| Course | LDR 731 Contemporary Issues in Leadership (LDR/731) |
|---|---|
| Week | 8 |
| Paper type | Doctoral integrative leadership paper |
| Length | about 1,159 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | DBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for LDR 731 Week 8
Pay, Patience and Balanced Value: Executive Compensation, Short-Termism and an Integrated Leadership Agenda for a Global Glass Company
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
LDR/731: Contemporary Issues in Leadership
Week 8 Final Paper
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Maumee Glass Group, its executives and its plans are composites written for a model paper.
Over seven weeks, this course followed the senior leadership of Maumee Glass Group, an invented specialty glass maker with about 4,800 employees and plants in Ohio, Mexico, Poland and Malaysia. Seven problems surfaced along the way: a leadership group drawn away from its furnaces, values that took root unevenly, bonuses that paid for growth and starved maintenance, an engineering lesson trapped in one plant, a painful choice about Fremont, a celebrated year that cheap gas mostly explained and a home-country playbook that stumbled abroad. Now the private equity investor has proposed tripling chief executive Laura Brandt's equity grant, with vesting tied to the company's value at a planned sale in three years. Vice president of global operations Daniel Okafor, asked to advise the board's compensation committee, sees the proposal as the point where the course's issues converge. This paper examines executive pay and short-termism and presents an integrated agenda.
Executive Pay as an Agency Problem
Bebchuk and Fried (2003) argued that the standard view of executive pay, as an arm's-length contract designed by boards to align managers with shareholders, does not fit many observed practices. They proposed a managerial power perspective: executives influence their own pay through relationships with directors, and pay is constrained mainly by outrage from outsiders. Features such as camouflaged compensation and weak links to performance reflect this power. Their critique has been debated, with others arguing that pay largely reflects market forces, but it highlights the risk that pay drifts from performance.
The Short-Termism Debate
Laverty (1996) reviewed the debate over economic short-termism and defined it as decisions that favor short-term results at the expense of long-term value. He examined explanations, including capital market pressures, managerial incentives, information asymmetries and organizational practices, and noted unresolved questions about measurement and prevalence. He argued that managers face real tensions between short and long horizons and need ways to recognize and manage them.
Long-Term Orientation Creates Value
Flammer and Bansal (2017) used shareholder proposals that passed or failed by small margins to study long-term executive compensation. Firms that adopted long-term incentive proposals saw increases in firm value and operating performance, along with more investment in long-term projects such as research and development and stakeholder relationships. The design allowed a causal interpretation: long-term orientation, prompted by incentives, created value.
The Proposed Grant
The proposed grant ties most of the chief executive's potential wealth to share value at a sale in three years. Given the company's furnace cycles, actions that boost value at sale, such as deferring rebuilds and maximizing short-term margins, may harm the company afterward. In Laverty's terms, the grant would intensify short-term pressure. In Bebchuk and Fried's terms, a grant designed largely by an investor seeking a quick exit, with little input from independent directors, risks weak links to long-term performance.
A Balanced Position
Equity incentives are not inherently harmful; they can align leaders with owners. The issue is horizon and measures. Flammer and Bansal's evidence suggests that pay tied to longer periods encourages value-creating investment.
A pay plan that ends on the day of the sale invites leaders to make the company look its best on that day, whatever happens to the furnaces afterward.
What the Investor and the Family Want
The private equity investor's interest is clear: a strong sale price within its fund's timeline. The family's interests are broader: returns, legacy and the company's future after any sale. Independent directors, two of seven board members, represent the company's long-term interests but have little influence over pay today. This structure is the governance root of the short-termism risk, and any pay solution must also address who designs pay.
What Employees Will Read Into the Grant
Employees will read a large grant tied to a near-term sale as a signal of what leadership values. After a year of maintenance cuts and the Gliwice failure, a grant that rewards a quick exit would confirm fears that the company is being run for sale rather than for the long term, undermining the values and engagement work of earlier weeks.
Recommendation on Pay
The committee should recommend a modified grant: half vesting over five years based on the balanced scorecard from Week 3, a quarter on value relative to peers at sale and a quarter deferred for two years after any sale and subject to clawback if furnace or safety failures traceable to deferred maintenance occur. The independent directors should lead the design.
Integrating the Course
The pay recommendation connects to every earlier week. It addresses the top team's blind spot from Week 1 by rewarding reliability. It supports the values from Week 2 by making craftsmanship and safety count. It embeds the balanced scorecard from Week 3. It rewards the cross-plant learning from Week 4 through scorecard measures. It supports the stakeholder-informed Fremont decision from Week 5 by lengthening horizons. It applies the peer-relative evaluation from Week 6. And it can be adapted to local practices for plant leaders, as Week 7 recommended.
The Integrated Agenda
The agenda has five priorities. First, governance: independent directors lead compensation and include an operations expert on the board. Second, direction: rebalance the top team by adding international and furnace experience. Third, expectations: implement the balanced scorecard and long-term pay. Fourth, learning: launch the global furnace community and lessons-to-standards process. Fifth, stakeholders and global leadership: decide Fremont through the specialty option with a fair process, and establish the global leadership council.
Sequence
The sequence starts with governance because the other changes depend on who sets the incentives. Year one: governance changes, pay redesign, scorecard and furnace community. Year two: Fremont transition and global council. Year three: review of results against balanced measures.
Measures of Balanced Value
Financial: peer-relative profit and value. Customer: on-time delivery and satisfaction. Operations: furnace availability and safety. People: engagement by site and retention of skilled workers. Community: Fremont transition outcomes. Learning: lessons adopted across plants.
How the Agenda Will Be Communicated
The board will explain the redesigned pay plan and agenda to employees, emphasizing the long-term measures and the commitment to reliability and safety. Plant managers will discuss the agenda locally, using the adapted practices from Week 7.
Tensions That Remain
The investor's three-year horizon remains in tension with fifteen-year furnaces. The agenda manages but does not eliminate this tension; the board must continue to weigh it explicitly.
Conclusion
Research on executive pay highlights the risk that compensation drifts from performance, the short-termism debate shows how incentives and pressures can sacrifice the future and evidence shows that long-term orientation creates value. At Maumee Glass, a proposed grant tied to a near-term sale would magnify every weakness the course identified. A redesigned, longer-horizon pay plan, led by independent directors, anchors an integrated agenda of rebalanced leadership, deployed values, balanced expectations, cross-plant learning, fair stakeholder decisions and global adaptation, giving the company a path to balanced value that outlasts any single owner.
References
Bebchuk, L. A., & Fried, J. M. (2003). Executive compensation as an agency problem. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(3), 71-92. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533003769204362
Flammer, C., & Bansal, P. (2017). Does a long-term orientation create value? Evidence from a regression discontinuity. Strategic Management Journal, 38(9), 1827-1847. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2629
Laverty, K. J. (1996). Economic "short-termism": The debate, the unresolved issues, and the implications for management practice and research. Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 825-860. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9702100316
What the LDR 731 Week 8 instructions ask
LDR 731 normally closes with a look at live controversies in senior leadership and a set of recommendations that pulls the course's themes together for one organization. Topics often include executive compensation, short-termism, governance, sustainability, diversity of top teams and global leadership. A strong paper examines at least one controversy with balanced evidence, connects it to the organization's situation, synthesizes earlier analyses of direction, values, performance expectations, learning, stakeholders, financial performance and global leadership and presents an integrated agenda with priorities, roles and measures. Reviewers expect a clear position on each controversy, defended with research. Draw on scholarly work documented in APA form, and show how the recommendations would change the organization's next major decision.
How this LDR 731 Week 8 example is built
Maumee's private equity investor wants to triple the chief executive's equity grant, tied to share value at a planned sale in three years, while plant leaders worry the company is already sacrificing furnaces for short-term results. The final paper examines both controversies. Research arguing that executive pay can reflect managerial power rather than arm's-length bargaining explains how pay can drift from performance. A review of the short-termism debate describes how pressures and incentives can lead managers to underinvest in the long term. A study using close shareholder votes found that adopting long-term executive compensation increased firm value and investment. The paper then integrates the course into an agenda: a balanced top team, deployed values, a balanced scorecard, cross-plant learning, a stakeholder-informed Fremont decision, peer-relative evaluation and global adaptation, governed by long-term pay.
LDR 731 Week 8 grading rubric: where the points go
This capstone is judged on balanced treatment of controversy and genuine integration. Reviewers look for a position on each controversy that the evidence actually supports. High marks require evidence-based analysis of executive pay and short-termism, including arguments on more than one side, a clear position applied to the organization and a synthesis that connects earlier weeks into a coherent agenda rather than a list. Reviewers look for priorities, responsibilities and measures, and for honesty about tensions that remain, such as an investor's timeline versus furnace cycles. An agenda that a board could adopt, with reasons a skeptical director would accept, meets the doctoral standard.
LDR 731 Week 8 help: mistakes to avoid
Final papers often treat controversies as settled, for example asserting that executives are always overpaid or that markets are always right. Present competing evidence and take a reasoned position. Another common weakness is summarizing each week separately. Show how the pieces fit, such as how pay design affects performance expectations, learning and stakeholder decisions. Some agendas lack priorities, proposing everything at once. Sequence the changes. Others ignore governance, though boards and investors set many of the conditions senior leaders face. Address them. Finally, include measures for balanced value, not only financial ones, so the agenda can be evaluated over time.
Related LDR 731 sample papers
Other LDR 731 week samples
- LDR 731 Week 1: Senior Leaders, Values and Direction
- LDR 731 Week 2: Deploying Organizational Values
- LDR 731 Week 3: Performance Expectations and Measures
- LDR 731 Week 4: Organizational Learning
- LDR 731 Week 5: Stakeholders and Balanced Value
- LDR 731 Week 6: Leadership and Financial Performance
- LDR 731 Week 7: Global Leadership
More DBA sample papers
- LDR 711A Week 8: Personal Leadership Model
- LDR 726 Week 8: Multiteam Systems and Leadership Plan
- MGT 711 Week 8: Recommendations for Global E-Business
- MGT 726 Week 8: Integrative Scholarly Paper
LDR 731 Week 8 questions, answered
What does LDR 731 Week 8 usually cover?
It usually covers contemporary issues and controversies in senior leadership, such as executive pay and short-termism, and integrates the course into recommendations for creating balanced value in an organization.
Where can I find a free LDR 731 Week 8 sample paper?
A full closing paper on executive pay, short-term pressure and an integrated leadership agenda for an invented glass maker is posted above.
Is executive compensation an agency problem?
Some scholars argue that executive pay often reflects managerial power over boards rather than arm's-length bargaining, leading to pay that is weakly tied to performance, though others dispute this view.
What is short-termism?
Short-termism is a tendency to favor immediate results at the expense of long-term value, such as cutting investment or maintenance to meet near-term earnings targets.
Does long-term orientation create value?
A study using close shareholder votes found that adopting long-term executive compensation led to higher firm value and more investment in long-term projects such as innovation.
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 731 week samples · All courses