MGMT 301: Organizational Behaviour

Week 5: Discussion Board Post and Short Written Response

Leadership Styles and Their Effect on Employee Performance

Course Code	MGMT 301
Course Title	Organizational Behaviour
Activity Type	Week 5 Discussion Board Post + Short Written Response
Academic Level	Undergraduate Year 2–3
Department	Business Administration
Semester	Spring 2025–2026
Total Marks	100 marks (15% of final grade)
Discussion Post	Initial post: 300–400 words. Peer response: 150–200 words.
Written Response	500–700 words (submitted separately via the assignment portal)
Citation Style	APA 7th Edition
Platform	Course Discussion Board (initial post and peer response) + Assignment Portal (written response)
Due Dates	See the submission timeline table in Section 3 and confirm dates on the course portal

1. Overview

Week 5 of this course asks you to look closely at how leadership affects the people being led. Leadership style is one of the most frequently studied topics in organizational behaviour, and with good reason: the way a manager leads has a measurable effect on how employees feel about their work, how motivated they are, and how they perform over time.

The week’s activity has two connected parts. First, you will participate in the course discussion board, where you will post an initial analytical response and then engage with at least one classmate. Second, you will submit a short individual written response through the assignment portal. The two tasks reinforce each other, and the written response gives you space to develop an argument that the discussion format does not always allow.

The focus for both parts is the comparison of two leadership styles and what the research evidence says about how each affects employee performance. You have some freedom in which styles you choose, though the most commonly studied in this area are transformational, transactional, servant, authentic, and laissez-faire leadership. Pick two that genuinely interest you or that you have observed in a real work setting, as that often produces stronger writing.

2. Learning Outcomes Addressed

Week 5 addresses the following course learning outcomes (CLOs):

CLO 2: Compare and contrast major leadership theories and styles, and explain their relevance to employee motivation and performance.
CLO 3: Apply organisational behaviour frameworks to analyse real or hypothetical workplace scenarios.
CLO 4: Evaluate published research evidence on leadership and performance, and use that evidence to support an academic argument.
CLO 5: Communicate ideas clearly and respectfully in both an asynchronous discussion format and formal written academic work.

3. Task Instructions

3.1 Submission Timeline

Please complete all three tasks within the Week 5 window. The table below sets out what is required and when.

Task	What is Required	When
Initial Post	Your 300–400 word analytical post responding to both parts of the discussion prompt.	By end of Day 3 of Week 5 (see course portal for exact date)
Peer Response	At least one substantive response (150–200 words) to a classmate’s initial post.	By end of Day 5 of Week 5 (see course portal for exact date)
Short Written Response	A 500–700 word individual reflection submitted via the assignment portal.	By end of Day 7 of Week 5 (see course portal for exact date)

3.2 Discussion Board: Initial Post (300–400 words)

Your initial post should respond to both parts of the following prompt. Address Part A and Part B in the same post; they do not need to be separated with headings, but your response should be clearly structured.

Discussion Prompt

Part A: Select two leadership styles from the course material. For each style, explain the core characteristics of that style and describe how it is likely to affect employee performance, drawing on at least one piece of academic evidence per style.

Part B: Based on your analysis, which of the two styles do you consider more effective for sustaining high employee performance over the long term? Justify your position with reference to the evidence you have discussed.

A strong initial post goes beyond summarising the theory. It takes a position, uses evidence to defend it, and acknowledges any limitations or conditions under which the conclusion may not hold. Aim for precision rather than breadth; two styles discussed with real depth are more valuable than three or four touched on briefly.

Your initial post must include at least two in-text citations from peer-reviewed sources. The reference list for these sources should appear at the end of your post in APA 7th edition format.

3.3 Discussion Board: Peer Response (150–200 words)

Read through your classmates’ initial posts and respond to at least one. A good peer response does more than agree or disagree. It engages with the substance of what your classmate has argued, adds a new angle or piece of evidence, or identifies a consideration that was not raised in the original post.

Responses such as ‘Great post, I totally agree’ will not receive marks for this component. Your response should demonstrate that you have read and thought about what your classmate wrote. Respectful disagreement, where supported by evidence, is entirely appropriate and often produces the most productive exchanges.

You do not need to add a formal reference list to your peer response, but if you cite a source, please include enough detail for a reader to locate it.

3.4 Short Written Response (500–700 words)

The written response is submitted separately through the assignment portal, not on the discussion board. It asks you to extend the analysis from your initial post by applying your leadership comparison to a specific workplace context.

Choose one of the following scenarios as the context for your written response. You do not need to explain at length which scenario you chose; simply name it in your opening paragraph and proceed with the analysis.

Scenario A: A newly promoted team leader at a regional retail company has inherited a team of eight staff members who have low motivation scores and a history of high turnover. The previous manager was widely described as hands-off and uncommunicative.

Scenario B: A department head at a mid-sized logistics firm is managing a team of experienced professionals. The team is technically skilled but has become resistant to new processes introduced during a recent restructure. Morale has declined noticeably over the past six months.

Scenario C: A project manager at a technology start-up in the GCC region is leading a cross-functional team working to a tight product launch deadline. Team members come from four different national backgrounds, and communication gaps have begun to affect work quality.

Your written response should address the following in a connected piece of writing. Subheadings are optional.

Identify which of your two leadership styles would be the better fit for the scenario you have chosen, and explain the specific reasons for that judgement.
Acknowledge at least one limitation of the style you recommend: a condition, a team characteristic, or a circumstance under which it might not work as intended.
Suggest one practical step the leader in the scenario could take in the first four weeks to begin applying the recommended style effectively.

The written response should have a reference list at the end in APA 7th edition format. A minimum of two peer-reviewed sources is required, and these may include the same sources used in your discussion post.

4. Submission Requirements

4.1 Discussion Board Posts

Initial post: 300–400 words, submitted by Day 3 of Week 5.
Peer response: 150–200 words, submitted by Day 5 of Week 5.
Post directly to the Week 5 Discussion Board thread on the course portal.
Format: plain text or basic formatted text within the discussion board editor. Do not upload a Word document to the discussion board.
References: include APA-formatted in-text citations and a reference list at the bottom of your initial post. A minimum of two peer-reviewed journal articles is required.

4.2 Short Written Response

Word count: 500–700 words for the body of the response. The reference list is excluded from the count.
Font: Arial or Times New Roman, 12pt.
Line spacing: 1.5 throughout.
Margins: 2.54 cm on all sides.
File format: Microsoft Word (.docx). Submit through the assignment portal, not the discussion board.
Citations: APA 7th edition in-text citations and a reference list are required. Minimum two peer-reviewed sources.

4.3 Academic Integrity

Authentic discussion requires original thought. You may draw on course materials and external sources, but the ideas and arguments in your posts and written response must be your own. Copying from course notes without citation, reproducing another student’s post, or submitting work generated in full by an AI writing tool without disclosure all constitute academic integrity violations under the university’s policy. If you are uncertain about what is or is not acceptable, speak with your instructor before the submission deadline.

5. Marking Rubric

The rubric below applies to the complete Week 5 activity, covering the initial post, the peer response, and the written response together. The written response accounts for 40 of the 100 marks available, weighted across criteria 1 and 2. Read the descriptors carefully before you begin.

Criterion	Excellent (18–20)	Proficient (14–17)	Developing (10–13)	Inadequate (0–9)	Marks (x2)	Total
1. Initial Post: Depth of Analysis How well the student analyses two leadership styles and connects them to employee performance outcomes using course theory.	Two styles analysed with clear theoretical grounding; specific examples are used; the comparison is analytical, not just descriptive.	Two styles discussed with reasonable accuracy; some use of theory; examples are general but present.	One style covered in depth, or both addressed superficially; limited use of theory or examples.	Minimal or no comparison; largely opinion-based; theory absent or incorrectly applied.	x2	40
2. Use of Academic Evidence Appropriate citation of at least two peer-reviewed sources in the initial post.	Two or more peer-reviewed sources correctly cited in APA; evidence is integrated naturally into the argument.	Two sources cited; minor APA errors; evidence is present but occasionally dropped in without discussion.	One source cited, or sources are non-academic; evidence is listed rather than integrated.	No sources cited, or all sources are from non-academic websites; APA format not followed.	x1	20
3. Peer Response Quality The depth, respect, and academic value of at least one response to a classmate’s post.	Response adds a new insight or respectfully challenges a claim; brings in evidence or a fresh perspective; engages with the classmate’s argument specifically.	Response acknowledges the classmate’s point and adds some commentary; mostly agreement without extension.	Response is brief and general; reads as acknowledgement rather than engagement.	Response is absent, off-topic, or limited to phrases such as ‘I agree’ or ‘good post’.	x1	20
4. Written Communication Clarity, coherence, spelling, grammar, and appropriate academic tone across both posts.	Posts are clearly written, well-organised, and free from significant errors; tone is academic without being stiff.	Posts are mostly clear with minor grammatical issues; tone is appropriate.	Frequent errors that affect readability; tone is too informal or too vague in places.	Writing is difficult to follow; errors are pervasive; tone is inappropriate for an academic discussion.	x1	20
Total						100

Note on weighting: Criterion 1 is doubled (marked out of 20, then multiplied by 2) to reflect the centrality of analytical depth across both the discussion post and the written response. All other criteria carry equal weight.

6. Guidance Notes for Students

6.1 On Choosing Leadership Styles

Students sometimes default to comparing transformational and transactional leadership because these two appear most often in the course readings. That choice is fine, but be aware that the volume of existing analysis on these two styles means the marker will expect a more precise and evidence-grounded comparison. If you choose a less common pair, such as servant and laissez-faire leadership, make sure the academic sources you find are genuinely peer-reviewed and published within the last seven years.

6.2 On What Counts as Evidence

A peer-reviewed journal article that reports empirical findings about leadership and performance is the strongest type of evidence for this task. Review articles and meta-analyses are also appropriate. Textbook summaries, popular business magazine articles, and company websites do not count toward the peer-reviewed minimum, though they may be used as supporting material.

6.3 On Peer Responses

Many students lose marks on the peer response component simply because they treat it as an afterthought. A response that starts with ‘I really liked your post’ and then paraphrases what the classmate already said does not demonstrate engagement. Read the classmate’s post carefully, identify the key claim they are making, and respond to that claim with your own reasoning or evidence. That is what makes a discussion academically worthwhile.

6.4 On the Scenario Application

The written response asks you to apply theory to a context, and this is where students at this level often lose marks by staying too general. Vague statements such as ‘a transformational leader would motivate the team’ do not earn credit on their own. Explain how, through which specific behaviours or mechanisms, and why that matters in the particular conditions of the scenario you have chosen.

6.5 Useful References to Start With

Alheet, A.F., Adwan, A., Areiqat, A.Y., Zamil, A.M.A. and Saleh, M.A. (2021) ‘The effect of leadership styles on employees’ innovative work behavior’, Management Science Letters, 11(1), pp. 239–246. DOI: 10.5267/j.msl.2020.8.010. Relevant, Middle East–based empirical study with a direct comparison of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire styles.
Jiatong, W., Wang, Z., Alam, M., Murad, M., Gul, F. and Gill, S.A. (2022) ‘The impact of transformational leadership on affective organizational commitment and job performance’, Frontiers in Psychology, 13, article 831060. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.831060. Open access and freely available.
Fischer, T. and Sitkin, S.B. (2023) ‘Leadership styles: a comprehensive assessment and way forward’, Academy of Management Annals, 17(1), pp. 331–372. DOI: 10.5465/annals.2020.0340. A thorough review that contextualises major leadership styles and their comparative effectiveness.
Northouse, P.G. (2022) Leadership: Theory and Practice, 9th edn. London: SAGE. Core course text with accessible coverage of the main leadership theories.

7. Verified Academic References

All four references below are real, verifiable, and accessible via the linked DOIs or through the university library. These are starting points; you must source additional references independently.

Alheet, A.F., Adwan, A., Areiqat, A.Y., Zamil, A.M.A. and Saleh, M.A. (2021) ‘The effect of leadership styles on employees’ innovative work behavior’, Management Science Letters, 11(1), pp. 239–246. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.8.010 (Accessed: March 2026).

Fischer, T. and Sitkin, S.B. (2023) ‘Leadership styles: a comprehensive assessment and way forward’, Academy of Management Annals, 17(1), pp. 331–372. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2020.0340 (Accessed: March 2026).

Jiatong, W., Wang, Z., Alam, M., Murad, M., Gul, F. and Gill, S.A. (2022) ‘The impact of transformational leadership on affective organizational commitment and job performance: the mediating role of employee engagement’, Frontiers in Psychology, 13, article 831060. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.831060 (Accessed: March 2026).

Nguyen, T.T., Mia, L., Winata, L. and Chong, V.K. (2023) ‘How transformational leadership influences employees’ job-related outcomes through public service motivation’, Cogent Business and Management, 10(1), article 2176281. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2176281 (Accessed: March 2026).

Appendix A: Sample Initial Post Excerpt

The excerpt below illustrates the analytical tone and citation standard expected in the initial post. It is provided as a guide only and does not represent a complete or model answer.

Transformational leadership and laissez-faire leadership represent opposite ends of the leadership engagement spectrum, and comparing them reveals a great deal about why leadership style matters so much to how employees perform. Transformational leaders engage actively with their teams, communicate a shared vision, and invest time in the individual development of team members. Jiatong et al. (2022) found that transformational leadership had a significant positive effect on both affective organisational commitment and job performance, with employee engagement acting as a mediating mechanism. In practical terms, this means that the performance gains attributed to transformational leadership are not simply about motivation; they depend on the leader creating conditions that make employees feel genuinely invested in the work and the team. Laissez-faire leadership, by contrast, is characterised by the near absence of guidance, feedback, and active decision-making. Alheet et al. (2021, p. 244) found a statistically significant negative relationship between laissez-faire leadership and innovative work behaviour in a study of university employees in Jordan, a finding that aligns with earlier research across other sectors. The contrast is stark: one style builds the relational and motivational conditions that support sustained performance; the other withdraws precisely the support that research consistently identifies as necessary for that performance to develop. On balance, the evidence points more clearly toward transformational leadership as the more effective style for sustaining long-term performance, though the degree of benefit appears to depend on the organisational context and the characteristics of the team being led.

Note: In-text citations above reference Jiatong et al. (2022), DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.831060, and Alheet et al. (2021), DOI: 10.5267/j.msl.2020.8.010.