| Course | DIV 5013 People-Centered Leadership |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 4 |
| Paper type | Authenticity and respect self-assessment |
| Length | 1,280 words, about 5 pages plus title and reference pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | American College of Education |
| Program | M.S. in Organizational Leadership |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DIV 5013 Module 4
Announced, Not Discussed: An Authenticity and Respect Self-Assessment for a Payroll Manager
Student Name
American College of Education
DIV5013: People-Centered Leadership
Module 4 Assignment
Instructor Name
October 30, 2028
Introduction
The previous paper found that psychological safety on my team is low around mistakes and that some of my own habits help keep it that way. This paper looks more closely at my leadership behavior through two lenses: authenticity, meaning whether I lead in a way that is transparent, balanced and consistent with my values, and respect, meaning whether team members feel valued both as members of the group and as individuals. I gathered anonymous feedback from the payroll, payables and evening-shift staff who report to me, compared it with my own ratings and used the gaps to set specific changes.
Authentic Leadership
Walumbwa et al. (2008) described authentic leadership through four dimensions and developed a measure of them: self-awareness, or knowing how one comes across and where one falls short; relational transparency, which involves showing others what one actually thinks and passing information along freely; balanced processing, which means looking for and fairly weighing opposing views before a choice is made; and a moral perspective held from within, so that conduct follows personal values even under outside pressure. Gardner et al. (2011), reviewing the research that followed, noted links between authentic leadership and follower trust, engagement and performance, while also cautioning that definitions and measures in the field vary and that much of the evidence rests on cross-sectional surveys.
Respectful Leadership
Respect is related but distinct. Van Quaquebeke and Eckloff (2010) defined respectful leadership through specific behaviors, such as treating employees as equals in dignity, taking their views seriously, trusting their judgment and acknowledging their contributions, and found that feeling respected by a leader was associated with follower identification and satisfaction. Rogers and Ashforth (2017) distinguished two forms. Generalized respect is the sense that all members of a group are valued simply as members. Particularized respect is the sense of being valued for one's own qualities and contributions. A team can offer one without the other.
How the Feedback Was Gathered
A colleague from the hospital's learning and development office ran the process so that responses did not pass through me. Staff answered twelve statements written to match the four authentic leadership dimensions and eight statements about respectful behavior, each on a five-point scale, plus two open questions: what I should keep doing and what I should change. Twenty-nine of 34 responded. I rated myself on the same statements before seeing the results. The colleague then held two small group conversations, one with payroll and one with payables, without me present, and shared themes with names removed.
Results on Authenticity
The highest-rated dimension was internalized moral perspective, averaging 4.4 of 5; staff described me as consistent about accuracy and fair to vendors and employees alike. Self-awareness averaged 3.6. The two lowest were relational transparency, at 3.1, and balanced processing, at 2.9. Comments explained why. Several people wrote that decisions are announced, not discussed, citing the change to the invoice approval workflow in the spring. Others said I rarely explain my reasoning or admit when I am unsure. My self-ratings were higher than staff ratings on every dimension, with the largest gap, 1.1 points, on balanced processing.
Results on Respect
The respect statements averaged 3.5, but the picture split along the two forms Rogers and Ashforth describe. Generalized respect was uneven. The six payables staff who work remotely and the four who cover the evening payroll shift scored respect 0.8 points lower than daytime on-site staff, and the group conversations explained why: announcements reach them late, meetings are held when they are offline and they are rarely included in informal conversations where decisions take shape. Particularized respect was concentrated. Comments suggested that recognition goes mostly to the three senior specialists, while the steady, error-free work of others goes unmentioned.
Making Sense of the Gaps
The pattern is consistent with what the earlier papers found. My strengths, consistency and fairness about standards, are real, but they show up as rules more than as relationships. Announcing decisions without discussion is efficient for me and costly for the team; it denies people the chance to improve the decision and signals that their views are not needed. The gaps for remote and evening staff were not deliberate, yet they follow from habits built around the people I see each day. And concentrating recognition on the senior specialists, who are the most visible, leaves most of the group feeling valued only as part of the whole.
What I Will Keep
The feedback was not only critical. Staff asked me to keep holding everyone to the same accuracy standards, to keep defending the team when other departments blame payroll for problems that begin elsewhere and to keep treating vendors and employees with the same care. These behaviors fit the internalized moral perspective dimension and appear to be a source of trust. Any changes should strengthen relationships without loosening the standards people value.
Why Small Behaviors Matter
It would be easy to treat these findings as matters of style. The research suggests otherwise. Followers judge whether a leader is authentic and respectful mostly from small, repeated behaviors: who is asked before a decision, whose work is mentioned, whether reasons are given and whether the leader admits uncertainty. In a payroll group, where the work is precise and deadlines are fixed, these moments come up every week, and each one either confirms or weakens the trust that the standards themselves have built.
Changes to Decision Making
To improve balanced processing and transparency, decisions that change how people work will follow a simple sequence. I will describe the problem and my initial thinking, ask for views over at least one week through both a meeting and a written channel that evening and remote staff can use, and then explain the final decision, including which suggestions were adopted and why others were not. I will also say plainly when I am unsure, rather than projecting certainty. The next planned change, consolidating vendor setup forms, will be the first test of this process.
Changes to Respect
For generalized respect, team meetings will rotate between morning and late afternoon so that evening staff can attend some live, and every meeting will be recorded with a written summary posted the same day. Announcements will go out in writing to everyone at once. For particularized respect, I will hold a short monthly conversation with each person, rotating through the group, focused on their work rather than on problems, and recognition will be tracked in a short running record to check that it reaches everyone, not only the most visible staff.
Measures
The same feedback process will be repeated in six months, run by the same colleague. Targets are balanced processing and relational transparency at 3.6 or higher, the gap between my self-ratings and staff ratings under 0.5 points on every dimension, and the respect gap between remote or evening staff and on-site daytime staff halved. The recognition log will be reviewed each quarter. I will also track whether staff suggestions change at least some decisions, since a consultation process that never changes anything would quickly be seen as for show.
Conclusion
Anonymous feedback showed that my team trusts my consistency but experiences my decisions as announced rather than discussed, and that respect reaches remote, evening and less visible staff less than it reaches others. Research on authentic and respectful leadership gives names to these gaps and points to specific behaviors. Changes to how decisions are made, how meetings and information reach everyone and how recognition is shared will be measured against the same feedback in six months. The final module will bring these findings into a personal leadership development plan.
References
Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1120-1145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.007
Rogers, K. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2017). Respect in organizations: Feeling valued as "we" and "me." Journal of Management, 43(5), 1578-1608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314557159
van Quaquebeke, N., & Eckloff, T. (2010). Defining respectful leadership: What it is, how it can be measured, and another glimpse at what it is related to. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(3), 343-358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0087-z
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
DIV 5013 Module 4 instructions, in plain terms
The fourth DIV 5013 paper typically asks you to assess your own leadership for authenticity and respect. Expect to define authentic leadership, often through its four dimensions, and respectful leadership with research, then gather feedback from the people you lead, ideally anonymously. Most prompts reward comparing your self-ratings with others' ratings and examining the gaps honestly. Distinguish strengths to keep from behaviors to change, and look for differences in how groups within the team experience you. Close with specific behavior changes and measures. Draw on earlier modules and cite all research in APA 7. If formal feedback is not possible, structured conversations with a trusted colleague and a review of your own recent decisions can supply evidence, provided you explain the method.
How the DIV 5013 Module 4 example is put together
The sample defines authentic leadership through its four dimensions, adds a literature review's caution about measures and defines respectful leadership with its two forms. A colleague from learning and development ran the feedback anonymously. Results show strong moral consistency but low balanced processing and transparency, with self-ratings higher on every dimension. Respect splits by group: remote and evening staff score lower, and recognition goes mostly to senior specialists. The paper names what to keep, then changes decision making, meeting times, written announcements and recognition, with targets for the six-month repeat. The writer's own self-ratings are reported beside the staff ratings throughout.
Where the points sit in the DIV 5013 Module 4 rubric
Leadership self-assessments are graded on honesty and use of evidence. Graders look for clear definitions of authenticity and respect from research, feedback gathered in a way that protects candor and a comparison of self-ratings with others' ratings. Strong papers interpret the gaps, notice differences between groups and tie findings to earlier modules. Naming strengths to keep is often credited alongside areas to change. Changes should be specific behaviors with measures. Self-assessments without outside feedback, lists of virtues and vague promises to listen more tend to score lower. Cite research accurately in APA 7. Papers that report uncomfortable findings plainly, and then show what will change, tend to read as more credible than those that soften every result.
DIV 5013 Module 4 help from the desk
Assessing your own leadership in writing is uncomfortable, and many students struggle to be candid without sounding either defensive or harsh on themselves. We can help you design the feedback process, interpret the gaps and turn them into specific behaviors. Send a note on your role and the feedback you have or can gather, along with the prompt, so a writer can prepare a self-assessment grounded in authentic and respectful leadership research with honest analysis and measurable changes. Managers in finance, health care, schools and nonprofits all fit this approach. Your paper can arrive in two days. We can also suggest feedback questions that fit a small team, so responses stay anonymous even when only a few people answer.
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 American College of Education 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 DIV 5013 and M.S. in Organizational Leadership sample papers
- DIV 5013 Module 1: People and Task Leadership
- DIV 5013 Module 2: Applying Team Strengths
- DIV 5013 Module 3: Psychological Safety Assessment
- DIV 5013 Module 5: Leadership Development Plan
- HRM 5473 Module 5: Legal Risk Management Plan
- DIV 5023 Module 2: Organizational Justice Analysis
- DIV 5003 Module 5: Inclusive Communication Strategy
- DATA 5023 Module 2: Evidence-Based SWOT and PESTLE
DIV 5013 Module 4 questions, answered
What does DIV5013 Module 4 usually ask for?
In Module 4 of DIV5013, students usually turn the lens on themselves, judging their leadership for authenticity and respect using feedback and research, then setting specific changes.
What are the four dimensions of authentic leadership?
Self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced processing and an internalized moral perspective, as described by Walumbwa and colleagues in 2008.
What is the difference between generalized and particularized respect?
Generalized respect is being valued as a member of the group; particularized respect is being valued for your own qualities and contributions.
Where can I find a free DIV 5013 Module 4 sample paper?
This page has one: a payroll manager whose staff rated balanced processing at 2.9 of 5 and whose remote and evening staff felt less respected.
How should I gather honest feedback on my own leadership?
Have someone outside your reporting line run it anonymously, rate yourself first and compare the two, and include open questions about what to keep and change.