| Course | LDR-3240 Leaders in History |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 4 |
| Paper type | Module 4 application paper: legitimate authority and the status of followers |
| Length | About 538 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for LDR 3240 Module 4
Who Makes Authority Legitimate? Weber, Milgram and the Drivers Who Decide Whom to Follow
Student Name
Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership, Thomas Edison State University
LDR-3240: Leaders in History
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Who Makes Authority Legitimate? Weber, Milgram and the Drivers Who Decide Whom to Follow
Introduction
Authority is often described as something leaders have. However, Wills (1995) argues that followers are not passive; leaders need followers who share their goals, and followers can withdraw. This paper examines that claim through two incidents at the paratransit service where I work as a dispatcher.
Two Incidents
In the first, during an ice storm, a senior dispatcher told a driver to take a shortcut on an unplowed county road to save time. The driver had doubts but did it; the van slid into a ditch, and the rider, though unhurt, waited two hours for help. In the second, a newly hired dispatcher with a degree in logistics asked drivers to log their arrival times on a tablet so we could find delays. Most drivers ignored the request for weeks.
Weber's Types of Authority
Weber (1947) described three grounds on which people accept authority as legitimate: traditional authority, based on custom and the way things have always been done; legal-rational authority, based on rules and positions; and charismatic authority, based on devotion to an exceptional individual. The senior dispatcher's instruction carried traditional authority, decades of experience and the drivers' habit of deferring to him. The new dispatcher had legal-rational authority, a formal role and a sensible rule, but no tradition or personal standing yet. The drivers granted legitimacy to the first and withheld it from the second, regardless of the merits of the instructions.
Why Followers Obey
Milgram (1963) found that a majority of participants continued administering what they believed were painful shocks to another person when instructed by an experimenter, showing how strongly people defer to perceived authority even against their own judgment. The driver on the icy road followed a familiar authority against his own doubts, much as Milgram's participants did. Obedience to legitimate-seeming authority is powerful, and it can lead people to do things they believe are unwise.
Followers as Active Partners
Kelley (1988) argued that organizations need exemplary followers who think critically and act independently while supporting the organization's goals, rather than passive followers who do as they are told. Uhl-Bien et al. (2014) reviewed research treating followership as an active role that shapes leadership outcomes. Both incidents show followers who were not exemplary in Kelley's sense: one obeyed without questioning a risky order, and the others resisted a reasonable one without engaging with it.
Applying the Lessons
Our service should make it legitimate for drivers to refuse unsafe instructions, by writing a clear safety rule that any driver may decline a route he or she judges unsafe and by backing drivers who do. It should also build legitimacy for new procedures by explaining their purpose and involving senior drivers in introducing them, so that legal-rational authority gains support from tradition. Followers grant legitimacy; leaders should earn it and invite followers to think. Over time, these steps would teach drivers that questioning an instruction belongs to the job and does not challenge the dispatcher.
Conclusion
Authority becomes legitimate when followers accept it, and they accept it for reasons Weber identified, not always for good reasons. Developing followers who think critically protects organizations from both blind obedience and reflexive resistance.
References
Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142-148.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). Free Press.
Wills, G. (1995). Certain trumpets: The nature of leadership. Simon & Schuster.
What the LDR 3240 Module 4 instructions ask for
The fourth application paper addresses legitimate authority and the status of followers. Expect to explain what makes authority legitimate, using thinkers such as Weber, and to examine whether followers are passive or active, drawing on research on obedience and followership. Apply the concepts to situations you have seen where people followed or refused instructions. Explain the reasons behind each response, not only the outcome, and finish with what leaders or organizations should do to build legitimacy and encourage thoughtful followers. Use incidents you observed, with names changed, so the analysis rests on real behavior. Keep each incident to a short paragraph so the analysis has room.
How the LDR 3240 Module 4 example is put together
The paper opens with Wills's claim that followers are not passive. It describes two contrasting incidents at a workplace. A section applies Weber's three types of authority to explain why drivers obeyed one dispatcher and ignored another. A section uses Milgram's experiments to explain the driver's decision to follow a risky order. A followership section draws on Kelley and a research review to describe the followers the service needs. The application section proposes a safety rule and a way to introduce new procedures, and the conclusion summarizes. The proposed safety rule and the method for introducing procedures follow directly from the analysis of each incident. Each recommendation names who would act and what would change for drivers on the next storm.
Where the marks sit in the LDR 3240 Module 4 rubric
Mentors grade this paper on accurate explanation of authority and followership concepts, application to incidents the writer saw, research support and cited prose. Papers that apply each type of authority to a specific case, and that explain why followers granted or withheld legitimacy, show synthesis. Using research on obedience to explain an everyday decision demonstrates insight. Practical recommendations that treat followers as active partners show understanding of the module's central question. Mentors also credit papers that describe research findings accurately, such as what Milgram's experiments did and did not show, rather than overstating them. Clear headings and citations complete the work. Recommendations that a real organization could adopt earn more than general advice.
Common LDR 3240 Module 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Students lose points by defining Weber's types without applying them, by treating followers as passive or by describing obedience research without connecting it to their examples. Others confuse charismatic authority with personal popularity. Apply each concept to a real situation. Explain why followers responded as they did. Use research carefully, describing what it found rather than overstating it. End with practical steps. Remember that legitimacy can be granted for poor reasons, such as habit, as well as good ones. Describe both incidents fairly, including what each dispatcher did well. A free first sample on your own LDR-3240 Module 4 paper is available on request.
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 Thomas Edison State University 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.
More LDR 3240 and Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership sample papers
- LDR 3240 Module 1: Application Paper: Tubman and Shackleton as Leaders of Followers
- LDR 3240 Module 2: Application Paper: Frances Perkins and Henry Ford, Reform and Business Leadership
- LDR 3240 Module 3: Application Paper: Machiavelli, Burns and a Leader's Moral Choices
- LDR 3240 Module 5: Final Paper: Challenging the Status Quo as a Leader Who Learns From the Past
- LDR 4190 Module 4: Final Research Paper: Leading a Food Bank From Distribution to Food Security
- LDR 3050 Module 4: Reflection Paper: Building the Skills a Supervisor Needs
- PSY 3600 Module 2: Written Assignment: Theory X, Theory Y and the Shape of a Moving Company
- MAN 3760 Module 3: Application Paper: Power and Influence in a Push for New Loading Procedures
LDR 3240 Module 4 questions, answered
Where can I find a free LDR 3240 Module 4 sample paper?
Weber's types of authority, Milgram's obedience findings and Kelley's followers, applied to two incidents at a paratransit service, form the paper above.
What are Weber's three types of legitimate authority?
Traditional, legal-rational and charismatic authority.
What did Milgram's obedience experiments show?
That most participants continued following an experimenter's instructions to give what they believed were painful shocks.
What is an exemplary follower?
Kelley's term for a follower who thinks critically and acts independently while supporting the organization's goals.
Do followers confer legitimacy?
Yes. Authority becomes legitimate when followers accept it, for reasons such as tradition, rules or charisma.