| Course | LI410 Leadership in Practice |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Self-assessment interpretation |
| Length | About 860 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for LI410 Unit 2
One Middling Score, Two Supervisors: A Unit 2 Self-Assessment Interpretation
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
LI410: Leadership in Practice
Unit 2 Self-Assessment Interpretation
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Kettle Run Recovery, its crew and every score and count are composite and illustrative; the questionnaire and sources cited are real.
The Result
I completed the Leadership Behavior Questionnaire printed in Northouse (2021), which asks twenty questions about how often a leader shows task behaviors, such as setting goals and procedures, and relationship behaviors, such as making people feel comfortable. My task score was 45 and my relationship score was 37. Against the ranges the text gives, the task score is high and the relationship score sits in the moderate range.
The instrument records how I describe myself, not what I do. That limit is the reason this paper tests the result instead of explaining it.
Where the Two Scores Come From
The two dimensions go back to the Ohio State studies of supervisors. Fleishman (1953) described supervisory behavior with two broad factors, consideration and initiating structure, and later questionnaires, including the one in my course text, keep that division under the names relationship and task. The point that matters for my result is that the two are separate scales, not opposite ends of one. Any pairing is possible, strong task with weak relationship, the reverse, both strong or both weak. My scores do not say I chose task over people; they say I report doing a lot of one and a moderate amount of the other, and they say nothing about when.
That last gap is what made me suspicious. A sort line does not run at one pace. Most nights are steady, but a few each month bring a full tipping floor, wet paper that wraps the screens and a crew short two agency sorters. If my behavior changed on those nights, a questionnaire answered once, in a quiet moment, would hide it.
The Test
I wanted to know whether the moderate relationship score described a steady habit or something that changed with conditions. I tested it three ways.
My own messages. I pulled two weeks of messages I had sent the crew through the shift radio log and the group text, 214 in all, and sorted each one as an instruction, a check-in or a recognition. On the eight ordinary nights, 58 percent were instructions, 27 percent check-ins and 15 percent recognition. On the two nights after a holiday, when the tipping floor was full and inbound tonnage ran about 40 percent above normal, 94 percent were instructions and almost none were check-ins.
Observer ratings. Two sorters with more than a year on my shift completed the observer version of the questionnaire. Both rated my task behavior close to my own rating. Both rated my relationship behavior lower, at 31 and 33.
Three remembered nights. I wrote down what I did on three heavy nights I could recall clearly. On each one, I stopped greeting people at the start of the shift, skipped the end-of-shift thank-you, and spent most of the night on the radio.
What the Test Shows
The moderate score is an average of two different leaders. On ordinary nights I check in and recognize people at roughly the rate a high relationship score would predict. On heavy nights I become almost purely directive. The questionnaire, answered on a calm afternoon, blended the two into one number that describes neither.
My relationship score is not low; it disappears exactly when the crew is under the most strain, which is when it matters most.
Northouse (2021) presents the style approach as a way to see how leaders combine task and relationship behaviors in different situations. My finding is a version of that point: the combination shifts under load, and the shift goes in the direction that costs the most. The sorters who rated me lower work mostly on heavy nights, since those are the nights the agency sends fewer temporary staff and the regulars carry the line.
Limits
Two observers are a small sample, and they may have been polite, which would make the real gap wider rather than narrower. My message sort was done by me, so another rater might sort some messages differently. Two heavy nights are few. Judge et al. (2004) found that relationship-oriented leadership, which they call consideration, tracked how satisfied followers were more closely than task-oriented structure did, so even an imprecise finding here deserves action.
One Change and Its Check
On any night when inbound tonnage is forecast above normal, I will do the start-of-shift walk of the platform before I touch the radio, and I will keep the end-of-shift thank-you even if the belt runs late. The check is the message log: over the next four heavy nights, at least one message in five should be a check-in or recognition, and I will repeat the observer ratings with the same two sorters at the end of the term. If the heavy-night share stays near zero, the problem is not memory but habit, and the next step would be asking one of the regulars to remind me at the midshift break.
References
Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056314
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36-51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.36
Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). Sage.
What the LI410 Unit 2 assignment asks for
Unit 2 asks you to complete a leadership questionnaire, report your results and explain what they mean for your practice. Report the scores briefly and say where they fall in the ranges the instrument gives. The interpretation is the real assignment, so pick the result that surprises or bothers you most and ask what could have produced it. A strong paper tests that result against evidence outside the questionnaire, such as feedback from people you lead, your own records or a log of a few shifts, because a self-report describes how you see yourself. Acknowledge limits honestly: small samples, your own bias in sorting evidence and the instrument's design. Finish on a single change, together with the sign that would tell you it took hold. Most sections expect about three pages in APA 7, with the text that prints the questionnaire cited as a source.
Inside the LI410 Unit 2 example
The sample opens with the two scores and their ranges in a few sentences, then explains where the scales come from, tracing task and relationship behavior back to the Ohio State work on consideration and initiating structure through Fleishman. That history matters to the argument: because the two scales are separate, a moderate relationship score cannot mean the writer chose tasks over people. The test section sets the score against two observers and a sort of the writer's shift messages, which together show relationship behavior strong on ordinary nights and thin on heavy ones. A limits section names the two observers, the writer's own coding and the few heavy nights in the sample. The paper closes with one change, a short check-in at the start of any heavy night, and a way to count whether it happens. Judge, Piccolo and Ilies supply the evidence that consideration predicts satisfaction.
Reading the LI410 Unit 2 grading rubric
The rubric for this interpretation rewards analysis over reporting. Accurate scores and ranges are expected, but most points go to what the writer does with them: choosing one result, asking what produced it and testing it against something outside the instrument. A paper that finds a pattern the questionnaire alone could not show, here a difference between kinds of shifts, demonstrates the interpretation the unit is designed to build. A limits section carries real weight because it proves the writer understands what a self-report can and cannot measure. The change at the end should follow from the finding and come with a check. Northouse, Fleishman and Judge and colleagues give this sample three sources tied to specific claims, with APA 7 citations and a reference list. Clear writing in the first person, organized under headings, also earns credit in most sections.
LI410 Unit 2 help from the desk
Many Unit 2 papers simply restate their scores in sentences and then promise to improve, which leaves nothing interpreted. Others accept the score as a verdict, high is good and low is bad, without asking whether the scales measure what the writer assumes. Some argue the score is wrong without bringing evidence. A common gap is the missing limits paragraph, which makes the conclusion sound more certain than a twenty-item questionnaire allows. Writers also reach for a list of five changes when one well-chosen change, with a way to check it, is stronger. If you are allowed an appendix, the scored sheet can go there instead of in the body. Proprietary instruments may restrict reproducing items, so describe them rather than quoting. Send us your scores and the questionnaire your section used, and we will point out the result most worth interpreting and the evidence that could test it.
Get an LI410 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Send the instrument your section assigned, your scored result, and the Unit 2 prompt with its rubric, plus any observer ratings collected. The interpretation treats those figures as a claim to test, leaving brackets where remembered moments at work supply the evidence. It arrives within 24-48h, and a first sample is free. 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 LI410 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- LI410 Unit 1: Leader Who Shaped Me Post
- LI410 Unit 3: Leadership Style Analysis
- LI410 Unit 4: Team Dynamics Reflection
- LI410 Unit 5: Conflict Case Reflection
- LI410 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- LI410 Unit 7: Change Leadership Analysis
- LI410 Unit 8: Ethical Leadership Scenario
- LI410 Unit 9: Feedback and Coaching Plan
- LI410 Unit 10: Leadership Development Plan
LI410 Unit 2 questions, answered
My score seems wrong. Can the paper say so?
Yes, and a well-argued disagreement often reads better than acceptance. Instruments measure how you describe yourself, which can drift from how you act. The strong version names the specific item or scale that seems off, brings evidence from your work showing the other pattern, and considers whether the score might be right after all. Dismissing the result without evidence reads as defensiveness.
Which instrument does LI410 use?
It varies by section and term. Many leadership courses use questionnaires printed in the assigned text, measuring style, traits, or approaches such as servant or authentic leadership; others point to a free online instrument. What a strong interpretation does barely changes across them: a brief report, a test against evidence, an account of any gap, and one observable behavior at the end.
Should I include the raw score sheet?
Where the prompt allows an appendix, attaching the scored sheet lets the instructor check the figures without cluttering the body. Keep the body to the two or three numbers the paper actually interprets. Proprietary instruments sometimes restrict reproducing their items, so for those a summary of scales and scores is the safer attachment. An instructor who can see the ranges can also judge whether the reading fits them.
Where can I find a free LI410 Unit 2 sample paper?
This page holds a full LI410 Unit 2 self-assessment interpretation with scores, an observer test, a limits section, one planned change, three APA 7 references and brief margin comments explaining the marks.
What does the sample find in a middling score?
That the moderate relationship score averaged two patterns: strong check-ins on ordinary nights and very few on heavy-load nights. The observer ratings and the message sort both point to the same split.