| Course | LDR 307 Leadership Strategy and Decision Making (LDR/307) |
|---|---|
| Week | 1 |
| Paper type | Strategic decision analysis |
| Length | about 1,040 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | BS in Business |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for LDR 307 Week 1
Buy Six Coaches or Wait a Year? Reasoned Strategic Decision Making at a Family Motorcoach Company in Omaha
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
LDR/307: Leadership Strategy and Decision Making
Week 1 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Prairie Star Coach Lines, its fleet and its figures are composites written for a model paper.
Prairie Star Coach Lines is a composite family-owned motorcoach company founded in 1969 in Omaha, Nebraska. It operates 48 motorcoaches, employs 130 people, including 82 drivers, and earns about $24 million a year from charters for schools, college athletic teams, tour operators and church groups, plus a scheduled shuttle between Lincoln, Omaha and the Omaha airport. Siblings Mark and Elena Novak became co-owners five years ago. Charter demand reached a record last year, and the company turned down about 300 trip requests because no coach was available. A dealer has offered six new coaches at about $600,000 each, a total of $3.6 million, with delivery in eight months if the order is placed this quarter. Mark wants to buy. Elena points to higher interest rates, the difficulty of hiring drivers and a slowing tour market. This paper reviews research on strategic decision making, evaluates how the decision is being made and recommends a better process.
The Decision and Its Alternatives
Framed as buy or not buy, the decision has only two options. In reality, Prairie Star has at least four: buy six new coaches; buy three new and three used coaches; lease coaches for the peak season; or keep the current fleet and raise prices on peak dates while retiring the oldest coaches more slowly. Each carries different costs, risks and needs for drivers.
Process Matters
Dean and Sharfman (1996) studied 52 strategic decisions in 24 companies and found that the decision process affected effectiveness. Decisions made through procedural rationality, collecting information and relying on analysis, were more effective, while decisions shaped by political behavior, such as negotiation for personal interests and withholding information, were less effective. The effects held even after accounting for environmental conditions. Process quality, not just the decision makers' talent, mattered.
Speed and Information
Eisenhardt (1989) studied decision making in firms in a fast-changing industry and found, contrary to expectations, that the fastest decision makers used more information, often real-time operating data, and considered more alternatives at once than slow decision makers. They also relied on experienced counselors and resolved conflict through a process in which leaders decided when consensus failed. For Prairie Star, a deadline from the dealer creates pressure; the research suggests that speed comes from better information and more options, not from cutting analysis.
Why Decisions Fail
Nutt (1999) followed several hundred real organizational decisions and judged roughly one in two a failure. Failure was associated with tactics such as managers imposing their preferred idea, limiting the search for alternatives and using power to push decisions through, while more successful decisions involved exploring needs, setting objectives and considering several options. The most common failure pattern began with an idea someone already favored.
Biases in Judgment
Tversky and Kahneman (1974) described heuristics people use under uncertainty and the biases they produce. Through anchoring, people adjust too little from an initial value. Through availability, they treat whatever is easiest to recall as the most probable. Both appear at Prairie Star. Mark is anchored on last year's record demand. Elena's concern about drivers is shaped by two recent resignations that are vivid but may not represent the trend.
Each sibling is arguing from the year that made the deepest impression, not from the next five years the coaches will actually serve.
Evaluating the Current Process
The current process scores poorly against the research. Information is thin: neither owner has analyzed which turned-down trips were profitable or whether drivers could be hired for six more coaches. Only two alternatives are on the table. The discussion has become a contest between siblings, with each gathering arguments for a preferred answer, the political pattern Dean and Sharfman (1996) linked to weaker decisions and the imposition pattern Nutt (1999) linked to failure. The dealer's deadline encourages haste rather than better information.
Gathering Reliable Information
A better process starts with data the company already has or can get quickly. The trip request log shows the dates and types of the 300 declined trips; a review shows that 70 percent fell on 40 peak days in spring and fall. Payroll and recruiting records show how many drivers were hired and lost last year. A lender can quote financing terms. Tour operators can be asked about bookings for next year.
Involving Other Perspectives
The operations manager, the lead mechanic and the charter sales manager each know parts of the picture: which coaches are near retirement, which customers are growing and how many drivers are realistically available. A half-day meeting with them, focused on the four alternatives, would surface information neither owner has.
Comparing the Alternatives
With data in hand, the alternatives can be compared on expected profit over five years, cash and debt required, driver needs and risk if demand falls. The analysis suggests that because most lost trips cluster on 40 peak days, leasing three coaches for peak seasons and buying three new coaches to replace the oldest units may capture much of the demand with less debt and fewer new drivers than buying six.
A Decision Rule and Deadline
The owners will agree in advance how they will decide: if the analysis shows that an option earns more over five years under both expected and low-demand assumptions, they will choose it; if they disagree after review, the operations manager will present a recommendation and the owners will decide within two weeks. In line with the findings of Eisenhardt (1989), the deadline keeps the process moving without cutting analysis.
Judging the Decision Later
The owners will review the decision in one year using utilization of new and leased coaches, trips declined and profit per coach, and will record what they assumed today so the review tests the reasoning, not just the luck.
Conclusion
Research shows that strategic decisions are more effective when processes are rational, information-rich and open to several alternatives, and that decisions often fail when leaders impose favored ideas or fall prey to anchoring and availability. Prairie Star's fleet decision has so far been a two-option contest. Gathering reliable data, involving knowledgeable staff, comparing four alternatives and agreeing on a decision rule give the owners a far better chance of choosing well.
References
Dean, J. W., Jr., & Sharfman, M. P. (1996). Does decision process matter? A study of strategic decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 368-396. https://doi.org/10.5465/256784
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543-576. https://doi.org/10.5465/256434
Nutt, P. C. (1999). Surprising but true: Half the decisions in organizations fail. Academy of Management Executive, 13(4), 75-90. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1999.2570556
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
What the LDR 307 Week 1 instructions ask
The first LDR 307 assignment typically asks students to analyze a strategic decision, often by describing a decision an organization faces or made, evaluating the process used and recommending a better one. Expect to discuss decision-making models, such as rational, bounded rationality and intuitive approaches, the role of reliable information and multiple perspectives, common biases and how leaders can structure decisions to reduce error. A strong paper uses research on decision processes and outcomes, applies it to a specific decision with real alternatives and evidence, separates process quality from luck and proposes concrete steps, such as gathering data, considering alternatives and involving stakeholders. Cite scholarly sources in APA style.
How this LDR 307 Week 1 example is built
Prairie Star's two owners, siblings who inherited the company, disagree about buying six new coaches: one points to record charter demand, the other to rising interest rates and a shortage of drivers. The paper first lays out the decision and its alternatives. Research on strategic decision processes shows that rational, information-rich processes produce more effective decisions than political ones, and a study of fast-moving firms finds that quick deciders use more information and more alternatives, not less. Research on failed decisions identifies tactics such as imposing an idea or skipping alternatives, and research on heuristics explains anchoring and availability. The current process is evaluated against this evidence, and a redesigned process with data, four options and a decision date follows.
LDR 307 Week 1 grading rubric: where the points go
Decision-making papers are graded on the quality of analysis of the process, not on whether the decision turned out well. The higher bands require accurate use of decision models and research, a clear statement of the decision and its alternatives, evidence about the information used and identification of biases or political dynamics. Graders reward recommendations that improve the process itself, such as widening options, testing assumptions and involving people with relevant knowledge. A strong paper also explains how the organization will judge the decision later and what it assumed at the time of choosing. Specific numbers, named alternatives and a realistic timeline make the redesigned process credible.
LDR 307 Week 1 help: mistakes to avoid
Students often judge a decision by its result: it worked, so it was a good decision. Research separates process from outcome, since good processes can meet bad luck. Evaluate the process. Another frequent weakness is presenting the choice as yes or no when real decisions have several alternatives, such as leasing, buying used or phasing purchases. Generate options. Some papers name biases without showing them in the case. Point to the moment a bias appeared. Others recommend a perfect rational process that no small company could follow. Keep the process proportionate to the decision. Finally, include who decides and by when, since endless analysis is also a failure of decision making.
Related LDR 307 sample papers
Other LDR 307 week samples
- LDR 307 Week 2: Business Model Analysis and Design
- LDR 307 Week 3: Resource Allocation and Governance
- LDR 307 Week 4: Quality and Efficiency Improvement
- LDR 307 Week 5: Innovation and Contingency Planning
More BS in Business sample papers
- LDR 305 Week 1: Leadership Theories and Models
- LDR 306 Week 1: Performance Culture and Engagement
- MGT 312 Week 1: Personal Self-Assessment and Its Meaning for a Manager
- MGT 316 Week 1: Business Functions
LDR 307 Week 1 questions, answered
What does LDR 307 Week 1 usually cover?
It usually covers strategic decision making, including decision models, the use of reliable information and multiple perspectives, common biases and how leaders can design better decision processes.
Where can I find a free LDR 307 Week 1 sample paper?
The Week 1 decision analysis of a composite Omaha motorcoach company weighing a $3.6 million fleet purchase is posted in full above.
What makes a strategic decision process effective?
Research associates effective decisions with processes that gather relevant information, analyze it carefully, consider several alternatives and limit political maneuvering.
What is anchoring bias?
Anchoring is the tendency to rely too heavily on an initial number or idea, adjusting too little from it even when better information is available.
Why do organizational decisions fail?
Studies find that many decisions fail when leaders impose ideas without building support, limit the search for alternatives or skip analysis of what stakeholders need.
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 University of Phoenix 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.
Request this one custom, free · All LDR 307 week samples · All courses