications for the Division
If leadership lives in these three relationships, the division is exposed when any of the six people leaves. The superintendent could protect the relationships by giving each pair a formal role, such as making the ranger and clerk responsible for reservation incident response, and by pairing newer staff with each so that the pattern can continue. A short annual review in which each pair describes what it handled that year would also make their work visible to the department, which currently sees only the superintendent's approvals.
Conclusion
The portfolio's artifacts, revised in light of each other, support one thesis: leadership in the visitor services division resided mainly in three recurring relationships below the superintendent. Relational leadership theory and Drath's outcome-based view explain why the record points away from her office, and the revisions show how each unit's lens corrected an earlier one.
References
Drath, W. H., McCauley, C. D., Palus, C. J., Van Velsor, E., O'Connor, P. M. G., & McGuire, J. B. (2008). Direction, alignment, commitment: Toward a more integrative ontology of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 635-653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.09.003
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1), 78-102. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392813
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654-676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007
What the GM503 Unit 10 assignment asks for
The final GM503 portfolio asks you to turn the term's separate analyses into one account. Write a cover synthesis that states a single thesis and draws on every artifact as evidence. Use relational leadership theory and an outcome-based view of leadership to explain where leadership resided. Say plainly what the thesis does not claim, especially about the formal leader, and avoid both the romance of leadership and its opposite. Then present a revision record: for each earlier paper, give its original claim, the later unit that challenged it and the revised claim. The record shows learning, so be specific about what changed and why. Close with implications for the organization based on the thesis. Expect about twelve pages in total, with a five-page synthesis followed by the revised artifacts, and cite the frameworks you rely on in APA 7.
How the GM 503 Unit 10 example is put together
The cover synthesis describes the division's 31 parks and the four situations the term examined: a reservation rollout, a staffing study, a volunteer redesign and a wildfire closure. The thesis names three relationships, and Uhl-Bien's relational theory and Drath and colleagues' outcome-based view explain why the record points away from the superintendent, as the highlighted sentence states. Each situation is traced to one of the pairs, including a phone tree that reached visitors hours ahead of official messages during the fire. A section on what the portfolio does not claim credits the superintendent's approvals and protections, citing Meindl and colleagues. The revision record follows for Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9, with Graen and Uhl-Bien supporting the extension of exchange theory to peers. Implications suggest formal roles for each pair, paired newer staff and an annual review that makes their work visible.
Reading the GM503 Unit 10 grading rubric
This GM503 portfolio is graded on coherence and on evidence of learning. Instructors look for a single thesis that every artifact supports, rather than a collection of separate conclusions. The synthesis should use relational and outcome-based frameworks accurately and acknowledge the formal leader's real contributions. Saying outright what the argument leaves open shows judgment. The revision record carries significant weight: each entry should state the original claim, the specific later unit that challenged it and the revised claim, which demonstrates that the term's frameworks corrected one another. Recommendations should grow directly out of the thesis. Clear organization, with the synthesis first and the revised work after, helps the reader. Four sources anchor the synthesis in APA 7: Uhl-Bien's relational theory, the exchange review by Graen and Uhl-Bien, the outcome view of Drath's team and Meindl's romance of leadership.
GM503 Unit 10 help from the desk
GM503 portfolios often collect earlier papers with a short introduction and no unifying thesis. Others revise nothing, which leaves contradictions between artifacts unaddressed. A common mistake is a thesis so broad, such as saying leadership was everywhere, that no evidence could challenge it. Some writers swing to the opposite of the romance of leadership and deny the formal leader any role. Revision records tend to be vague, listing papers as updated without saying what changed. Write a thesis that names where leadership resided, support it with evidence from every artifact, state what you are not claiming, record each revision with the unit that prompted it and the new claim, and close with practical steps the organization could take to protect the relationships your thesis identifies.
Get a GM503 Unit 10 example written to your instructions
Gather the papers you wrote across GM503, or summarize the claim each made, and note where later units changed your view; include the Unit 10 prompt and rubric. Back within 24-48h come the synthesis and the revision table, the first portfolio free, following your instructions, with brackets wherever your own artifacts must supply detail. 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 GM503 papers and MS in Management samples
- GM503 Unit 1: Follower Question Discussion Post
- GM503 Unit 2: Ballpark Turnaround Relational Analysis
- GM503 Unit 3: Admissions Team LMX Study
- GM503 Unit 4: Orchestra Followership Analysis
- GM503 Unit 5: Housing Nonprofit Authenticity Case
- GM503 Unit 6: Search Team Shared Leadership Paper
- GM503 Unit 7: School Bus Servant Leadership Paper
- GM503 Unit 8: Open-Source Patch Leadership Paper
- GM503 Unit 9: Translation Agency Trust Analysis
- GM502 Unit 10: Audit Supervisor Development Plan
- GM501 Unit 10: Internal Talent Marketplace Paper
- GM500 Unit 10: Bakery Contingency Integrative Paper
GM503 Unit 10 questions, answered
Do I have to revise earlier papers, or only collect them?
Prompts differ, and the rubric decides. Many portfolio assignments reward revision because it shows the term's learning applied to earlier work. Even where revision is optional, a short note on each artifact explaining what you would now change demonstrates the same growth. Carrying weak claims forward unchanged, with no acknowledgment, usually costs the synthesis credit.
What if my earlier papers analyzed different settings?
The synthesis can still work, though the thesis changes shape. Instead of one account of one setting, it argues something about relational leadership across settings, such as where it tends to concentrate or what disrupts it. Each artifact then serves as a case. A single setting makes the synthesis easier to build, but a comparative thesis can be equally strong.
How long should the synthesis be?
Long enough to carry the thesis with evidence from every artifact, which in many sections means four to six pages ahead of the collected work. The rubric often specifies a range. A synthesis that is too short tends to become a list of summaries; one that is too long starts repeating the artifacts rather than drawing on them.
Where can I find a free GM503 Unit 10 sample paper?
This page carries a full GM503 Unit 10 relational leadership portfolio on a state parks division, with a cover synthesis, a thesis about three recurring relationships, a revision record and APA 7 references.
What goes in a revision record?
For each earlier paper, the original claim, the later unit whose analysis challenged it and the revised claim. It shows how the term's frameworks corrected one another, which many portfolio rubrics reward.