MT304 Unit 10 Leadership Policy Proposal Example

Course	MT304 Leading the 21st Century Organization
Unit	Unit 10
Paper type	Leadership proposal to a board
Length	About 910 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 MT304 Unit 10

Four Policies and $410,000: An MT304 Unit 10 Leadership Proposal to the Board of a Regional Auto Insurer

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

MT304: Leading the 21st Century Organization

Unit 10 Leadership Proposal

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The insurer, its board, policies and figures are composite; the research cited is real.

What this part is doingStating the amount and the four conditions in the lead gives directors the whole request before any detail.

Resolution

Resolved, that the board adopts the pay placement, apprenticeship, software decision and surge conduct policies set out below, approves first-year spending of $410,000 and directs management to report on the measures at six and twelve months.

Rationale

Five conditions changed how leading works at this company. Colorado's pay law now publishes our ranges, and eleven appraisers sit below their posted midpoint (Unit 3). New appraisers take nine months to reach independent authority, against five before the floor closed (Unit 5). Appraisers accept the software's figure on 96 percent of hail claims, and a blind recheck found missed damage on 23 of 200 (Unit 7). An instruction to stop reinspections leaked within three hours and led to 212 reopened claims (Unit 8). And tenure, caregiving and pay position, not generation, explain who disengages and who intends to leave (Unit 9).

Policy 1: Pay Placement

Each employee's position within a posted range is set by a written rule based on years in role, certification and performance rating. Employees may ask for an explanation of their placement and receive one within ten business days. The eleven appraisers below midpoint are moved to their rule-based placement in the first quarter. Cullen (2024) finds that pay transparency narrows gaps within firms; this policy makes the narrowing deliberate rather than reluctant.

Policy 2: Apprenticeship

New appraisers join two veteran shop calls a day for their first three months, have access to a library of recorded negotiations and meet weekly with a mentor. Promotion to independent authority rests on a blind-reviewed packet of work product. The policy formalizes the Unit 5 plan.

Policy 3: Software Decisions

The decision table from Unit 7 is adopted. Appraisers may settle close to the software's figure on their own authority; a human estimate is required below a confidence score of 0.80, above $9,000 or for dusk and dark-roof photos. Each month a veteran rechecks a sample of accepted files without seeing the software's figure, and executives see only team totals. Parasuraman and Manzey (2010) found that over-reliance on automation resists simple warnings, which is why the policy sets rules rather than reminders.

Policy 4: Surge Conduct

Speed goals never override the rules that send a claim back for reinspection. Any exception requires the vice president's written approval, logged to the audit committee. Appraisers who believe an instruction conflicts with claims law may report it confidentially to compliance, which must answer by the next business day. The company will not seek to identify employees who make such reports.

Each policy answers a finding the company already paid to learn.

What this part is doingLinking every policy to an earlier finding shows the proposal is the end of an argument, not a new pitch.

Cost

Veteran appraiser time for apprenticeship: about 14 hours a week, $96,000

Pay equity adjustment for eleven appraisers below midpoint: $48,000

Blind recheck sampling: about 8 hours a month, $14,000

Recording library and training coordinator time: $32,000

Leadership training refocused on placement conversations and turned-down candidates: $46,000

Compliance reporting channel: $12,000

Reduced supplement cost from faster apprenticeship, offset not counted: none

Contingency and backfill for veterans' time: $162,000

Total first year: $410,000. The pay adjustment is shown separately because it is a correction, not a program.

How the Policies Fit Together

The four policies are not separate programs. Pay placement removes the most common reason appraisers give for leaving, which protects the investment the apprenticeship makes in new staff. The apprenticeship produces appraisers who know what the software misses, which is what the software policy relies on. And the surge conduct policy protects the software policy at the moment it is most likely to be abandoned, when a surge makes speed the only goal. Removing any one would weaken the others.

Measures

1. Pay placement. Baseline: 11 below rule placement. Target: zero by end of first quarter. Owner: HR director. Review: 6 months.

2. Apprenticeship. Baseline: 9 months to authority, supplement rate 1.6. Target: 7 months, 1.2. Owner: claims director. Review: 12 months.

3. Software decisions. Baseline: missed damage on 11.5 percent of rechecked files. Target: under 5 percent. Owner: vice president, claims. Review: 6 months.

4. Surge conduct. Baseline: no reporting channel. Target: channel live, every report answered in one business day. Owner: chief compliance officer. Review: 6 months.

Not Proposed

Separate generational programs. Unit 9 found that generation explains little.

Doubling team lead spans. Unit 6 found that team leads handle exceptions software cannot.

Identifying the employee who shared the screenshot. Unit 8 found that doing so would teach silence.

Returning to the appraisal floor. Unit 5 rebuilt what the floor provided without reversing the savings.

Risks Directors Should Weigh

Cost may not be recovered quickly. The apprenticeship's savings arrive only as new cohorts mature. Northouse (2021) notes that leadership development pays off over time, not quarter to quarter.

Pay adjustments may raise expectations. Other employees may ask for reviews. The written placement rule is the answer.

Blind rechecks may slow surge work. Fifty files a month is small, but directors should expect pressure to suspend it in a surge, which Policy 4 forbids.

This proposal may be wrong about the software. Twenty-three missed files in 200 is one sample. If the monthly recheck shows missed damage under 3 percent for six months, the confidence threshold should be relaxed.

What this part is doingIncluding a risk that the proposal itself may be mistaken shows the board an honest case rather than a sales pitch.

References

Cullen, Z. (2024). Is pay transparency good? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 38(1), 153-180. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.38.1.153

Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). SAGE.

Parasuraman, R., & Manzey, D. H. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors, 52(3), 381-410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720810376055

Reading the MT 304 Unit 10 instructions

In Unit 10 students write a final proposal answering the conditions they analyzed during the term. The proposal is usually addressed to a decision-making body, such as a board, and should open with something it can vote on. Instructors expect each recommendation to cite the finding it answers, so the proposal reads as the end of an argument. Policies should be drafted as text that could be adopted, not as intentions. A single cost table, measures with baselines, owners and review dates and a section on what is not proposed show judgment. Risks should be named honestly, including the risk that the proposal itself is wrong. The rationale should be short, since the readers have not read the earlier units.

How the MT 304 Unit 10 example is put together

The sample opens with a resolution and a five-sentence rationale. Four policy sections follow, each beginning from its finding: pay placement from Unit 3 with Cullen, apprenticeship from Unit 5, software decisions from Unit 7 with Parasuraman and Manzey and surge conduct from Unit 8, under the highlighted line that each policy answers a finding the company already paid to learn. A section shows how the policies reinforce one another. Costs total $410,000 with the pay adjustment separated. Four measures carry baselines, targets, owners and review dates. A not-proposed section excludes generational programs, doubled spans, finding the leaker and returning to the floor. Four risks close the paper.

MT304 Unit 10 rubric: what earns full points

In a board proposal, markers check how well earlier findings are carried forward, clarity of policy text, completeness of cost and measures and honesty about risks. Graders reward resolutions a board could actually vote on. Each policy should trace to a finding with its figure. Policies should be specific enough to adopt. Costs should appear once, with corrections distinguished from programs. Measures need baselines, targets, owners and dates. Exclusions show that the writer considered and rejected alternatives. Risks should include the possibility that the proposal is mistaken. Earlier units' sources and the course text appear in APA 7. Proposals that list aspirations, such as "foster a culture of trust," without policy text or costs, usually score lower.

Common MT304 Unit 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Final proposals often restate every earlier paper at length, leaving the policies thin. Another common weakness is writing intentions, such as "improve communication," instead of policy text. Some students omit costs or bury corrections inside programs. Measures may lack baselines. Exclusions and risks are frequently missing, though they show judgment. Before drafting, list each earlier finding with its strongest figure and write one sentence of policy that would answer it. Then cost each sentence. That list, with figures and costs, is the backbone of a proposal a board could act on, and it keeps the writing tied to evidence already gathered.

Get an MT304 Unit 10 example written to your instructions

Which board, council or executive would have to approve your Unit 10 proposal? Name it, list the conditions your earlier units argued with one figure apiece, and attach the prompt and rubric. Policy text, a single cost table and dated measures follow in 24-48h, with the first request 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 MT304 papers and BS in Business Administration samples

MT304 Unit 10 questions, answered

Who should the proposal be addressed to?

Whoever could actually approve it in the organization you have described, which your prompt may specify. A board, an executive team or a department head each needs a different level of detail. Writing for a named decision maker forces choices about length, format and cost presentation that a proposal addressed to nobody in particular never has to make.

Can the proposal include things my earlier papers did not cover?

Sparingly, and with a reason. The unit usually rewards coherence with the conditions your earlier papers established, so new elements should connect to them or be flagged as responses to something found late. A proposal that suddenly adds unrelated initiatives reads as padding, while one tracing every element to earlier evidence reads as a finished argument.

How precise do the costs need to be?

Precise enough to be challenged. Use bracketed estimates where real figures are unavailable and state the assumption behind each, such as hours per week or a salary midpoint. Directors, and instructors reading as directors, look for costs that add up, with one-time spending kept apart from recurring costs, more than for exact numbers.

Where can I find a free MT304 Unit 10 sample paper?

The complete MT304 Unit 10 leadership proposal is on this page, asking an insurer's board for $410,000 and four policies.

What does the MT304 Unit 10 sample leave out?

Separate generational programs, doubled team lead spans, identifying the leaker and a return to the appraisal floor.