| Course | LDR 736 Architecture of Leadership (LDR/736) |
|---|---|
| Week | 1 |
| Paper type | Doctoral leadership history analysis |
| Length | about 1,154 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 736 Week 1
From Great Men to Measured Traits: What a Century of Leadership Theory Offers a New Shipyard General Manager
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
LDR/736: Architecture of Leadership
Week 1 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Bayou Coast Marine, its leaders and its history are composites written for a model paper.
Bayou Coast Marine is a composite family-owned shipyard in Houma, Louisiana, on the Intracoastal Waterway. It builds tugboats, inland ferries and offshore supply vessels, employs about 650 people, mostly welders, fitters, electricians and pipefitters, and earns about $220 million a year. For 52 years, it was led by its founder, Gaston Fontenot, who started as a welder and built the yard through hurricanes and oil busts. Workers describe him as larger than life: he walked the yard daily, knew every family and settled disputes with a look. Last year, at 81, he stepped down. The family chose as general manager Camille Arceneaux, 44, a naval architect who joined the yard 18 years ago and led its engineering department. She is respected but reserved, and she has heard workers say she will never be Gaston. Camille, also a doctoral student, wants to know whether leadership requires a certain kind of person. This paper traces the historical foundations of leadership theory and applies them to her situation.
The Great Man Idea
Early writers explained history through the actions of exceptional individuals, often military or political figures, assumed to be born with qualities that set them apart. Leadership, in this view, was a matter of who one was. The idea persists in everyday thinking, including in how Bayou Coast's workers talk about Gaston.
The Trait Era
In the early twentieth century, researchers tried to identify measurable traits that distinguished leaders from followers, such as intelligence, height, dominance and self-confidence. Hundreds of studies compared leaders and nonleaders on such traits.
Stogdill's Survey
Stogdill (1948) surveyed 124 studies of personal factors associated with leadership. He found that some factors, such as intelligence, scholarship, dependability, social participation and socioeconomic status, were often higher among leaders, but that the pattern varied by situation. His conclusion was that a bundle of personal qualities does not make someone a leader on its own; what matters is how well the person's qualities match what the situation and the followers require.
The Shift to Behavior and Situation
Stogdill's survey and similar reviews contributed to a shift away from traits toward studies of leader behavior and of situational factors. For decades, trait research was widely regarded as a dead end.
Traits Return
Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) argued that traits do matter. Reviewing research, they identified traits that distinguished effective leaders: drive, including achievement motivation, energy and initiative; leadership motivation, the desire to lead; honesty and integrity; self-confidence; cognitive ability; and knowledge of the business. They argued that these traits are preconditions that make leadership possible, but that leaders must also act, through skills, vision and implementation, to be effective.
Traits and Perceptions
Lord et al. (1986) reanalyzed earlier trait studies using meta-analytic methods and found that intelligence, masculinity-femininity and dominance were substantially related to perceptions of leadership, more strongly than earlier narrative reviews suggested. They argued that traits shape whether people are perceived as leaders, through observers' implicit theories of what leaders are like, even when the link to effectiveness is less certain.
What the History Says About Gaston
Gaston embodied many traits Kirkpatrick and Locke describe: tremendous drive, leadership motivation, self-confidence and deep knowledge of shipbuilding. He also fit workers' implicit image of a leader, which, as Lord et al. (1986) suggest, shaped how they perceived him. His success, however, also reflected his situation: a small yard where personal presence could reach everyone and decisions could rest on one person's judgment.
Gaston was a great leader for a yard he could walk in an hour; the yard he handed over takes a day to walk and a team to run.
What the History Says About Camille
Camille possesses several traits the research identifies: integrity, which workers acknowledge; cognitive ability and deep knowledge of the business; and drive, shown in her engineering leadership. She is less outwardly dominant than Gaston, which may make some workers slower to perceive her as a leader, as the perception research would predict. Stogdill's conclusion suggests that her effectiveness will depend on fit with the current situation, not resemblance to her predecessor.
What Workers Said
Interviews with twelve workers showed how deeply the great man image runs. Older welders described Gaston's presence on the yard as the reason they stayed through hard years. Several said Camille seemed smart but distant, often in meetings rather than on the floor. Younger workers had a different view: they valued Camille's clear schedules and her plan for a training center, and some said Gaston's style had felt unpredictable. Workers' expectations of a leader, in other words, vary with their experience, which is consistent with the idea that leadership perceptions depend on observers' implicit theories.
The Family's Expectations
The Fontenot family chose Camille for her competence and integrity, but some family members privately worried that she lacked Gaston's command. Their worry reflects the same implicit theory as the older workers'. Camille's challenge is partly to lead well and partly to change what people expect leadership to look like.
How the Situation Has Changed
The yard has grown from 120 to 650 employees. Customers now require complex engineering, regulatory compliance and digital design. Labor is scarcer, and younger workers expect communication and development. The situation calls for leadership that builds systems and teams, areas where Camille's strengths fit.
Implications for Camille's Leadership
The history suggests three implications. First, she need not imitate Gaston's personality; leadership is not one type. Second, perceptions matter: she should become visible on the yard so workers can see her drive and knowledge in action. Third, traits are only a foundation; later weeks will examine the behaviors, decisions and systems that build effectiveness.
Reflecting on Implicit Theories
Camille realized she had absorbed the yard's great man image herself, doubting her own leadership because she is quiet. The research helped her separate perceptions of leaders from the substance of leadership.
Limits of the Historical View
Early research drew mainly on samples of white men in Western organizations, and its findings may reflect who had access to leadership roles rather than what leadership requires. Later weeks will consider more recent theories.
Questions for the Course
The historical review leaves Camille with more questions than answers, which is the point of beginning with history. How should Camille combine her strengths with behaviors and decisions suited to the yard's future? What emerging theories fit an organization facing technological change? How can she develop a leadership architecture that is her own?
Conclusion
Leadership theory began with great men and measurable traits, turned away from traits after reviews found inconsistent results and later restored traits as preconditions and as drivers of leadership perceptions. For Bayou Coast's new general manager, this history means she does not need to become her charismatic predecessor: her traits provide a foundation, the situation favors her strengths and the rest of her leadership can be designed deliberately.
References
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 48-60. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1991.4274679
Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402-410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.402
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. The Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 35-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1948.9917362
What the LDR 736 Week 1 instructions ask
The first LDR 736 assignment typically asks doctoral students to examine the historical development of leadership theory, from great man and trait approaches through behavioral and situational eras, and to consider what these traditions contribute to contemporary practice. Students are often asked to reflect on their own assumptions about leadership. Strong papers explain why each era's ideas emerged and declined, use seminal sources and later reassessments, apply historical ideas critically to a current leadership situation and identify which elements remain useful. Reviewers expect the paper to show how history shapes the student's emerging personal architecture of leadership rather than to recite a timeline. Use peer-reviewed sources cited in APA style.
How this LDR 736 Week 1 example is built
For 52 years, Bayou Coast Marine was led by its founder, a master welder whose force of personality defined the yard; workers still describe him as a born leader. His successor, Camille Arceneaux, an engineer promoted from within, wonders whether she must become that kind of figure. The paper traces how leadership theory began with great man ideas and trait studies, how a 1948 survey found that no single trait reliably distinguished leaders and helped end the trait era, how a later argument restored traits such as drive, integrity and cognitive ability as necessary but not sufficient and how a meta-analysis showed that traits strongly predict whether people are perceived as leaders. The history suggests Camille need not imitate the founder and offers her a framework for building her own style.
LDR 736 Week 1 grading rubric: where the points go
Reviewers of this historical paper look for genuine understanding of why leadership theories rose and fell, not a list of eras. They reward use of seminal sources alongside later reassessments, a critical view of what each tradition got right and wrong and an application to a real leader that shows the history mattering today. Attention to the difference between being perceived as a leader and being effective shows sophistication. A short reflection on the student's own assumptions, and how the history challenges them, ties the paper to the course's goal of building a personal leadership architecture.
LDR 736 Week 1 help: mistakes to avoid
History papers often become timelines of theories with a sentence each. Explain the reasons behind each shift, such as the inconsistent findings that ended the trait era. Another common gap is treating early ideas as simply wrong. Later research restored some trait findings, so present the reassessment. Some students skip the distinction between leadership emergence, who is seen as a leader, and leadership effectiveness, who leads well; research treats them differently. Others never connect history to practice. Apply each idea to a real leader's situation. Finally, reflect honestly on your own implicit theory of leadership, since many people still hold great man assumptions without realizing it.
Related LDR 736 sample papers
Other LDR 736 week samples
- LDR 736 Week 2: Emerging Leadership Theories
- LDR 736 Week 3: Leadership Decision Making
- LDR 736 Week 4: Foresight and Future Orientation
- LDR 736 Week 5: Ambidextrous Leadership
- LDR 736 Week 6: Leadership and Performance Excellence
- LDR 736 Week 7: Leader Self-Development
- LDR 736 Week 8: Personal Architecture of Leadership
More DBA sample papers
- LDR 726 Week 1: Teams and Team Effectiveness
- LDR 731 Week 1: Senior Leaders, Values and Direction
- MGT 711 Week 1: E-Business in the Global Economy
- MGT 726 Week 1: Emerging Managerial Practices
LDR 736 Week 1 questions, answered
What does LDR 736 Week 1 usually cover?
It usually covers the historical development of leadership theory, including great man and trait approaches, behavioral and situational eras and what these traditions offer contemporary leaders building their own style.
Where can I find a free LDR 736 Week 1 sample paper?
A doctoral Week 1 paper applying a century of leadership theory to a new shipyard general manager is posted above.
Why did trait theory fall out of favor?
A 1948 review found that no single trait consistently distinguished leaders across situations, which led researchers to study behavior and situations instead, though later work revived some trait findings.
Do traits matter for leadership?
Later research argued that traits such as drive, integrity, self-confidence and cognitive ability are important preconditions for leadership, though they are not sufficient on their own.
What is the difference between leadership emergence and effectiveness?
Emergence is whether people are perceived or chosen as leaders, while effectiveness is how well they lead; traits predict perceptions of leadership more strongly than performance in some research.
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 736 week samples · All courses