SubjectScout
ENAR
Sign inGet matched
Get matched

Adaptive leadership: six principles in written cases

Start questions

AI-assisted English content review; independent teacher approval pending.

Practice scope and review

Original, AI-authored English practice with worked guidance. Selected topics only; independent teacher review is pending. This is not a complete syllabus, official past-paper collection or predicted exam score. Check your own exam-board specification: these concepts are not certified against a particular board or exam year.

192 original questions across 31 selected topic areas. No account or payment required to practise.

Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology (9990), examination year 2027: AI-assisted conceptual alignment to official sources, not teacher or exam-board certification. Syllabus mapping and remaining coverage.

3 questions in this topic

This is a limited practice preview and is not submitted for search indexing.

All topics

Original written applications of inspected primary conceptual sources. Partial support only; not official assessment, complete key-study coverage or practical work. Teacher review pending.

Subtopics in this topic (3)
  • Adaptive diagnosis: changing software or changing priorities?
  • Regulating distress while keeping the difficult question open
  • Giving work back without abandoning dissenters

3 of 3 questions shown

Loading saved responses

Question 1In a fictional delivery firm, an incorrect postcode rule can be repaired by an existing software patch. A separate problem persists: dispatchers maximise speed while customer-support staff promise flexible delivery times, and both reject shared responsibility. (a) Distinguish the technical and adaptive challenges. (b) Apply getting on the balcony and identifying the adaptive challenge. (c) Evaluate installing the patch as a complete solution, giving a bounded written recommendation rather than intervening in a workplace. Primary reading: https://staff.washington.edu/scottm/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/hbr_work_of_leadership.pdf Reading scope: Heifetz and Laurie, The Work of Leadership: university staff-hosted HBR OnPoint published reprint (2001 reissue of 1997 article), printed pp6-7, Get on the Balcony and Identify the Adaptive Challenge. Conceptual argument and illustrative cases, not a controlled intervention trial. Syllabus boundary: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=46; 9990-option-4.2.1, selected nested content only. Written fictional case; no human trials.6 indicative marks
Explain / Apply / Evaluate6 indicative marksNo calculator

In a fictional delivery firm, an incorrect postcode rule can be repaired by an existing software patch. A separate problem persists: dispatchers maximise speed while customer-support staff promise flexible delivery times, and both reject shared responsibility. (a) Distinguish the technical and adaptive challenges. (b) Apply getting on the balcony and identifying the adaptive challenge. (c) Evaluate installing the patch as a complete solution, giving a bounded written recommendation rather than intervening in a workplace. Primary reading: https://staff.washington.edu/scottm/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/hbr_work_of_leadership.pdf Reading scope: Heifetz and Laurie, The Work of Leadership: university staff-hosted HBR OnPoint published reprint (2001 reissue of 1997 article), printed pp6-7, Get on the Balcony and Identify the Adaptive Challenge. Conceptual argument and illustrative cases, not a controlled intervention trial. Syllabus boundary: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=46; 9990-option-4.2.1, selected nested content only. Written fictional case; no human trials.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Adaptive diagnosis: changing software or changing priorities?: selected nested conceptual content only, not the whole section or complete empirical-study coverage. Original written case analysis is not hands-on performance, a validated assessment or teacher approval.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. The postcode fault has a defined remedy that available expertise can implement. The priority conflict requires the groups to reconsider promises, trade-offs and their own responsibilities. Calling that adaptive does not imply abandoning technical expertise: one case contains both kinds of work.
  2. Getting on the balcony means stepping back from individual incidents to examine patterns, then returning to the work with that perspective. For example, the fictional leader can compare when each team rejects responsibility and which targets reward incompatible choices. Identifying the adaptive challenge asks whose beliefs and behaviours need to change; a leader who imposed conflicting targets is part of the diagnosis, not an external neutral observer.
  3. Claim: the patch solves the organisation's problem. It may correct postcode outputs but cannot itself reconcile speed targets with flexible promises. Judgement: repair the known defect and separately write a shared trade-off review involving both fictional teams. Define evidence such as agreed responsibility for exceptions and consistent decisions in new invented cases. These are proposed indicators of learning, not observed improvements or proof that a particular leadership style always works. No staff recruitment, records or intervention are involved.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. (a) The known patch addresses a technical fault with available expertise.
  2. (a) Conflicting priorities and responsibility require learning/changed practices, an adaptive challenge.
  3. (b) Balcony observation examines cross-team patterns rather than reacting only to the latest dispute.
  4. (b) Diagnose whose assumptions, incentives or habits must change, including leaders' own contributions.
  5. (c) Retain the useful patch but reject it as sufficient for the priority conflict.
  6. (c) Recommend a fictional shared review of trade-offs and evidence of cross-team learning, without claiming proven effectiveness.

Examiner tip

A problem can have a technical component and still require adaptive work.

Question 2A fictional manager announces twelve simultaneous changes. Meetings alternate between blaming one department and discussing easy stationery orders; the unresolved question is who gives up resources to serve delayed customers. (a) Apply regulating distress and maintaining disciplined attention. (b) Evaluate both cancelling every change and increasing pressure until staff comply. (c) Contrast the leader's technical and adaptive responsibilities for direction, protection, orientation, conflict and norms in a paper-only response. Primary reading: https://staff.washington.edu/scottm/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/hbr_work_of_leadership.pdf Reading scope: Heifetz and Laurie, university staff-hosted HBR OnPoint reprint, printed pp7-9: Regulate Distress, Maintain Disciplined Attention and table Adaptive Work Calls for Leadership. Conceptual responsibilities, not a validated stress protocol. Syllabus boundary: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=46; 9990-option-4.2.1, selected nested content only. Written fictional case; no human trials.6 indicative marks
Explain / Apply / Evaluate6 indicative marksNo calculator

A fictional manager announces twelve simultaneous changes. Meetings alternate between blaming one department and discussing easy stationery orders; the unresolved question is who gives up resources to serve delayed customers. (a) Apply regulating distress and maintaining disciplined attention. (b) Evaluate both cancelling every change and increasing pressure until staff comply. (c) Contrast the leader's technical and adaptive responsibilities for direction, protection, orientation, conflict and norms in a paper-only response. Primary reading: https://staff.washington.edu/scottm/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/hbr_work_of_leadership.pdf Reading scope: Heifetz and Laurie, university staff-hosted HBR OnPoint reprint, printed pp7-9: Regulate Distress, Maintain Disciplined Attention and table Adaptive Work Calls for Leadership. Conceptual responsibilities, not a validated stress protocol. Syllabus boundary: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=46; 9990-option-4.2.1, selected nested content only. Written fictional case; no human trials.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Regulating distress while keeping the difficult question open: selected nested conceptual content only, not the whole section or complete empirical-study coverage. Original written case analysis is not hands-on performance, a validated assessment or teacher approval.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. Regulating distress is not simply making a meeting comfortable. The leader can sequence the twelve invented changes, explain priorities and create a setting where difficult trade-offs can be examined without overwhelming the group. Maintaining disciplined attention counters blame and displacement into stationery decisions by asking what allocation must change and why each department resists.
  2. Claim: either cancelling everything or applying unlimited pressure will solve resistance. Cancellation avoids the real conflict; excessive pressure can disable the learning needed to address it. Judgement: keep the adaptive question in view while pacing the work. A holding environment is a conceptual support for tolerable learning, not permission to expose people to harm or an empirically calibrated stress dose.
  3. For direction, a technical response supplies the known answer whereas adaptive leadership frames questions requiring learning. Protection shifts from shielding to allowing tolerable awareness of external pressures; orientation shifts from defining familiar roles to examining whether those roles must change. Conflict management brings competing perspectives into reasoned discussion instead of suppressing disagreement; norm shaping challenges obstructive habits instead of preserving them automatically. These are responsibilities applied to a fictional case, not five guaranteed interventions. Do not stage conflict, increase real workload or collect employee reports.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. (a) Pace/prioritise change and provide a holding environment rather than overwhelming the group.
  2. (a) Identify scapegoating and diversion to easy tasks as work avoidance; return attention to the resource trade-off.
  3. (b) Neither eliminating all pressure nor overwhelming people supports the proposed learning process.
  4. (c) Contrast giving a known solution with framing adaptive questions and shielding with tolerable exposure to pressures.
  5. (c) Contrast fixing established roles/restoring order with examining roles and making substantive conflict discussable.
  6. (c) Contrast maintaining routines with challenging unproductive norms, without treating harassment or unsafe conditions as necessary.

Examiner tip

Distinguish productive examination of disagreement from personal attack.

Question 3A fictional junior planner notices that a director's favourite project conflicts with delivery capacity. The director says 'take ownership', withholds access to relevant figures and dismisses the planner's awkward presentation as disloyal. (a) Apply giving work back to people and protecting voices from below. (b) Evaluate whether delegation alone is adaptive leadership. (c) Write a reasoned response that tests the concern without assuming the planner is correct or alleging misconduct by real people. Primary reading: https://staff.washington.edu/scottm/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/hbr_work_of_leadership.pdf Reading scope: Heifetz and Laurie, university staff-hosted HBR OnPoint reprint, printed pp9-11: Give the Work Back to People and Protect Voices of Leadership from Below. Original fictional application; illustrative organisational narrative is not experimental evidence. Syllabus boundary: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=46; 9990-option-4.2.1, selected nested content only. Written fictional case; no human trials.6 indicative marks
Explain / Apply / Evaluate6 indicative marksNo calculator

A fictional junior planner notices that a director's favourite project conflicts with delivery capacity. The director says 'take ownership', withholds access to relevant figures and dismisses the planner's awkward presentation as disloyal. (a) Apply giving work back to people and protecting voices from below. (b) Evaluate whether delegation alone is adaptive leadership. (c) Write a reasoned response that tests the concern without assuming the planner is correct or alleging misconduct by real people. Primary reading: https://staff.washington.edu/scottm/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/hbr_work_of_leadership.pdf Reading scope: Heifetz and Laurie, university staff-hosted HBR OnPoint reprint, printed pp9-11: Give the Work Back to People and Protect Voices of Leadership from Below. Original fictional application; illustrative organisational narrative is not experimental evidence. Syllabus boundary: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=46; 9990-option-4.2.1, selected nested content only. Written fictional case; no human trials.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Giving work back without abandoning dissenters: selected nested conceptual content only, not the whole section or complete empirical-study coverage. Original written case analysis is not hands-on performance, a validated assessment or teacher approval.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. Giving work back means those who hold relevant local information help recognise the problem and take responsibility for addressing it. The leader supports that work rather than retaining every answer or leaving the planner powerless. Withholding figures contradicts meaningful responsibility: the planner cannot assess capacity on the stated terms.
  2. Protecting voices from below means looking for useful information even in an awkward contribution. It is not a rule that every dissenter is right. Claim: telling someone to take ownership proves adaptive leadership. Judgement: this instruction alone is inadequate when access is blocked and the concern is silenced; the two principles require both supported responsibility and openness to challenge.
  3. In a written response, invite the fictional planner to set out capacity assumptions, give access to invented relevant totals and ask a second fictional analyst to examine alternatives. The director should explain which evidence changes the decision or why the concern is not sustained, while allowing the challenge to be considered without retaliation. The source's organisational illustrations motivate the approach but are not randomised evidence of a guaranteed performance gain. No real staff allegations, confidential figures or workplace disclosures are solicited.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. (a) Give the people with relevant knowledge responsibility for defining and addressing the problem.
  2. (a) Support that responsibility with access, backing and opportunity to learn rather than abandonment.
  3. (a) Protect a lower-status contribution from reflexive dismissal because of rank or presentation.
  4. (b) Delegation without resources or consideration of evidence does not meet these principles.
  5. (c) Examine the planner's capacity assumptions and competing evidence rather than automatically accepting dissent.
  6. (c) Specify a fictional joint review and reasoned decision with feedback; do not infer causal effectiveness from an illustration.

Examiner tip

Protecting the right to be heard does not mean accepting a claim without evidence.

All AS & A Level subjects