| Course | GB740 Organizational Development |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Data feedback report |
| Length | About 1,180 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB740 Unit 5
The People Who Gave the Data See It First: A Unit 5 Data Feedback Report for a Civil Engineering Firm
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB740: Organizational Development
Unit 5 Data Feedback Report
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Tallis Engineering, its staff and every finding are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
Part One: The Findings
The assessment drew on records for 212 closed projects, a survey answered by 412 of 640 staff, a response rate of 64 percent, forty interviews and six observed staffing calls. Each finding below is presented with one chart, one paragraph describing what the data show and a confidence rating. Ratings are high when two or more sources agree, moderate when one strong source supports the finding, and low when the evidence is suggestive. Interpretation is kept to a minimum on purpose, for reasons explained in Part Two.
Finding 1: Multi-Office Projects Fade More
Of the 212 projects, 87 drew staff from two or more offices. Their median fade, the gap between proposal margin and final margin, was 8.9 percentage points. For the 125 single-office projects it was 3.2 points. The difference held within each fee band and each client type, and it did not shrink when projects with large change orders were set aside. The chart shows the two distributions side by side. Confidence: high, because the records are complete and the pattern holds across subgroups.
Finding 2: Coordination Hours Go Unbilled
Project managers on multi-office projects reported in the survey spending a median of about 14 hours a week on coordination that they did not bill to the client, such as arranging staff from other offices, reconciling budgets across offices and repeating information for team members who joined late. Managers of single-office projects reported about 5 hours. Interviews supported the survey: eleven of the fourteen project managers described coordination as work they either did unpaid, at the cost of their utilization target, or skipped. Confidence: high, from survey and interviews together.
Finding 3: Role Ambiguity Is Higher in Acquired Offices
On the role ambiguity scale adapted from Rizzo and colleagues, staff in the five acquired offices scored higher than staff in headquarters offices, meaning they reported less clarity about what was expected of them, especially on projects led from another office. The chart shows the scores by office. Confidence: moderate, because the survey is the only source and the difference is modest.
Finding 4: Staff Loans Are Negotiated as Favors
In five of the six staffing calls observed, a request for an engineer from another office was settled by an exchange: the lending office leader agreed in return for a future loan, or after reminding the requester of a past one. No call referred to a written procedure, and none existed. One request went unfilled for three weeks. Confidence: moderate, from observation, supported by eight interviews describing the same practice.
Finding 5: Office Leaders See Cross-Office Work as a Cost
Eight of the ten office leaders interviewed described lending staff to another office's project as a loss to their own results, since the loaned engineer's billable hours are credited to the project's home office. Several said they were willing to lend staff, but only when their own office was slow. Confidence: moderate, from interviews, consistent with the bonus plan's reliance on office profit.
Every finding stops at description, since staff who lived the projects are better placed than the consultant to say what it means.
What the Findings Do Not Yet Show
Three gaps are stated in the report itself, so that sessions can address them. The records show that multi-office projects fade more, but not whether the fade comes from the coordination hours, from staffing delays or from something the assessment did not measure, such as clients who choose multi-office scopes because their projects are harder. The survey's response rate was lower in two acquired offices, near 45 percent, so their role ambiguity scores rest on fewer voices. And the six observed calls all took place in the same quarter, when two large proposals were due, which may have made favors more common than usual. Each chart carries a short note naming its gap, and staff are asked in the sessions whether the gaps match their experience.
Part Two: The Session Design
Why the findings come without interpretation. Nadler (1977) argued that feedback motivates change when the people who provided the data work with it themselves, rather than receiving a consultant's conclusions. Block (2011) adds that a feedback meeting succeeds when it produces ownership, and that a consultant who arrives with a finished interpretation invites either acceptance without commitment or defensive rejection. At Tallis there is an extra reason. The candidate came to Tallis with the water practice, and an interpretation offered first by the candidate would be read through that membership. Staff reading the charts themselves remove that filter.
The session. Each office session lasts ninety minutes. In the first twenty minutes, participants receive the five charts and read them in pairs, writing down what they see and what they think is missing. In the next thirty, the group discusses each finding, starting with what surprised people. The candidate answers questions about the data but offers no interpretation. Only after that does the candidate share their own reading, labeled as one reading among several, for fifteen minutes. In the final twenty-five minutes, the room chooses up to three priorities from what it has heard and names anything the data seem to have missed.
Who attends. Each of the twelve offices holds its own session for all staff who wish to attend. Office leaders attend a separate session with each other, so that staff can speak without their leader present.
The Sequence
The order is deliberate. Office sessions come first, over three weeks, so that project managers and technical staff, whose experience the findings describe, can respond before anyone senior has framed the results. The office leaders' session follows, informed by a summary of what the offices said, with nothing attributed to individuals. The executive team, including the chief operating officer and the chief executive, comes last. Its briefing presents the findings together with what the twelve sessions made of them, so that executives hear the organization's response alongside the data. Cummings and Worley (2019) describe feedback that moves from the bottom up in this way as a means of building commitment among those who must carry out change.
The sequence carries a risk. The chief executive, who announced a project manager academy, may feel bypassed. To reduce that risk, the chief operating officer will brief him on the sequence and its reasons before the first office session, and he will be offered the chance to attend one session as an observer.
What Comes After
The priorities chosen in the twelve sessions will be collected and compared. Where offices agree, those priorities will shape the intervention proposal in Unit 7. Where they disagree, the disagreement will be reported as a finding in its own right, since it may show that offices experience the same arrangements differently.
References
Block, P. (2011). Flawless consulting: A guide to getting your expertise used (3rd ed.). Pfeiffer.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2019). Organization development and change (11th ed.). Cengage.
Nadler, D. A. (1977). Feedback and organization development: Using data-based methods. Addison-Wesley.
What the GB740 Unit 5 assignment asks for
Unit 5 of GB740 asks you to present your diagnostic findings and design how they will be fed back. Report each finding with its evidence, one chart or table each, and keep interpretation separate. Rate your confidence in each finding and explain the basis for the rating. State what the findings do not yet show. Then design the feedback sessions: who attends, how long they run, what participants do with the data and when your own reading is offered. Explain the order in which audiences receive the findings and why. Anticipate the reaction of any leader who might feel bypassed and plan for it. Say what will happen to the priorities the sessions produce. A findings report of about twelve pages and a session design of about four is a common split.
Inside the GB740 Unit 5 example
The report opens with the four sources and the 64 percent survey response rate, then explains the confidence ratings. Five findings follow, each with its chart, its paragraph and its rating: fade by project type, unbilled coordination hours, role ambiguity by office, favors in staffing calls and office leaders' view of lending. A section names three gaps in the evidence. The highlighted sentence explains why interpretation is withheld. Part Two uses Nadler and Block to justify the session design, sets out the four timed segments of each session and separates office leaders from their staff. The sequence section explains why offices come first and executives last, cites Cummings and Worley, and plans a briefing so the chief executive is not caught off guard.
Where the points sit in the GB740 Unit 5 rubric
The GB740 feedback report is graded on two things: honest reporting and a design that produces ownership. Findings earn credit when evidence and interpretation are separated and when each carries a stated level of confidence. Naming gaps in the evidence is weighted well, since it shows the student will not overclaim. The session design is judged on whether participants actually work with the data before hearing the consultant's view, and on practical detail such as timing and grouping. A justified order of audiences shows understanding of the survey feedback tradition. A plan for how a senior leader will take the order of briefings usually carries its own marks. Sources such as Nadler and Block should support the design choices directly.
GB740 Unit 5 help from the desk
Many GB740 feedback reports mix findings with recommendations, so participants receive conclusions instead of data. Confidence is rarely stated, which makes a survey-only finding look as strong as one confirmed by records. Gaps in the evidence are often left out. Session designs tend to be presentations followed by questions, which leaves the consultant's reading in charge. Leaders are commonly placed in the same room as their staff, which quiets the staff. The order of audiences is frequently whatever is convenient. Present each finding plainly, rate it, name the gaps, let participants read first, hold your reading back, separate leaders and justify the sequence. Bring us your findings, and we can lay out the report and the session plan.
Get a GB740 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Share the findings you have so far, even rough ones, with a note on who supplied the data and who sponsors the work. Include the Unit 5 prompt and rubric. A custom feedback report and session design, sequenced for your setting, takes 24-48h; no invoice follows a first sample. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GB740 papers and MBA samples
- GB740 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB740 Unit 2: Diagnostic Model Comparison
- GB740 Unit 3: Entry and Contracting Memo
- GB740 Unit 4: Organizational Assessment Plan
- GB740 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB740 Unit 7: Intervention Proposal
- GB740 Unit 8: Stakeholder Cost Analysis
- GB740 Unit 9: Change Evaluation Plan
- GB740 Unit 10: Development Report
- GB730 Unit 5: Site Access Plan
- GB720 Unit 5: Nonmarket Strategy Analysis
- GB710 Unit 5: Comparative Case Study
- GB701 Unit 5: Confidence Interval Exercise
GB740 Unit 5 questions, answered
Does the Unit 5 report need real data?
Where candidates have gathered data in earlier units, sections expect it here as a matter of course, even if limited. Where they have not, many instructions accept illustrative findings clearly labeled as such. The session design is assessed on the same principles either way: who hears findings first, how they are invited to interpret them and how their responses feed back into the diagnosis.
Why not brief the sponsor first?
Briefing the sponsor first is common practice, and some sections accept it with justification. The survey feedback tradition argues that people who supplied data should interpret it before leaders frame it. A plan can choose either order, but it should state the reasons and the risks, including the sponsor's reaction to being briefed after staff.
How detailed should the session plan be?
Timed segments, the questions participants will answer, how responses are recorded and what the session produces are standard. Facilitation scripts are rarely required. The design should make clear that participants interpret before hearing the candidate's reading, since that sequence is largely what separates a feedback session from a presentation.
Where can I find a free GB740 Unit 5 sample paper?
This page holds a full GB740 Unit 5 data feedback report for a civil engineering firm, with five findings, confidence ratings, three stated gaps and a twelve-session feedback design.
Why are office leaders given a separate session?
Staff tend to speak less openly when the person who evaluates them is present. A separate session lets staff respond freely, and leaders then hear a summary without individual attribution.