| Course | LDR 307 Leadership Strategy and Decision Making (LDR/307) |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Resource allocation and governance analysis |
| Length | about 1,010 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 3
Coaches, Drivers and a Family Board: Resource Allocation and Organizational Governance at an Omaha Motorcoach Company
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
LDR/307: Leadership Strategy and Decision Making
Week 3 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Prairie Star Coach Lines, its owners and its budget are composites written for a model paper.
Prairie Star Coach Lines, the composite family motorcoach company in Omaha examined in earlier weeks, has redesigned parts of its business model and reconsidered how it decides on fleet purchases. Both analyses led to the same question: how should the company allocate limited resources, and who should decide? Over the next two years, the company expects to have about $4.2 million available from cash flow and borrowing. Proposals compete for it: new coaches, a recruiting and training program for drivers, a modern booking and pricing system, repairs to the maintenance garage and a second shuttle route to Kansas City. Co-owners Mark and Elena Novak hold equal shares, and when they disagree, they have usually compromised by funding half of each request. This paper applies research on resources and governance to the company's choices.
Which Resources Create Advantage
Barney (1991) held that a lasting edge requires assets that pass four tests: they must matter, be scarce, resist copying and lack substitutes. Physical assets that competitors can buy, such as coaches, rarely meet these tests. Resources built over time, such as reputation, relationships and skilled people, often do. Prairie Star's coaches are valuable but easy to copy. Its reputation for safety among school districts and tour operators, built over five decades, and its experienced drivers and mechanics are harder to imitate.
How Firms Really Allocate Capital
Sengul et al. (2019) reviewed research on the allocation of capital within firms and found that allocation reflects not only expected returns but also managers' influence, internal politics, information problems between headquarters and units and the tendency to repeat past allocations. Corporate leaders' attention and incentives shape where money goes. The research warns that habits, such as Prairie Star's split-the-difference rule, can lock in poor allocations.
Boards as Decision Groups
Forbes and Milliken (1999) argued that boards should be understood as strategic decision-making groups whose effectiveness depends on processes such as effort, the use of members' knowledge and skills and the ability to handle cognitive conflict productively. Boards with relevant knowledge and good processes perform their monitoring and advisory tasks better. For a family business without a board, the insight suggests that adding outside knowledge and a structured process could improve decisions.
The Binding Constraint
Data from Weeks 1 and 2 show that drivers, not coaches, limit growth. Prairie Star lost 19 drivers last year and hired 21, ending with a net gain of two. Six new coaches would need about ten additional drivers. Without them, new coaches would sit idle.
Criteria for Allocation
Each proposal was rated on four criteria: expected return over five years, link to the resources that create advantage, risk and whether it relieves the binding constraint.
Rating the Proposals
The driver recruiting and training program, at $600,000 over two years, scores highest: it relieves the binding constraint and builds a hard-to-copy resource. The booking and pricing system, at $350,000, supports the peak pricing from Week 2 and has a strong expected return. Three new coaches plus seasonal leases, at about $2.1 million, follow the Week 1 analysis. Garage repairs, at $450,000, protect safety and reputation. The Kansas City route, at $700,000 for start-up costs, carries high risk and needs drivers the company does not have.
Splitting every request in half would have bought half a recruiting program and half a garage, and neither half works.
Recommended Allocation
Fund driver recruiting and training fully, the booking system fully, garage repairs fully, three new coaches with seasonal leases and defer the Kansas City route for a year, with $700,000 held as a reserve. Total commitments come to about $3.5 million.
What the Managers Said
Interviews with the operations, sales and maintenance managers revealed frustration with the current process. Each had learned to approach whichever owner seemed more sympathetic, and two said they had stopped proposing improvements because nothing seemed to get decided. The maintenance manager had requested garage repairs for three years. These comments show that the absence of a process does not just slow decisions; it shapes which ideas reach the owners at all.
Risks in the Allocation
The recommended allocation carries risks. If recruiting fails to add drivers, the new coaches will still be underused, so the coach purchase will be timed after the first six months of recruiting results. If demand falls, the reserve protects the company from debt it cannot service.
Governance Today
Prairie Star has no board. The siblings make all major decisions together, with no written division of roles and no process for resolving deadlock. Managers bring requests informally, and decisions depend on which owner they ask.
Recommended Governance: Advisory Board
The owners will form a three-member advisory board, meeting quarterly, with an independent accountant, a retired transportation executive and a banker. The board will not vote on decisions but will review strategy, budgets and major investments, bringing the outside knowledge Forbes and Milliken (1999) emphasize.
Recommended Governance: Decision Rights
A written agreement will divide roles. Mark will lead operations and fleet; Elena will lead finance and sales. Investments above $250,000 require both owners after advisory board review. If they still disagree, the advisory board chair will make a recommendation, and the owners agree in advance to follow it unless both reject it.
Recommended Process: Annual Allocation
The process gives every manager the same path to propose an investment, which addresses the frustration described above. Each fall, managers will submit proposals with costs, expected returns and links to strategy. The owners and advisory board will rate them against the criteria above and set the next year's allocation, with a mid-year review.
Conclusion
Research suggests that advantage comes from hard-to-imitate resources, that capital allocation inside firms is shaped by habit and politics as well as returns and that governance works best when it brings outside knowledge and sound processes. Prairie Star's best investments relieve its driver constraint and build on its reputation, and an advisory board, written decision rights and an annual allocation process can replace a habit of splitting the difference.
References
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 489-505. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202133
Sengul, M., Costa, A. A., & Gimeno, J. (2019). The allocation of capital within firms. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 43-83. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0009
What the LDR 307 Week 3 instructions ask
In Week 3, LDR 307 students often examine resource allocation and governance in strategic decision making. Assignments may ask students to describe how an organization allocates capital, people and time, evaluate whether allocations support its strategy, explain governance structures such as boards, owners and management roles and recommend improvements. Some prompts focus on family businesses, nonprofits or public organizations. A strong paper uses research on resources and governance, applies clear criteria to allocation choices, shows how governance affects the quality of decisions and proposes practical structures and processes. Back every proposal with numbers or research, and document sources in APA style.
How this LDR 307 Week 3 example is built
Prairie Star's owners must divide about $4.2 million among coaches, driver recruiting, a booking system and facility repairs, and their past habit has been to split the difference when they disagree. The paper uses the resource-based view to identify which resources give the company an advantage that competitors cannot easily copy. Research on capital allocation inside firms shows that allocation is shaped by politics, managers' influence and inertia as well as returns. Research on boards as strategic decision groups explains how outside perspectives and good processes improve governance. The analysis ranks investments by their link to advantage and return, finds driver capacity the binding constraint and proposes an advisory board, clear decision rights and an annual allocation process.
LDR 307 Week 3 grading rubric: where the points go
Resource allocation and governance papers are graded on the use of research, the clarity of criteria and the practicality of the governance design. Strong work identifies the organization's key resources and constraints, applies explicit criteria to competing investments and explains how governance structures and processes affect decisions. Graders value evidence such as budgets, returns and capacity data, and recommendations that clarify who decides what. Ranking proposals in a table makes the criteria visible to the reader, and showing the binding constraint explains why some good ideas must wait. Recognizing the human side of governance, such as family relationships or board dynamics, adds depth. A conclusion that ties allocation choices back to the strategy shows the student sees how the pieces fit.
LDR 307 Week 3 help: mistakes to avoid
A common gap in this assignment is allocating money by gut feeling or equal shares without stated criteria. Name the criteria, such as return, link to strategy and risk, and apply them. Another frequent problem is ignoring the binding constraint; buying coaches is pointless if there are no drivers. Identify what limits growth. Some papers describe governance only as an organization chart. Explain decision rights, processes and how disagreements are resolved. Others recommend a formal board without considering cost or the owners' willingness. Fit the structure to the organization. Finally, include a review cycle, since allocations should be revisited as results come in.
Related LDR 307 sample papers
Other LDR 307 week samples
- LDR 307 Week 1: Strategic Decision Making
- LDR 307 Week 2: Business Model Analysis and Design
- 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 3: Organizational Vision
- LDR 306 Week 3: Behavioral Management and Feedback
- MGT 312 Week 3: Groups and Teams in Organizations
- MGT 316 Week 3: Operational Processes
LDR 307 Week 3 questions, answered
What does LDR 307 Week 3 usually cover?
It usually covers resource allocation and organizational governance, including how leaders allocate capital, people and time to support strategy and how governance structures shape decisions.
Where can I find a free LDR 307 Week 3 sample paper?
The Week 3 resource allocation and governance analysis of a composite Omaha motorcoach company is available in full above.
What is the resource-based view?
It holds that lasting advantage comes from assets a firm controls that matter to customers, are scarce among rivals, are tough to copy and have no easy stand-in.
How should a company decide where to invest?
By applying clear criteria, such as expected return, link to strategy, risk and the constraints that limit growth, and by reviewing results regularly.
Why do family businesses need governance structures?
Clear governance separates ownership and management roles, sets decision rights and offers ways to resolve disagreements, which helps family firms make timely, sound decisions.
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