LP737 week 9

Activity F: Case Study: Coaching the Leaders 7/19/2026

15 Points Possible

In Progress NEXT UP: Submit Assignment

Unlimited Attempts Allowed

Attempt 1 Add Comment

Details

Overview This assignment challenges you to apply Kegan's Constructive-Developmental Theory to analyze leadership behaviors in a real-world case study. Working in pairs, you will assess four leaders' developmental levels, examine how these levels impact team dynamics, and create a targeted coaching plan to help one leader grow.

Assignment: In your assigned pairs, review the Case: Coaching the Leaders (https://msppedu- my.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/personal/david_wedaman_williamjames_edu/Documents/Attachments/Case%20%20Study% d=w3f2906aacb0743539c5df04ff46d5b13&csf=1&web=1&e=z7petG) . Use what you learn in the case to:

Case Link via WJC OneDrive (https://msppedu- my.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/personal/david_wedaman_williamjames_edu/Documents/Attachments/Case%20%20S d=w3f2906aacb0743539c5df04ff46d5b13&csf=1&web=1&e=z7petG) .

Case Link via Google Docs (https://drive.google.com/file/d/19M5cylUyu0RRJMGaLtP43uw5NUeQyYy1/view?usp=sharing)

1. Assess the developmental stages of the four key leaders involved in the efficiency task force—Steve, Keith, Lee, and Amadi—through the lens of Robert Kegan’s Constructive-Developmental Theory—basing your assessment on the evidence about their behaviors and thinking shared in the case.

2. Relate the developmental level of the individual leaders to the leadership dynamics you see in the case and explain your rationale. Provide recommendations for resolving the internal conflicts affecting the organization’s efficiency task force that draw on your understanding of adult development and the leaders’ levels.

3. Select one leader and develop a coaching plan for them: identify a growth edge related to their developmental level, explain how you think they need to improve to engage more effectively in the organization, and propose a few steps to get them there (see coaching plan template in the case).  

Link to case (online version) (https://msppedu- my.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/personal/david_wedaman_williamjames_edu/Documents/Attachments/Case%20%20Study% d=w3f2906aacb0743539c5df04ff46d5b13&csf=1&web=1&e=z7petG)

Link to case (PDF version) (https://canvas.williamjames.edu/courses/10838/files/1004810?wrap=1)

*You're not required to be a certified coach: you can think of the coaching plan as an informal improvement, mentoring, or advising plan. 

Deliverable: 10-15 minute recorded presentation with slides, covering:

1. Introduction (brief case overview)

2. Developmental assessment of all four leaders

3. Analysis of team dynamics

4. Coaching plan for one leader

5. Conclusion (key takeaways from the case)

6. Please include a transcript of your recorded presentation

Rubric (15 points total):

Criteria Excellent (Full Points)

Leadership Assessment

(4 pts)

Clear, evidence-based analysis of all four leaders' developmental levels

Team Dynamics

(4 pts)

Insightful explanation of how developmental levels impact team functioning and thoughtful recommendations 

Coaching Plan

(4 pts)

Thoughtful, developmentally-appropriate plan with actionable steps

Conclusion

(1 pt) Discuss key takeaways from the case

Presentation Quality

(2 pts) Professional, engaging, within time limit, clear visuals

Tips for Success:

Ground all assessments in specific evidence from the case

Connect leadership behaviors directly to Kegan's stages

Make coaching steps practical and achievable

Practice your presentation to ensure good pacing

Resources:

Choose a submission type

Kegan's developmental stages review materials

Case study documents (linked above)

Coaching plan template (in case materials)

 

View Rubric

Coaching the Leaders

Criteria Comments Points

Leadership Assessment

view longer description Comment /6 pts

Team Dynamics

view longer description Comment /6 pts

Coaching Plan

view longer description Comment /6 pts

Presentation Quality

view longer description Comment /3 pts

Web URL Media Upload Office 365

Previous

(https://canvas.williamjames.edu/courses/10838/modules/items/456497) Submit Assignment

Case Study: FluidTech Solutions

Introduction

FluidTech Solutions is a mid-sized manufacturing company experiencing rapid growth. To capitalize on

this growth, Steve, the CEO, initiated a drive to streamline and optimize the company’s end-to-end

processes. He formed a task force comprising senior managers from various departments, expecting

them to collaborate and create a more efficient workflow. However, progress stalled due to internal

conflicts, particularly between Keith, the head of Procurement, and Lee, the head of Production.

You are an organizational consultant with expertise in Constructive-Developmental Psychology. You’ve

been brought in by CEO Steve to help the task force get back on track.

This case study asks you to do three things:

1. Assess the developmental stages of the four key leaders involved in the efficiency task force—

Steve, Keith, Lee, and Amadi—through the lens of Robert Kegan’s Constructive-Developmental

Theory—basing your assessment on the evidence about their behaviors and thinking shared

here.

2. Explain how the leadership dynamics you see here relate to the developmental level of the

individual leaders. Provide recommendations for resolving the internal conflicts affecting the

organization’s efficiency task force that draw on your understanding of adult development and

the leaders’ levels.

3. Select one leader and develop a coaching plan for them: identify a growth edge related to their

developmental level, explain how you think they need to improve to engage more effectively in

the organization, and propose a few steps to get them there (see coaching plan template

below).

Key Players

Steve (CEO): Relatively young white CEO, was just promoted after years as a second in command to his

beloved mentor, the previous CEO. Puts a strong emphasis on harmony and seeking advice. Is frustrated

that his senior team doesn’t seem to get along.

Keith (Head of Procurement): Is an old-school, but effective, white man. He is focused on his

department's needs, which he runs with a bit of a top-down, iron fist style. He doesn’t seem that

interested in collaborating with his peers.

Lee (Head of Production): Perhaps the most reliable and predictable department head and a woman of

color, Lee knows her business through and through and is respected by her staff, whom she involves in

helping her run and improve her department.

Amadi (Head of Business Development): The longest-serving department head, Amadi is creative,

resourceful, somewhat unpredictable, but always delivers, even if what she delivers is something you

didn’t know you wanted.

The Data

After a round of interviews with the key leaders, you learn the following:

Steve is a remarkably gentle CEO. He prioritizes maintaining harmony everywhere. Under his guidance

the company has invested in things that have contributed to a family feeling: monthly field days,

company sweatshirts and mugs, and free lunch on Fridays. "People need to feel like they belong,” he

always says. He is also known for asking people what they think, which he does a lot. He especially

seeks out input from people he sees as his mentors (one of whom is the previous CEO, whom Steve still

has on speed dial). He is always bringing back new ideas from peer CEOs he meets at conferences. His

reports sometimes get a little frustrated with him from time to time, because all these ideas and input

can sometimes seem to squeeze his own thoughts out of his head. When two people he trusts and

admires suggest things that aren’t easy to reconcile, he can get flummoxed. Or he seems to agree with

you in a particular setting but changes his mind if someone else advocates a different position later. As a

result now and then decisions seem to linger longer than they need to, even things that should be a

relatively easy decision for a CEO.

Keith is a what-you-see-is-what-you-get kind of grizzled old veteran. He rose from the ranks of FluidTech

Solutions by “winning more fights than he lost,” as he tells you. As the head of Procurement, his

leadership style is characterized by a focus on getting what he wants, even if this means less

collaboration. His hand-picked staff are ready to do what he tells them at the drop of a hat, and he has a

loyal gang of suppliers ready to make him the best deal--all he needs from his peers is a clear sense of

their production plans, so his group can get the things the company needs quickly and at the best prices.

Lately Keith has been more frustrated than usual because Lee’s production plans are fluid and

sometimes inaccurate. The procurement that Keith ensured based on the recent plans submitted to him

by Lee has repeatedly fallen short of actual requirements, and his staff had to do extra work to make up.

Having his staff do extra work doesn’t bother him—they do what he tells them, of course—but what

bothers him is that goof-ups in purchasing make him lose power in the team and negotiating power with

his suppliers. He sees all this as Lee’s fault, so he is currently nursing a grudge, and Keith nursing a

grudge is not a pleasant person to have around.

Lee, the head of Production, is in many ways a kind of ideal head of a department. Her mixture of

intelligence and experience makes it easy for her to identify how things should be done and establish

departmental standards, values, and processes. She’s also quite good at including her staff in decision-

making, getting them to reflect on problems and make corrections, and even finding success in having

her staff give each other feedback (which of course nobody really wants to do). She encourages her staff

to take initiative and advocates a “bias for action,” which often causes tension with Keith’s subordinates,

because Keith’s team is required to run things by Keith before committing. Historically there has been a

kind of low-grade tension with Keith’s team, which seems to want Lee to be able to predict the future in

perfect detail in her production plans, which is virtually impossible. Amazingly, her team has been able

to do almost that the last few years, but lately she’s been challenged by Amadi’s division, which has

been creatively generating all sorts of new business, shifting priorities, and even promising new

products that Lee’s group simply needs time to figure out how to make. Which brings us to the Business

development team headed by Amadi Okoro.

Amadi is one of the more unusual people in the organization, if not the city and state. She’s been

around a long time, served in every conceivable role in almost every industry, has a degree in

beekeeping, and sometimes for fun sends emails in the form of Haiku. She’s also interested in

everything—you might see her running a product brainstorming meeting with her reports one morning

and then mowing the grass with the groundskeeping crew that night, equally engrossed in both. Steve’s

predecessor ran across Amadi redesigning security for a Casino in Las Vegas and had an intuition she

was the perfect leader for a business development team that hadn’t secured a new client in 5 years. He

was right; since she joined, Amadi's team has been highly successful in capturing new business. This

rapid growth strains the existing organizational systems, however. As we’ve seen, things are coming at

such a clip that Lee and Keith are having a hard time keeping up. In fact, this internal bottleneck is the

reason why Steve wanted to strengthen the organization internally in first place. One interesting thing:

while Lee and Keith are in tension, and many people are frustrated with Steve, Amadi is somehow

universally liked—people connect with her—it's just the waterfall of business that he’s generated that’s

got everyone worked up.

Case Study Questions (Repeated from above):

1. Assess the developmental stages of the four key leaders involved in the efficiency task force—

Steve, Keith, Lee, and Amadi—through the lens of Robert Kegan’s Constructive-Developmental

Theory—basing your assessment on the evidence about their behaviors and thinking shared

here.

2. Explain how the leadership dynamics you see here relate to the developmental level of the

individual leaders. Provide recommendations for resolving the internal conflicts affecting the

organization’s efficiency task force that draw on your understanding of adult development and

the leaders’ levels.

3. Select one leader and develop a coaching plan for them: identify a growth edge related to their

developmental level, explain how you think they need to improve to engage more effectively in

the organization, and propose a few steps to get them there (see coaching plan template

below).

Additional Guidelines and Suggestions:

• For Final Project Option 2, you’ll need to do the following:

• Address the questions above in a 10 – 15-minute (recorded) presentation created

collaboratively with your project partner.

• Utilize the concepts and theories related to developmental levels and leadership coaching

covered in the course materials. Cite those materials when you refer to them.

• Provide specific examples and scenarios from the case study to illustrate your points.

• Ensure that your coaching plans are tailored to the unique needs and challenges of each leader,

taking into account their developmental level and the specific issues they are facing.

• Where possible, incorporate best practices and strategies for effective coaching,

communication, and conflict resolution.

• Discuss the potential impact of the coaching plans on individual leaders, their departments, and

the overall organization.

Sample Coaching Plan:

Coachee’s Name: Write the coachee’s name

Coachee’s Title: Give the coachee’s title

Feedback / Other Data: List here all the things you notice and assess about the individual

Growth Edge: Specify the improvement that you invite the coachee to work on

Coaching Plan Overview: Give an overview of your coaching activities with the coachee.

Step 1: List the first activity you’ll undertake with the coachee and provide detail (i.e. coaching session

(specify what you’ll talk about), designed experiment (describe it), reading (explain what and why),

assigned conversation with peers (describe it and its purpose), etc.)

Step 2: (See step 1 instructions)

Step 3: (See step 1 instructions)