| Course | PSYCH 668 Organizational Development, Leadership, and Management (PSYCH/668) |
|---|---|
| Week | 2 |
| Paper type | Leadership model analysis |
| Length | about 1,171 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | MS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PSYCH 668 Week 2
Conscientious, Reserved and Structured: What Trait and Behavioral Research Predicts for a New President and a Night-Shift Lead
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
PSYCH/668: Organizational Development, Leadership, and Management
Week 2 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The distributor, its people and all figures are composites written for a model paper; theories and research findings come from the sources listed.
Last week's paper described our new president as a strong manager who had not yet led. This week I ask whether trait and behavioral models can explain why, and what they predict about his effectiveness compared with that of Teresa, the night-shift lead whose crew stays while others leave.
What the Early Trait Research Found
Stogdill (1948) combed through well over a hundred studies looking for personal qualities linked to leadership, from intelligence and self-confidence to sociability and persistence. Some characteristics showed up repeatedly, but none predicted leadership across all groups, and the qualities that mattered in one group could be irrelevant or even harmful in another. Stogdill concluded that leadership is a relationship among people in a situation, not a set of traits someone carries from place to place, a conclusion that turned research toward behavior for decades.
That conclusion fits our warehouse. The founder's easy sociability made him beloved in a small company; the same style might have struggled in a company of 280 with tighter margins.
What Modern Trait Research Found
Trait research revived once personality could be organized around five broad factors. Judge et al. (2002) meta-analyzed seventy-eight studies relating the five factors to leadership emergence, meaning who is seen as a leader, and leadership effectiveness. Outgoing, sociable people showed the clearest and steadiest link to leadership; dependable, organized people and curious, open people came next; emotional instability worked against leadership; and agreeableness mattered least. Taken as a set, the five factors correlated about .48 with leadership, enough to matter but far from destiny. Relationships were generally stronger for emergence than for effectiveness.
Greg Through a Trait Lens
Greg is, by any account, highly conscientious: organized, thorough and dependable, the traits that built our routing system. He is also open to new ideas, at least about technology. But he is reserved and drained by large groups, and he describes himself as an introvert. The trait findings predict that he would be less likely to emerge as a leader in the eyes of employees and that his conscientiousness would support effectiveness on tasks. That is close to what we see: the systems work, and employees do not see him as someone to follow.
Teresa Through a Trait Lens
Teresa is outgoing, emotionally steady and conscientious in her own way, keeping track of each picker's rate and family situation. The trait model predicts she would emerge as a leader, and she has, without any title. But traits alone cannot explain what she does differently on a given night or what Greg could learn from her.
From Traits to Behavior
Behavioral research shifted the question from a leader's makeup to a leader's conduct. Researchers at Ohio State sorted leader behavior into two clusters. Consideration covers warmth, respect and looking out for followers' welfare. Initiating structure covers telling people what their jobs are, organizing the work and making expectations plain.
Judge et al. (2004) revisited these two clusters after many scholars had written them off as dated. Both turned out to predict how leaders fare, consideration somewhat more than structure overall. Where they differed was in what they predicted: consideration lined up most with follower contentment, follower drive and the credit followers gave the leader, while structure edged ahead in predicting how well the leader performed the job and how the group or company performed.
The research predicts our results almost exactly: Greg's structure moved performance, and the missing consideration moved people out the door.
Greg's and Teresa's Behavior
Greg's behavior is high in structure: clear targets, scorecards, defined procedures and schedules. His consideration behaviors are rare; he seldom asks how changes affect people, rarely praises and communicates mainly by email. Teresa's pattern is the reverse in emphasis. She explains, listens, remembers birthdays and adjusts schedules for family needs, while relying on Greg's systems for structure.
The behavioral findings fit the company's split results. Structure improved delivery and costs, the performance outcomes it predicts best. Weak consideration from the top contributed to low satisfaction and high turnover among day-shift pickers, outcomes consideration predicts best. Night shift, where Teresa supplied consideration locally, stayed more stable.
Why Behavior Matters More for Change
Traits are relatively stable, which makes them useful for selection but limited for development. Greg will not become an extravert. Behaviors, by contrast, can be learned. He can schedule regular conversations on each shift, ask leads what a new policy will mean for their crews, recognize good work by name and explain the reasons behind changes. These are consideration behaviors that do not require a different personality.
What the Models Leave Out
Neither model accounts for the situation. Stogdill's caution still applies: the leadership our company needs during a rapid systems overhaul may differ from what it needs once systems are stable, and the right balance of structure and consideration may differ between day shift, with many new hires, and night shift, with a veteran crew. Next week's contingency models take up that question. The models also say little about how leaders inspire people to accept change, which transformational theory addresses.
The Founder as a Comparison
The retired founder offers a useful contrast. He was extraverted, warm and impulsive, high in consideration and low in structure. Employees loved him, turnover was moderate and the company ran on improvisation: routes were planned on whiteboards, overtime was approved with a handshake and spoilage was accepted as a cost of business. By the behavioral research, his pattern should have produced satisfied followers and uneven performance, which is a fair summary of his last decade. The company did not need to choose between his style and Greg's; it needed the strengths of both, which is rarely found in one person and is one reason leadership is often shared across a team.
What This Means for Selecting Leads
The trait findings also have a practical use. We are about to promote three new day-shift leads. Rather than promoting the fastest pickers, as we have done, we could look for the combination the research favors for emergence: people others already turn to, who are steady under pressure and dependable. Structured interviews asking how candidates handled a coworker's problem, and input from the crews themselves, would capture these qualities better than productivity rates alone.
A Measurement Note
Most of the research measured consideration and initiating structure with follower questionnaires. Before recommending coaching, I plan to ask a sample of pickers and leads to rate Greg's and the warehouse manager's behaviors on a short questionnaire built around these two dimensions, so my analysis rests on more than my own impressions.
Conclusion
Trait research predicts that a conscientious but reserved president would build effective systems without being seen as a leader, and behavioral research predicts that high structure with low consideration would lift performance while hurting satisfaction. Both predictions fit our company. Because behaviors can be learned, the practical path is helping Greg add consideration rather than hoping he becomes someone else.
References
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36-51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.36
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 35-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1948.9917362
What the PSYCH 668 Week 2 instructions ask
Week 2 of PSYCH 668 typically turns to trait and behavioral approaches to leadership, the two oldest families of leadership research. Students are usually asked to explain how trait research moved from a search for born leaders to modern findings on personality, to describe behavioral models such as the Ohio State dimensions of consideration and initiating structure and to apply both to a leader. Some versions ask for strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Describe what the research found, not just what the theories claim, apply each model to observed behavior, say what each predicts and explain what the models cannot account for. Use scholarly sources, recent where possible, and format them in APA style.
How this PSYCH 668 Week 2 example is built
Dana Whitfield, the HR generalist at the Tolleson distributor, applies trait and behavioral models to Greg, the president, and Teresa, the night-shift lead. Stogdill's survey shows why the early search for universal leader traits disappointed. A five-factor meta-analysis finds extraversion and conscientiousness most consistently linked to leadership. Greg is highly conscientious but reserved, so the model predicts effectiveness in some respects and weaker emergence. A meta-analysis of consideration and initiating structure finds both matter, with consideration tied more strongly to follower satisfaction. Greg scores high on structure and low on consideration, and Teresa the reverse. Dana concludes that behaviors can be learned even when traits cannot be changed.
PSYCH 668 Week 2 grading rubric: where the points go
In this unit, trait and behavioral analyses earn credit for accurate summaries of research, careful application and honest limits. Faculty look for the history of trait research to be described correctly, for modern trait findings to be reported with their size and pattern, for consideration and initiating structure to be defined and measured as the research did and for each model to be applied to specific behavior. Credit goes to noting what the models predict about followers versus performance and to recognizing what they omit, such as situation. Lists of traits without evidence lose points, and APA formatting applies across the reference list and citations.
PSYCH 668 Week 2 help: mistakes to avoid
Students often write as if trait research proved that leaders are born, when the early findings were mixed and later meta-analyses show modest relationships. Another common mistake is calling a leader "considerate" or "structured" without describing behaviors that match how the research defined those terms. Some students apply the models to a famous leader they know only from the news. Others forget that trait and behavioral models ignore the situation, which the next week's models address. Report effect sizes, define terms the way the research did, apply them to observed behavior and say what the models miss. A tutor can help you match a leader's daily behavior to the categories the research actually measured.
Related PSYCH 668 sample papers
Other PSYCH 668 week samples
- PSYCH 668 Week 1: Leadership Versus Management
- PSYCH 668 Week 3: Contingency and Transformational
- PSYCH 668 Week 4: Team and Shared Leadership
- PSYCH 668 Week 5: OD Diagnosis and Action Research
- PSYCH 668 Week 6: OD Interventions and Evaluation
More MS in Psychology sample papers
- PSYCH 655 Week 2: Reliability
- PSYCH 658 Week 2: Goal Setting, Expectancy and Equity
- PSYCH 660 Week 2: Research Ethics and Review Boards
- PSYCH 664 Week 2: Research Designs and Validity
PSYCH 668 Week 2 questions, answered
What does PSYCH 668 Week 2 usually cover?
Trait and behavioral leadership models, including personality research and the dimensions of consideration and initiating structure.
Where can I find a free PSYCH 668 Week 2 sample paper?
The complete PSYCH 668 Week 2 trait and behavioral analysis of two leaders at a produce distributor is above, free.
Are leaders born or made?
Research suggests personality traits relate modestly to leadership, while behaviors such as consideration and structuring can be learned.
What are consideration and initiating structure?
Consideration means looking after followers and treating them with respect; initiating structure means organizing their work and making expectations clear.
Which personality traits relate most to leadership?
In one large meta-analysis, extraversion showed the strongest and most consistent relationship, followed by conscientiousness and openness.
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 PSYCH 668 week samples · All courses