| Course | MGT 530 Leadership Theory and Practice |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | MBA leadership theory paper |
| Length | About 1,030 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Master of Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGT 530 Module 1
Which Theory Explains the Sugar House? Testing Leadership Theories Against a Cooperative Chief Executive's First Year
Student Name
Master of Business Administration, Aspen University
MGT 530: Leadership Theory and Practice
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Which Theory Explains the Sugar House? Testing Leadership Theories Against a Cooperative Chief Executive's First Year
Green Mountain Maple Producers, a composite cooperative in St. Albans, Vermont, collects syrup from 300 member families who tap sugar maples across northern Vermont. It grades, bottles and markets the syrup under its own brand and sells bulk syrup to food companies. Members own the cooperative and elect its nine-member board. A year ago, the board hired a chief executive from a regional dairy company to replace a founder who had led for thirty years. She arrived to find bulk prices falling, a board split between members who want to expand retail and members who want to cut costs, and producers who had rarely been consulted. Her first year produced mixed results. This paper asks which leadership theories help explain it.
A Map of the Field
Avolio et al. (2009) reviewed leadership research and showed how far the field had moved beyond its early focus on traits and behaviors. Newer work examined authentic leadership grounded in self-awareness, shared leadership distributed among team members, servant leadership, the cognitive processes of leaders and followers, leadership in complex adaptive systems, cross-cultural leadership and leadership through technology. They noted that many theories had developed separately and called for integration and attention to followers and context.
How Leadership Should Be Judged
Hogan and Kaiser (2005) argued that leadership research has often measured the wrong thing: whether people emerge as leaders or are rated favorably by superiors, rather than whether the teams and organizations they lead perform well. They proposed judging leadership by its results for the group and showed that personality predicts both emergence and effectiveness, but differently. Kaiser et al. (2008) extended the argument, reviewing evidence that leaders affect organizational outcomes such as financial performance and employee attitudes, and that a substantial share of managers derail through flaws such as arrogance or inability to build a team. For the cooperative, effectiveness means member income, sales and members' willingness to stay.
The First Year in Brief
Three episodes defined the year. In her first month, the chief executive announced a plan to cut grading and bottling costs by consolidating two collection sites; the plan was sound, but members learned of it from a newsletter and forty attended the next board meeting to protest. In her sixth month, she negotiated a contract with a national natural foods chain for premium Vermont syrup, raising the average price members received for top grades by 8%. And at the annual meeting, a motion to review her contract failed by only six votes. Results improved while trust fell, a pattern any useful theory should explain.
Why Followers Matter Here
Cooperatives make the follower question unusually concrete. Members are followers in daily operations and owners at the annual meeting, able to remove the leader. Avolio and colleagues' call for attention to followers fits this setting: a theory that treats followers only as recipients of influence will miss how members' expectations, built over thirty years under a founder who knew every family, shape what they accept from a newcomer.
Testing the Theories
| Theory family | What it explains in the first year | What it misses |
|---|---|---|
| Trait | Her persistence through a hostile annual meeting | Why the same traits worked at the dairy but not with producers |
| Behavioral | Strong task focus raised bottling efficiency 9% | Why members felt ignored despite results |
| Contingency | A divided board and low trust called for consultation she did not provide | Little guidance on building trust |
| Transformational | Her vision of a premium Vermont brand inspired younger members | Older members saw vision as risk |
| Shared | Members' knowledge of their sugar bushes and buyers was unused | Shared leadership requires structures she had not built |
| Complexity | Price swings and weather made planning uncertain | Hard to turn into practical steps |
Why the Founder's Shadow Matters
The previous chief executive led for thirty years with a style members described as personal: he visited sugar houses, knew which families had bad seasons and made decisions over coffee. Trait and behavioral theories say little about succession, but members' expectations were set by him. Any successor would be compared with a leader who had built trust over decades. Hogan and Kaiser's emphasis on results suggests the new chief executive should not imitate him, but she does need to build trust through the channels members value, starting with presence in the sugar bush.
A Working Model
The most useful combination draws on contingency and shared approaches. Contingency thinking says that a leader facing divided followers and low trust should consult widely before deciding. Shared leadership says that members, who know the forests and the buyers, can lead parts of the work themselves. Transformational elements, a compelling vision of the cooperative's future, matter, but only once members feel heard.
What the Model Suggests
The chief executive will form three member committees, on retail growth, cost control and producer quality, each led by an elected member with staff support. Major decisions will go first to the relevant committee. She will hold listening meetings in each county before the next annual meeting. And she will continue the efficiency work that raised results.
What the Theories Teach a Board
The analysis also has lessons for the board. Kaiser, Hogan and Craig note that derailment often follows from poor fit between a leader and a situation rather than from incompetence. A board that hired for operational skill from a corporate setting should also have prepared her for the participatory expectations of a cooperative. The board will add a member orientation to its onboarding for future executives and assign two board members as informal guides during the first year.
Judging Her Second Year
Following Hogan and Kaiser, the board will judge the next year by member income per gallon, sales growth, member retention and a member trust survey, not by whether members like her.
Conclusion
No single leadership theory explains the chief executive's first year. Avolio, Walumbwa and Weber's review shows the range of available theories, Hogan and Kaiser and Kaiser, Hogan and Craig set the standard for judging leaders by results, and testing each theory against the case produces a working model that combines contingency thinking with shared leadership.
References
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 169-180. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.169
Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 63(2), 96-110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.2.96
MGT 530 Module 1 instructions, in plain terms
MGT 530 opens Aspen's MBA leadership sequence with the major theories and a question: which of them actually help explain or guide a particular leader? A first-module paper generally surveys the theory families and applies them to a real or realistic case. Your classroom's Module 1 prompt sets the requirements; this example applies them to one cooperative leader. Survey the main families of leadership theory with scholarly sources, including recent ones. Define how leadership effectiveness should be judged, and why that standard fits the case. Describe a leader's situation with specifics, including episodes that went well and badly. Test each theory family against the case, noting what it explains and misses. Build a working model the leader could use.
Inside the MGT 530 Module 1 example
The paper opens with Green Mountain Maple Producers, a cooperative that collects, grades, bottles and markets syrup for 300 member families. Its new chief executive arrived from a regional dairy company and faced falling bulk prices, a split board and members who had never been asked for their views. Avolio, Walumbwa and Weber's Annual Review of Psychology article surveys current theories. Hogan and Kaiser's Review of General Psychology article argues that leadership should be evaluated by team and organizational performance. Kaiser, Hogan and Craig's American Psychologist article reviews evidence that leaders influence organizational results and that derailment is common. A table rates trait, behavioral, contingency, transformational, shared and complexity approaches against the case. The working model combines contingency thinking about a divided membership with shared leadership through member committees.
Where the marks sit in the MGT 530 Module 1 rubric
Theory survey papers are graded on accurate summaries, a clear standard for judging leadership and honest testing of theories against a case. This example defines effectiveness using Hogan and Kaiser's team-results standard before applying any theory. The table rates each family on what it explains and misses, which avoids simply praising whichever theory is popular. Avolio, Walumbwa and Weber's review ensures recent theories, such as shared and authentic leadership, are included. The working model draws on several theories, showing judgment, and specific episodes from the year let the reader check each rating.
MGT 530 Module 1 help: mistakes that cost marks
Theory papers often describe each leadership theory in turn without testing them. Choose a case and ask what each theory explains and what it misses. Another weakness is judging leaders by how much people like them; research suggests judging by team and organizational results. Include recent theories, such as shared and authentic leadership, as well as classic ones. Be specific about the leader's situation. Build a working model that combines useful parts rather than choosing one theory. Finally, say how the model would guide the leader's next decisions. Describe specific episodes so theories can be tested against events rather than impressions.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More MGT 530 and Master of Business Administration sample papers
- MGT 530 Module 2: Traits, Skills and Behaviors
- MGT 530 Module 3: Situational and Contingency Leadership
- MGT 530 Module 4: Transformational, Servant and Authentic Leadership
- MGT 530 Module 5: Leading Teams
- MGT 530 Module 6: Power, Influence and Organizational Politics
- MGT 530 Module 7: Leading Sustainable Change
- MGT 530 Module 8: A Personal Leadership Philosophy
- MGT 505 Module 7: IT Governance and Alignment
- MGT 500 Module 8: Current Issues and an Integrated Management Plan
- MGT 514 Module 7: Diversity and Working Across Differences
- MGT 645 Module 3: The Project Team
MGT 530 Module 1 questions, answered
What does MGT 530 Module 1 usually ask for?
Aspen's MGT 530 opens with the major leadership theories, so an MBA paper surveying them and testing them against a leader's situation is typical. Read your classroom prompt.
How should leadership effectiveness be judged?
Hogan and Kaiser argue it should be judged by the performance of the team or organization a leader is responsible for, not only by ratings of the leader.
What are current leadership theories?
Avolio, Walumbwa and Weber's review covers authentic, shared, servant, complexity, cross-cultural and other recent approaches alongside classic theories.
Where can I find a free MGT 530 Module 1 sample paper?
The example above tests leadership theory families against a maple syrup cooperative chief executive's first year and builds a working model.
Does leadership really affect organizations?
Kaiser, Hogan and Craig review evidence that leaders influence organizational results, and that leader derailment is a common and costly problem.