Turn course concepts into leadership decisions
You will distinguish styles from power bases and influence tactics, adapt leadership to context, and connect ethical influence to sustainable digital change.
Your learning route
Launch: 5 minutes
Concept studio: 10 minutes
Power detective: 10 minutes
Decision simulation: 15 minutes
Team challenge: 10 minutes
ING transfer: 15 minutes
Exit check: 10 minutes
How to use the lab
Open each station in order. Make a choice before reading feedback. Record reasoning in the response fields. Download your responses before closing the file.
Practice only. Quiz scores are not official grades. This file does not send responses to the instructor.
Recall a workplace change. Who influenced your response, and what gave that person influence?
Concept studio
Expand each concept. For every style, ask: What does the situation require, and what safeguards protect employee voice?
Seven leadership styles
Leadership roles
A remote team understands the task but cannot resolve competing priorities across departments. Which role would you emphasize first, and what would you do?
Compare with a possible response
A liaison or partner can bring decision owners together, surface dependencies, and agree on shared priorities. Coaching alone may not resolve competing organizational incentives.
Nine influence tactics
Power detective
Identify the dominant power base in each vignette. Several bases can coexist in real situations; these examples emphasize one.
Choose one example. How could the same power base be used responsibly or misused? Name an accountability safeguard.
Decision simulation
Lead a digital rollout at fictional Harbor Services. Explore each response and compare its likely implications. These are reasoned practice outcomes, not predictions or facts about ING.
State your leadership style, dominant power base, two influence tactics, one ethical risk, and one measure of sustained change.
Team challenge: Build influence across differences
Groups of three or four: assign a facilitator, evidence checker, employee advocate, and reporter. In smaller groups, combine roles.
| Collaboration role from Unit 9 | Potential contribution | Leadership response |
|---|
The challenge
Your cross functional team has ten minutes to agree on a pilot plan. The expert demands more testing, the innovator wants immediate launch, and the traditionalist worries about losing a reliable process. The executive wants a decision today.
Develop a plan that specifies a shared outcome, a decision owner, a limited pilot, a channel for dissent, and a review date. Use at least two influence tactics and identify whose voice might be missing.
Debrief prompts
Who shaped the decision? Was authority necessary? Did evidence change the plan? How did you distinguish constructive dissent from obstruction? What would make quieter members feel safe to disagree?
Transfer to Activity 2: ING strategic analysis
Use the assigned Transformation at ING (A): Agile case to supply evidence. The Harbor Services simulation is fictional and must not be cited as ING evidence.
What makes the analysis stronger?
Move from describing a practice to evaluating its effect. Identify a case fact with a page reference, apply a course concept, consider an alternative explanation or tradeoff, then recommend an action with an owner and a measure.
Template: The case describes [verified practice, page]. This illustrates [concept] because [reason]. It may improve [outcome], while creating [risk]. I recommend [action], owned by [role], assessed through [measure and review period].
Use case and research evidence to evaluate the Orange Code, autonomy and coordination, employee experience, and sustained change. Do not assume that a strong employer brand proves that employees experience the promised culture.
Exit check
Choose one answer per question. Feedback appears immediately. Your first answer contributes to the practice score; further selections support learning.
What will you change about how you use power? Name one action, one safeguard, and one indicator you would review after 30 days.
Facilitator guide and source notes
Live class sequence
Use the opening reflection as a pair discussion. Assign concept cards to groups for a brief teach back. Ask students to explain their power classifications before revealing feedback. Pause the simulation after each decision for alternative arguments.
Finish with the ING planner and exit check. Invite students to share reasoning rather than only a score.
Formative review
Look for accurate distinctions among style, power, and tactic; sensitivity to task readiness; attention to employee voice; analysis of autonomy and alignment; and recommendations with owners, safeguards, and outcome measures.
Ask: What evidence would change your recommendation?
Alignment with the supplied material
The lab follows the slide deck’s Unit 9 title, Leadership and Bases of Power, and its six objectives. Sustainability is treated as an application of leadership and power. One look ahead slide uses a different Unit 9 description; the opening title and substantive Unit 9 teaching content guide this lab.
Source
Bernard, D. (n.d.). Leadership and change management: Unit 9: Leadership and bases of power [Course slides]. MIU.
Source areas: learning objectives; leadership styles and roles; collaboration styles; power bases; influence tactics; ethical power; Activity 2 outline and rubric connections. All practice vignettes, feedback, and planning prompts were developed for this learning lab. No external empirical claims or reference entries from the slide deck are reproduced as independently verified evidence.
Response handling
When browser storage is available, responses are saved on this device. No responses are transmitted. Storage may be unavailable in some local file viewers. Download responses to retain a copy; use Print to create a paper or PDF record. Reset clears this lab’s responses on this device.