| Course | MAN-3760 Leadership Communication |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Module 6 self-assessment exercise: leadership and diversity |
| Length | About 464 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 MAN 3760 Module 6
Silence Is Not Agreement: An Intercultural Self-Assessment on a Diverse Ramp Crew
Student Name
Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership, Thomas Edison State University
MAN-3760: Leadership Communication
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Silence Is Not Agreement: An Intercultural Self-Assessment on a Diverse Ramp Crew
What the Assessment Showed
The intercultural communication assessment asked how I interpret behaviors such as silence, eye contact, directness and disagreement. My answers showed that I read silence as agreement and directness as respect, and that I am uncomfortable when someone answers a question indirectly. Those assumptions come from my own upbringing and from ramp culture, where short, direct exchanges are normal. Hackman and Johnson (2013) treat leadership as a communication process, which is why a crew's briefings matter as much as its schedule.
Why It Matters on My Crew
My 18 handlers come from eleven countries, including Ghana, the Dominican Republic, India, Haiti and Poland. Hofstede (2001) described dimensions along which national cultures differ, including power distance, the extent to which people accept unequal power, and individualism. Several of my handlers come from cultures with high power distance, where questioning a supervisor openly is unusual. When I ask, "Any questions?" at a briefing and hear nothing, I have been treating silence as understanding. Two loading errors last month came from handlers who had not understood a new procedure but did not say so.
Gender and Leadership Communication
The assessment also asked about my reactions to different communication styles from women and men. Our station's only woman supervisor, who communicates more collaboratively than I do, is sometimes described by crew members as "not tough enough." Eagly and Karau (2002) proposed role congruity theory, which holds that women leaders face prejudice because expectations of leaders, such as being assertive, conflict with expectations of women. Her style is effective; her crews have fewer errors than mine. The criticism she receives reflects the expectations the theory describes.
Changes I Will Make
First, I will stop asking "Any questions?" and instead ask each handler to walk me through one step of a new procedure, which shows understanding without requiring anyone to admit confusion. Second, I will pair new procedures with a picture card at the loading area, since several handlers read English as a second language. Third, I will pay attention to how I describe colleagues' leadership styles, and challenge comments that judge effective leaders by toughness alone. I will review the picture cards with two handlers before posting them, to be sure they are clear.
Reflection
I thought of myself as fair because I treat everyone the same way. This assessment showed me that treating everyone the same way means communicating in the way that suits people like me.
Conclusion
Reading silence as agreement and directness as respect led to errors on a culturally diverse crew. Cultural dimensions and role congruity research explain why, and checks that do not depend on speaking up, along with attention to how I judge others' styles, address the problem.
References
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2013). Leadership: A communication perspective (6th ed.). Waveland Press.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.
What the MAN 3760 Module 6 instructions ask for
The self-assessment for the leadership and diversity module asks you to complete a tool from the text on cultural or intercultural communication and to reflect on what it shows. Expect to connect your results to concepts such as cultural dimensions, gender and leadership, and inclusion. Use a specific situation where differences in communication mattered. Describe your results honestly, explain how they show up in your work, support the reflection with research and set concrete changes. Describe a real situation where communication across differences caused a problem or a success. Use the assessment's results as the starting point and research to explain what happened. Name the assessment tool you used and report your main results in a sentence or two before reflecting on them.
How this MAN 3760 Module 6 example is built
The reflection opens with what the assessment showed about the writer's assumptions. A section connects those assumptions to cultural dimensions and to two errors on the crew. A section applies role congruity research to comments about a colleague. A section sets three changes, and the closing reflection names the misconception the assessment overturned. The errors on the crew give the reflection concrete stakes, and the changes are designed so that crew members do not have to change how they communicate. The closing reflection names the misconception the assessment overturned. Every change in the plan addresses a specific consequence of the writer's assumptions, such as loading errors. The plan can be checked within a month.
Reading the MAN 3760 Module 6 grading rubric
Mentors grade this self-assessment on honest reporting of results, connection to diversity and communication concepts, application to real situations and concrete changes. Reflections that identify an assumption and show its consequences, such as errors, demonstrate insight. Applying research on culture or gender to a specific situation shows depth. Changes that adapt the leader's communication, rather than asking others to adapt, show understanding of inclusive leadership. Mentors also credit care in describing other cultures without stereotyping individuals. Accurate use of cultural dimensions and role congruity research, with citations, completes the exercise. Reflections that challenge the writer's own sense of fairness, as this one does, show the self-examination the module values.
Common MAN 3760 Module 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Students lose points by describing diversity in general terms, by reporting results without examples or by planning changes that ask others to communicate like them. Others stereotype colleagues by nationality. Describe your own assumptions. Show where they caused a problem. Use research to explain it. Plan changes in your own communication. Describe cultural tendencies as patterns that vary within any group, not as traits of every person from a country. Check your plan with people it affects; they can tell you whether it will help. A free first sample on your own MAN-3760 Module 6 self-assessment 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 MAN 3760 and Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership sample papers
- MAN 3760 Module 1: Self-Assessment: How a Ramp Supervisor Communicates Under Pressure
- MAN 3760 Module 2: Application Paper: Three Theories, One Station Manager
- MAN 3760 Module 3: Application Paper: Power and Influence in a Push for New Loading Procedures
- MAN 3760 Module 4: Group Process Analysis: How Our Case Team Worked
- MAN 3760 Module 5: Application Paper: Johnson and Johnson's 1982 Tylenol Crisis Communication
- MAN 3760 Module 7: Final Project: Leadership Communication at Boeing and the 737 MAX
- LDR 4190 Module 1: Organizational Analysis: A County Food Bank in the Nonprofit Sector
- LDR 3240 Module 2: Application Paper: Frances Perkins and Henry Ford, Reform and Business Leadership
- PSY 3600 Module 2: Written Assignment: Theory X, Theory Y and the Shape of a Moving Company
- LDR 4350 Module 3: Final Project Paper: The Onboarding Project, Its Results and What It Taught
MAN 3760 Module 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MAN 3760 Module 6 sample paper?
Reading silence as agreement on a crew from eleven countries, and how to check understanding instead, is the self-assessment above.
What is power distance?
Hofstede's term for the extent to which people accept that power is distributed unequally.
What is role congruity theory?
Eagly and Karau's theory that women leaders meet prejudice because what people expect of leaders clashes with what they expect of women.
Why can silence be misleading?
In some cultures, people may not question a supervisor openly, so silence does not mean understanding.
How can a leader check understanding across cultures?
By asking people to demonstrate or explain a step rather than asking whether they have questions.