BUSI 503 Week 5 Leadership Profile 4 Example

Reviewed by Thomas Kerrigan, MBA, CPA · Liberty University · Updated

This BUSI 503 Week 5 sample paper is Leadership Profile 4, the last of the four self-assessment papers, built on three questionnaires from the later Northouse chapters: the Authentic Leadership Self-Assessment, the followership questionnaire and the Team Excellence and Collaborative Team Leader Questionnaire. A composite operations supervisor finds that self-awareness and moral perspective score well, but balanced processing, the habit of weighing views that challenge one's own, scores lowest. The followership results show an active but uncritical follower, and the team questionnaire flags weak standards of excellence. The profile argues that the three results describe one pattern, a supervisor who avoids disagreement both upward and downward, and builds an action plan around it. Liberty University's BUSI 503 weights this final profile at 40 points in an MBA leadership course that pairs each theory with Scripture.

CourseBUSI 503 Leadership Theory (BUSI503)
Module/Week5
AssignmentLeadership Profile 4
Paper typeLeadership self-assessment profile with action plan
Lengthabout 498 words, 2 double-spaced pages plus title page and references. Course guide: a profile of at least 300 words in current APA format reporting the assigned questionnaires, reflecting on strengths and weaknesses and presenting an action plan for applying the results
FormatAPA 7 student paper
Points40
SchoolLiberty University Online
ProgramMBA
Where it sitsModule/Week 5 in Liberty's published BUSI 503 course guide; current sections can differ
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for BUSI 503 Week 5

1

Leadership Profile 4: Authenticity, Followership and the Team I Lead

 

[Student Name]

School of Business, Liberty University

BUSI 503: Leadership Theory

Leadership Profile 4

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

 

The questionnaire results and the writer's team are composites standing in for a student's own results; the textbook, the research and the Scripture cited are real, and the structure follows Liberty's public course guide for BUSI 503.

2

Leadership Profile 4: Authenticity, Followership and the Team I Lead

Results

Why this part earns its pointsResults from all three instruments sit in one table so the pattern across them is visible at a glance.
3
QuestionnaireComponentResult
Authentic Leadership Self-AssessmentSelf-awarenessHigh
Internalized moral perspectiveHigh
Balanced processingLow
Relational transparencyModerate
Followership questionnaireStyleActive, low on critical thinking
Team Excellence and Collaborative Team Leader QuestionnaireWeakest characteristicStandards of excellence
Strongest characteristicCollaborative climate

What Each Result Says

The instrument rests on the four-part model that Walumbwa et al. (2008) tested across samples in China, Kenya and the United States: knowing oneself, acting from internal moral standards, weighing information fairly before deciding, and being open about one's real thoughts. My high scores on the first two fit how I see myself; I know my values and I do not bend them under pressure. My low balanced-processing score is the surprise. The items ask whether I seek out views that challenge my position before deciding, and honestly I do not. I decide, then I listen to agree. In practice that means meetings where I present a plan and ask whether anyone has questions, which is not the same as asking whether anyone sees a better plan. Team members learn quickly which kind of question is really being asked, and they answer accordingly.

The followership result points the same direction. Kelley (1988) described followers along two dimensions, how actively they engage and how independently and critically they think. I scored as an active follower who rarely questions decisions made above me. Uhl-Bien et al. (2014) argued that followership is a role people play in creating leadership, not merely the absence of leadership, and that followers who never challenge leaders leave them with fewer chances to correct course. When my manager announced a staffing change last fall that I believed would slow our shipping, I implemented it without raising the concern.

The team questionnaire, built on the characteristics of effective teams in LaFasto and Larson (2001) and presented in Northouse (2019), rated our collaborative climate highest and our standards of excellence lowest. My team likes working together, but we do not hold one another to a demanding standard.

Why this part earns its pointsThe synthesis paragraph is where the profile earns its depth, by tying three results to one cause.
4

One Pattern Behind Three Scores

All three results describe the same habit: I avoid disagreement, upward with my manager, downward with my team and inward with myself. A pleasant climate with low standards is what a team led by someone who avoids conflict would be expected to produce. My strength, steady values and a friendly team, has become the cover for a weakness. This matters because each habit protects the others. If I never hear challenges to my decisions, I have no practice in raising challenges to my manager's, and a team that sees its supervisor avoid hard conversations learns that holding one another to a standard is not expected. Changing one of the three without the others is unlikely to last.

Why this part earns its pointsEach action targets the shared cause, so progress on one should show up in the others.
5

Action Plan

  • Before the next three decisions that affect the whole team, ask one team member to argue the opposing case, and record whether it changed the decision.
  • At my next one-on-one with my manager, raise one concern I would normally keep to myself, with data.
  • Within six weeks, agree with the team on two written quality standards for our shipping work and review them monthly.

Proverbs 27:17 says that people sharpen each other the way iron sharpens iron (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016). Sharpening involves friction. A team that never disagrees is not being sharpened.

6

References

English Standard Version Bible. (2016). Crossway. (Original work published 2001)

Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142-148.

LaFasto, F., & Larson, C. (2001). When teams work best: 6,000 team members and leaders tell what it takes to succeed. SAGE Publications.

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007

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 BUSI 503 Week 5 instructions ask

The fifth module moves BUSI 503 into authentic leadership, followership and team leadership in Northouse, with Scripture readings and a lecture, and closes the series of four Leadership Profiles; Case Study Response Forum 2 is graded the same week. As with the earlier profiles, students take the questionnaires the chapters supply, interpret what the results say about their strengths and weaknesses, and set out how they will act on them, in no fewer than 300 words with APA citations. By this point the earlier profiles give a writer material to compare, so this one can look for a pattern across the whole course. The questionnaires in these chapters also ask about the people around the writer, which makes them useful for seeing how a leader's habits shape a team.

How this BUSI 503 Week 5 example is built

The profile starts with a compact table of results from all three instruments. Its interpretation section reads the authentic leadership scores through the four components that Walumbwa and colleagues validated, the followership result through Kelley's two dimensions of critical thinking and engagement, and the team result through LaFasto and Larson's research on what makes teams work. A synthesis paragraph argues that the three low points share one cause. The action plan proposes three changes aimed at that cause, each with a date and a measure, and a brief look at Proverbs ties the plan to the course's biblical reasoning. A single pattern makes the profile more useful than three separate reports.

BUSI 503 Week 5 grading rubric: where the points go

This profile earns its points the same way the first three did: every assigned questionnaire completed, results reported accurately, strengths and weaknesses reflected on honestly, and an action plan concrete enough to carry out, in at least 300 words of APA. Strong submissions use the chapters' vocabulary precisely, self-awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, relational transparency, follower roles, team structure and standards of excellence, and apply it to the writer's own conduct. Because this is the fourth profile, instructors also notice when a writer connects results across instruments or to earlier profiles, which shows growth rather than four isolated exercises. Citations to Northouse and to research support the interpretation.

BUSI 503 Week 5 help: mistakes that cost points

Take all three questionnaires before writing, and if possible ask a team member to complete the team questionnaire too, since a leader's view of the team is often rosier than the team's. Look across the results for a common thread before interpreting each one, because a single pattern gives the profile a point. Use the components' exact names when you discuss them. Keep the action plan to three items you can actually do this term, each with a date and a measure. Stay above 300 words, cite Northouse, and finish the second case study response the same week. Compare this profile with your first one before submitting.

Related BUSI 503 sample papers

Other BUSI 503 weeks

More MBA sample papers

BUSI 503 Week 5 questions, answered

What is BUSI 503 Leadership Profile 4?

The final self-assessment paper of the course, worth 40 points in Module/Week 5 and based on the questionnaires for authentic leadership, followership and team leadership in Northouse.

Where can I find a free BUSI 503 Week 5 sample paper?

This page has a complete BUSI 503 Week 5 leadership profile linking authentic leadership, followership and team results to a single action plan.

What are the four components of authentic leadership?

Self-awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information and relational transparency, the four parts that Walumbwa and colleagues confirmed when they tested their authentic leadership measure in several countries.

What does the Team Excellence questionnaire assess?

It asks team members to rate the team on characteristics associated with effective teams, such as a clear goal, competent members, unified commitment, collaborative climate, standards of excellence and principled leadership.

What else is due in BUSI 503 Module/Week 5?

Case Study Response Forum 2, in which each student responds to the other groups' case study papers with at least 300 words and two citations, worth 50 points.

Use it as a model, or ask for your own

This paper is an original model written by our desk for study. It is not a submitted student paper and not an official Liberty University document. Read it for structure and reasoning, then write your own to the instructions in your Canvas course. If you want a version built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.

Ask for a custom BUSI 503 Week 5 sample · All BUSI 503 weeks · All courses