| Course | GM586 Transformational Leadership |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Seminar reflection |
| Length | About 800 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GM586 Unit 6
The Favorite Manager and the Resented Director: A Unit 6 Seminar Reflection on Who Raised Expectations
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GM586: Transformational Leadership
Unit 6 Seminar Reflection
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The classmates' cases and the writer's water reclamation plant are composite; the sources cited are real.
The Two Cases
Derek described the sales manager at the dealership where he worked for four years. The manager bought lunch for the floor every Friday, shielded salespeople from the regional office's complaints, and was voted favorite manager three years running in the dealership's staff survey. Turnover on the floor stayed above 40 percent a year, and in four years no salesperson pursued the finance and insurance certification that leads to the dealership's best-paid jobs.
Anita described the elections director in her county. The director ran recount drills twice a year that nobody wanted, sent back chain-of-custody forms if a single initial was missing, and was widely resented by the staff. Then a close county race went to a hand recount. Her staff finished it in four days without a single discrepancy, and the next cycle, three of them asked to lead the training for poll workers.
My First Vote
When the instructor asked which leader was more transformational, I voted for the sales manager, along with most of the class. He cared about his people, protected them and made work pleasant. The elections director sounded like a rule enforcer, the transactional end of the model at best.
The Instructor's Test
The instructor asked a different question: which leader raised what staff expected of themselves? She reminded us that James MacGregor Burns saw transforming leadership as a relationship in which leader and followers lift each other's motivation and moral purpose (Burns, 1978), and that Bernard Bass's book on the subject was titled Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations (Bass, 1985).
Measured that way, the answer reversed. The sales manager's staff expected nothing more of themselves after four years than when they started; none pursued certification, and most left. The elections director's staff came to expect perfection of themselves and then asked to teach it. Her drills and her returned forms were demanding, but they communicated that the work mattered and that her staff could meet a very high standard.
The manager everyone liked kept his staff comfortable, and the director nobody liked made her staff capable, and only one of those is what the model calls transformation.
Ronit Kark, Boas Shamir and Gilad Chen found that transformational leadership could produce two different effects: empowerment of followers, and dependence on the leader (Kark et al., 2003). The sales manager's shielding may have built dependence. His salespeople relied on him to handle the regional office, and when they left his floor, they had no new capacity of their own. The director's staff, by contrast, could run a recount without her.
Where I Still Hesitate
I do not think resentment is a sign of good leadership. The elections director might have reached the same result with less friction if she had explained why the drills mattered. And the dealership's turnover may have had causes the manager could not control, such as commission structures set by the owner. But the class's point stands: being liked is not the measure.
Turning It on My Plant
I supervise eight operators on the night shift at a water reclamation plant. I am, by my own account and I think by theirs, a well-liked supervisor. I cover shifts, I keep the day managers off their backs, and I bring food on holidays. But when I asked myself the instructor's question, I could not name one operator whose expectations of themselves I had raised. Two operators have been at Grade II certification for five years and have not tried for Grade III. I have never asked them to. When the plant failed a nitrogen limit last spring, I handled the report to the state myself, because I did not want to put the pressure on them.
Looking back, I protected my operators from pressure because I thought pressure was the opposite of support. The elections director's case suggests a different view: a high standard, clearly held, can be a form of respect, because it tells people they are capable of meeting it. By keeping the nitrogen report to myself, I told my operators, without meaning to, that I did not think they could handle it. I also left the plant dependent on me for something the next supervisor will need someone else to know.
I have been the sales manager. This term, I will ask the two Grade II operators what it would take to sit for Grade III and offer to study with them, and I will have one operator draft the next permit exceedance report with me rather than doing it alone.
References
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246-255. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.246
Reading the GM 586 Unit 6 instructions
The GM586 Unit 6 reflection records what a seminar taught you, written in the first person. Summarize the cases classmates brought, each in terms of what the leader did and what followers did afterward. State the view or vote you held at first, honestly. Then explain the test that changed it, drawing on the reading, such as Burns on raising followers' motivation and Bass on performance beyond expectations. Apply the test to each case with evidence beyond whether the leader was liked. Say where you still hesitate. Then turn the test on your own leadership: ask what you have done to raise what the people you lead expect of themselves, and name specific actions you will take. Two and a half first-person pages is typical, with Burns, Bass and any added studies cited in APA 7.
Inside the GM586 Unit 6 example
The reflection summarizes Derek's sales manager, with Friday lunches, protection from the regional office, three favorite manager awards, turnover above 40 percent and no certifications, and Anita's elections director, with drills, returned forms and a four-day recount without discrepancies followed by staff volunteering to train. The writer's first vote for the sales manager is recorded. The instructor's test, drawn from Burns and Bass, reverses it, and the highlighted sentence separates comfort from capability. Kark, Shamir and Chen's distinction between empowerment and dependency explains the sales manager's shielding. A section hesitates over resentment and outside causes of turnover. The writer then examines his plant: eight night operators, two at Grade II for five years and a nitrogen exceedance report he handled alone. He commits to studying with the two operators for Grade III and drafting the next report with one of them.
Where the points sit in the GM586 Unit 6 rubric
GM586 rubric points for this reflection go to an honest first view, a clear test from the reading and an application to the writer's own leadership. Instructors look for cases summarized by what followers did, not only by how they felt about the leader. Stating a first vote that later changed earns more than claiming to have seen the answer from the start. Applying a test from Burns or Bass to each case shows understanding of what transformational leadership means. Using research such as the empowerment and dependency distinction deepens the analysis. Hesitations argued from evidence show independent judgment. The application should end in specific actions. Burns's Leadership, Bass's Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations and Kark, Shamir and Chen in Journal of Applied Psychology form the references in APA 7.
Common GM586 Unit 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GM586 Unit 6 reflections treat the most popular leader as the most transformational without asking what followers became. Others summarize the reading separately from the cases. A common gap is the writer's own practice: reflections that end with a general lesson miss the chance to show how the session changed the writer's leadership. Some writers praise the demanding leader without noting what her approach cost. Summarize each case by what followers did afterward, record your first view, apply a test from the reading, use research to explain the difference, state what still gives you pause, examine your own team the same way and name what you will do.
Get a GM586 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Two things carry this reflection: the leaders or cases your seminar weighed, and where you landed afterward and why. A written-option response works as well as attendance. With the Unit 6 prompt and rubric attached, a first reflection is free, delivered within 24-48h, classmates' workplaces left unnamed. 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 GM586 papers and MS in Management samples
- GM586 Unit 1: Transformational Leader Discussion Post
- GM586 Unit 2: Full Range Model Application
- GM586 Unit 3: MLQ Self-Rating Interpretation
- GM586 Unit 4: Ferry Allision Leader Behavior Case
- GM586 Unit 5: Leadership Study Critique
- GM586 Unit 7: Transactional Comparison Paper
- GM586 Unit 8: Destructive Leadership Analysis
- GM586 Unit 9: Behavior Development Plan
- GM586 Unit 10: Applied Leadership Paper
- GM585 Unit 6: Coaching Spectrum Seminar Reflection
- GM543 Unit 6: Reorganization Swings Reflection
- GM541 Unit 6: Middle Manager Sensemaking Reflection
- GM506 Unit 6: Public Filing Seminar Reflection
GM586 Unit 6 questions, answered
What if my seminar concluded that the popular leader was also the inspiring one?
That can be right, and the reflection can say so, provided the evidence goes beyond liking. Show what followers did differently and whether it lasted. A leader can be both liked and transformational; the reflection only needs to show the class separated the two before concluding they coincided, rather than assuming it from the start.
Can the reflection disagree with the class's verdict?
Yes, if the disagreement is argued from the same evidence the session used. Say what the room concluded, what test it applied, and where you think the test was misapplied or incomplete. Disagreement supported by a detail classmates overlooked often reads as stronger engagement than agreement, and instructors tend to value the reasoning over the side taken.
Do I need to count my own behavior, or is a general reflection enough?
A count is stronger. Saying you might favor comfort over challenge is easy to write and hard to evaluate; saying you asked for something harder than the job required twice in six months gives the instructor a figure and gives your later development work a baseline. Any record will do, from calendars to task assignments.
Where can I find a free GM586 Unit 6 sample paper?
This page carries a full GM586 Unit 6 seminar reflection comparing a liked sales manager and a resented elections director, with Burns, Bass and the empowerment and dependency distinction, and APA 7 references.
Why was the elections director judged more transformational?
Her staff came to expect perfection of themselves, finished a hand recount without a discrepancy and then asked to lead training. The sales manager's staff expected no more of themselves after four years, and most left without pursuing certification.