| Course | OML-6200 Organizational Management and Leadership II |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Module 3 reflection paper: acting with authenticity and integrity |
| Length | About 484 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | M.S. in Management in Organizational Leadership |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for OML 6200 Module 3
What They Actually Expect: Stakeholder Dialogues and the Gap Between Words and Deeds
Student Name
M.S. in Management in Organizational Leadership, Thomas Edison State University
OML-6200: Organizational Management and Leadership II
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
What They Actually Expect: Stakeholder Dialogues and the Gap Between Words and Deeds
The Dialogues
Friedman (2008) asks leaders to identify the key stakeholders in each domain, write down what they think each expects of them and then talk with each to test those assumptions. He reports that most people discover their stakeholders expect less of some things and more of others than they assumed, and that this frees time and attention. I held three conversations this module.
| Stakeholder | What I assumed | What I learned |
|---|---|---|
| Plant manager | Expects me to answer every call, day or night | Wants me to develop my two lead hands so they can handle night calls |
| My wife | Wants me home more hours | Wants me fully present at dinner and on Saturdays, phone away |
| Soccer league board | Expects me to run everything myself | Wants me to recruit a vice president and share the work |
What Surprised Me
Every stakeholder wanted something I could give more easily than I had feared. The plant manager's answer surprised me most. I had treated my constant availability as dedication; he saw it as a failure to develop my people. My wife's answer stung: the hours mattered less than my attention, and I had been home but on my phone.
Why I Had Assumed Wrong
Each wrong assumption had the same root. I assumed people wanted more of me, more hours, more availability and more control, because giving more is how I learned to prove commitment. Friedman notes that leaders often overestimate what stakeholders expect and underestimate how willing those stakeholders are to help them change. My plant manager offered to cover the lead hands' training time; my wife offered to handle Saturday pickups so I could move league meetings to weekday evenings. I had never asked.
Words and Deeds
Simons (2002) defines behavioral integrity as the perceived alignment between a manager's words and deeds, and argues that employees judge leaders by whether they keep promises and practice the values they espouse. In Module 1 I wrote that I wanted to be a supervisor who noticed people. The dialogues showed a gap between that word and my deeds: I do not develop my lead hands, and I am not present at home even when I am there.
Walumbwa et al. (2008) describe authentic leadership as resting on self-knowledge, fair weighing of information, an internalized moral compass and openness with others. The dialogues were an exercise in relational transparency: asking people directly what they need and hearing answers I did not want.
What I Will Do
I will train my two lead hands to handle night calls by the end of the quarter, leave my phone in the car at dinner and on Saturdays, and ask a parent who has volunteered for three seasons to become league vice president. Each commitment closes part of the gap between what I say I value and what I do.
References
Friedman, S. D. (2008). Total leadership: Be a better leader, have a richer life. Harvard Business School Press.
Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers' words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13(1), 18-35. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.1.18.543
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308913
What the OML 6200 Module 3 instructions ask for
OML-6200 asks for a short reflection paper in each module, one to two pages, together worth 15 percent of the grade. This module's reflection centers on authenticity and integrity, and Friedman's stakeholder dialogues give it a concrete task. Expect to identify key stakeholders in each domain of your life, record what you assume they expect, talk with them and reflect on what you learned. Connect the results to the readings and research on authentic leadership and integrity, and finish with specific commitments. Plan each conversation before you hold it: write down your assumption first, so you can compare it honestly with what you hear. Choose stakeholders who matter most in each domain, not those easiest to talk with. Hold at least one dialogue in each of two different domains.
How this OML 6200 Module 3 example is built
The paper opens with Friedman's method and why it matters. A table compares assumed and actual expectations for three stakeholders. A section names what surprised the writer. A section applies research on behavioral integrity and authentic leadership to the gap between the writer's words and deeds. A short closing section makes three commitments, one for each stakeholder, so the reflection ends in action. A section asks why every assumption was wrong in the same direction, and finds the root in the writer's habit of proving commitment by giving more. It notes that stakeholders offered help the writer had never asked for. The commitments are dated where possible.
OML 6200 Module 3 rubric: what earns full marks
Mentors grade reflection papers on genuine reflection, connection to the readings and research, specific insight and clear writing within the page limit. Papers that report real conversations, with surprises, show that the exercise was done rather than imagined. Linking the results to research on integrity and authenticity demonstrates understanding. Commitments that address the gaps found show the reflection has practical consequences, and concise writing respects the short format. Asking why assumptions were wrong, and finding a common root, shows reflection that goes beyond reporting. Noticing offers of help that were never requested shows the relational insight Friedman's method is meant to produce. Short, direct writing suits the format.
OML 6200 Module 3 help from the desk
Students lose points by imagining the dialogues rather than holding them, by reporting only confirmations of what they expected or by writing general reflections without commitments. Others exceed two pages. Hold the conversations. Record what you assumed before each one. Report surprises honestly. Connect them to integrity research. Make one commitment per stakeholder. Look for a pattern in your wrong assumptions, since it often points to a habit worth changing, and note any offers of help you received. Keep the paper within two pages by reporting the surprises and leaving out what you already knew. A free first sample on your own OML-6200 reflection 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 OML 6200 and M.S. in Management in Organizational Leadership sample papers
- OML 6200 Module 1: Module Paper: What Makes a Leader Real? Coles, Friedman and a Plant Supervisor
- OML 6200 Module 2: Discussion: Leading a Youth Soccer League Versus Leading a Plant
- OML 6200 Module 4: Final Paper: A Plan to Make a Difference at Work, at Home and in the Community
- OML 6300 Module 2: Module Paper: A Sales Manager's Path Through the Labyrinth
- OML 6100 Module 1: Self-Assessment: Personality and Motives of a New Support Team Lead
- GLM 5500 Module 4: Critical Analysis: Is the World Flat?
OML 6200 Module 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free OML 6200 Module 3 sample paper?
A supervisor's reflection on stakeholder dialogues and the gap between his words and deeds is above.
What is a stakeholder dialogue in Total Leadership?
A conversation in which a leader tests assumptions about what key people in each life domain expect.
What is behavioral integrity?
The perceived alignment between a manager's words and deeds.
What are the components of authentic leadership?
Knowing oneself, weighing information fairly, acting from internal moral standards and being open in relationships.
How long is an OML-6200 reflection paper?
One to two pages.