| Course | GM500 Management Theories and Practices I |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Organizational diagnosis |
| Length | About 1,130 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GM500 Unit 9
Six Boxes and a Bonus Nobody Could Earn: A Unit 9 Organizational Diagnosis of a Landscaping Company
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GM500: Management Theories and Practices I
Unit 9 Organizational Diagnosis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The company, its owner, its crews and every figure are composite and illustrative; the model and sources cited are real.
The Presenting Symptom
Hollis Grounds Care maintains office parks, hospital campuses and apartment communities in one metropolitan area. It runs 18 crews of five to seven people each, led by crew leaders who report to four area supervisors. Three years ago the founder retired, and his daughter, who had worked in the company's finance office, became owner and president.
Annual crew turnover has risen from about 38 percent to 77 percent over those three years. Turnover among crew leaders, who had been stable, rose from one departure a year to five last year. Clients have noticed: two property managers canceled contracts after repeated changes in crew personnel.
Why the Six-Box Model
Marvin Weisbord designed the six-box model as a map with six boxes, each standing for one part of an organization where trouble tends to hide. Its distinguishing feature is that for each box it asks about both the formal system, what the organization says it does, and the informal system, what actually happens (Weisbord, 1976). That distinction suits a company where the new owner changed several formal systems while many informal practices carried on from the founder's era. Other diagnostic models describe more variables, but a diagnosis that is easy to explain to the owner and the crew leaders has practical value (Harrison, 2005).
Evidence Gathered
The diagnosis draws on interviews with 22 people, including the owner, all four supervisors, nine crew leaders and eight crew members, plus three years of turnover records and two sets of crew schedules, one from the founder's last summer and one from this summer.
Interviews lasted about thirty minutes and followed the same six questions, one for each box, so that answers could be compared across levels. Crew members were interviewed away from their crew leaders, at the start of a shift, with a promise that no name would appear in the report. Where an interview claim could be checked against a record, such as bonus payments or schedule changes, it was. Claims that could not be checked are reported as perceptions, because in a diagnosis what people believe about a system is itself evidence.
Box 1: Purposes
Formal. The owner's new mission statement emphasizes quality and client retention. Informal. Crew leaders describe the purpose as finishing every property on the schedule. When asked what quality means, most mention edging and cleanup, which they say they have always done. Match. Partial. The purpose is shared in general terms, but quality has no agreed definition at crew level.
Box 2: Structure
Formal. The structure has not changed: crews, crew leaders, area supervisors, owner. Informal. Under the founder, crew leaders often called him directly with problems. They now go through supervisors, which several described as slower. Match. Close. The structure is not the main source of trouble.
Box 3: Relationships
Formal. No formal mechanisms for resolving conflict between crews. Informal. Crew members report increasing friction with crew leaders over pay, especially in the last two summers. Several crew members believe their leaders are withholding bonus money. Match. Poor, and getting worse.
Box 4: Rewards
Formal. Two years ago the owner introduced a quarterly quality bonus. Each crew can earn up to $400 per member per quarter, based on an inspection score from the client's property manager and on the area supervisor's audit. The bonus replaced the founder's informal practice of paying crews a cash bonus at the end of the season. Informal. Not one of the nine crew leaders interviewed could explain how the inspection score is calculated or what score earns the full bonus. Most crews have received partial bonuses that varied from quarter to quarter in ways nobody could predict. Crew members assumed their leaders kept part of the money.
The bonus was meant to reward quality, but because no crew leader could explain how it was earned, crews experienced it as a random deduction from money they used to receive with certainty.
Match. This box shows the sharpest gap. The formal reward is well designed on paper. In practice it is invisible to the people who are supposed to steer by it.
Box 5: Leadership
Formal. The owner holds monthly meetings with supervisors. Informal. Crew leaders said they rarely see the owner and that supervisors relay her decisions without explaining them. Two said they first heard about the bonus from a crew member's pay stub. Match. Poor. Leadership is present at the top but not felt at crew level.
Box 6: Helpful Mechanisms
Formal. The company adopted scheduling software last year, which supervisors use to assign properties and track completion. Informal. The software does not show inspection scores, so crews never see the measure their bonus depends on. Match. Poor. The mechanism that could make the bonus visible is not connected to it.
Synthesis: How the Gaps Connect
The rewards gap feeds the problems in two other boxes. In relationships, crew members who cannot see how the bonus is calculated suspect their leaders, and the friction that follows makes the job less attractive. In leadership, crew leaders who cannot explain the bonus lose standing with their crews, and some leave rather than defend a system they do not understand. Steven Kerr observed that reward systems often produce the opposite of what their designers intend (Kerr, 1975). Here the bonus, intended to raise quality and keep crews together, has instead turned a predictable end-of-season payment into an unpredictable one and shifted suspicion onto crew leaders.
The pattern also explains the timing. Turnover began rising in the first summer after the bonus was introduced, and crew leader departures followed in the second.
The Diagnosis
Hollis Grounds Care's turnover problem is primarily a rewards problem, made worse by weak leadership communication and by a scheduling system that keeps the bonus measure out of sight. The structure and purposes are not the main causes. The formal reward system is reasonable in design; the failure lies in the gap between what it says and what crew leaders and crews understand about it.
What the Diagnosis Does Not Do
This paper stops at diagnosis. It does not recommend a new bonus design, a communication plan or a change to the software. Those choices belong to the owner and should follow a conversation with crew leaders about what they need to know to steer their crews. A diagnosis that jumped to solutions before that conversation would repeat the original error: a reward designed at the top and explained to no one.
References
Harrison, M. I. (2005). Diagnosing organizations: Methods, models, and processes (3rd ed.). Sage.
Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 769-783. https://doi.org/10.2307/255378
Weisbord, M. R. (1976). Organizational diagnosis: Six places to look for trouble with or without a theory. Group & Organization Studies, 1(4), 430-447. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117600100405
GM500 Unit 9 instructions, in plain terms
GM500's ninth unit asks you to diagnose an organizational problem with a structured model. State the presenting symptom with figures, then explain why you chose your model over others. Describe the evidence you gathered and how you gathered it, including how you protected the people you interviewed. Work through the model one element at a time, and for each, set what the formal system says beside what actually happens, then judge how well they match. The strongest diagnoses do not treat each element separately to the end; they show how a gap in one area feeds problems in others, and they check the timing of the symptom against the change that may have caused it. State the diagnosis plainly, and say what the paper deliberately does not do. Write six to seven pages with a completed model figure and an appendix of evidence, citing the model's author in APA 7.
How the GM 500 Unit 9 example is put together
The symptom section reports turnover rising from 38 to 77 percent and crew leader departures from one a year to five, with two lost contracts. A paragraph explains why Weisbord's attention to formal and informal systems suits a firm where the owner changed formal systems while old habits carried on, citing Harrison on practical models. The evidence section describes 22 interviews using six common questions and the treatment of unverified claims as perceptions. Six box sections follow, each with formal, informal and match lines. Rewards shows the widest gap: a $400 quarterly bonus based on scores no crew leader could explain, replacing a predictable end-of-season payment, as the highlighted sentence states. The synthesis traces that gap into relationships and leadership, cites Kerr, and matches the turnover rise to the bonus's first summer. The diagnosis and its stated limits close the paper.
GM500 Unit 9 rubric: what earns full points
The GM500 rubric for this diagnosis rewards disciplined use of the model and evidence behind every judgment. Instructors check that each box compares formal and informal systems, since that comparison is the reason for choosing Weisbord. Judgments about how well each box matches should rest on interviews or records, not impressions. The synthesis section carries significant weight: showing how one gap spreads into others turns six observations into an explanation. Checking the timing of the symptom against the suspected cause is strong evidence and earns credit. A clear diagnosis that names the primary problem and the contributing ones is expected. Restraint is graded too; a diagnosis that leaps to solutions before the evidence is shared with those affected misses the unit's purpose. Weisbord's Group and Organization Studies article, Harrison's text on diagnosis and Kerr's study of reward systems support the analysis in APA 7.
GM500 Unit 9 help: mistakes that cost points
GM500 Unit 9 diagnoses often fill each of the six boxes with a description and never compare the formal system with what happens in practice. Others gather evidence only from managers, missing how the people doing the work see the problem. A common mistake is treating every box as equally troubled, which hides where the main gap is. Some writers find the gap but do not trace how it affects other boxes, so the diagnosis reads as a list. Timing is often ignored, though a change that came just before a symptom is a strong lead. Many papers slip into recommendations. Describe the symptom with numbers, justify the model, explain how you gathered evidence, compare formal and informal systems in each box, identify the sharpest gap, show how it spreads and when it began, state the diagnosis and stop there unless the prompt asks for more.
Get a GM500 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Pick the organization you intend to diagnose and the framework your prompt names or allows, then send the Unit 9 instructions and rubric. A diagnosis built on that model and that organization follows within 24-48h. No fee applies to the first custom sample, and your section's requirements shape every part of it. 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 GM500 papers and MS in Management samples
- GM500 Unit 1: Fuel Stop Rule Discussion Post
- GM500 Unit 2: Human Relations Assumptions Analysis
- GM500 Unit 3: Weber and Seniority Bidding Paper
- GM500 Unit 4: Handle Time and Sociotechnical Essay
- GM500 Unit 5: Matrix Structure Design Analysis
- GM500 Unit 6: Snowplow Routes Seminar Reflection
- GM500 Unit 7: Per-Stop Pay Motivation Theory Case
- GM500 Unit 8: Return to Office Mandate Critique
- GM500 Unit 10: Integrative Management Paper
GM500 Unit 9 questions, answered
Which diagnostic model should I use?
Use the one your prompt names, if it names one. Otherwise, choose a model that fits the organization: Weisbord's six-box suits smaller firms with strong informal systems, the Nadler-Tushman congruence model suits questions of fit between strategy, work and structure, and the McKinsey 7-S suits change efforts. A sentence justifying the choice is usually expected.
Can a diagnosis rely on my own observations?
Partly. Observations from inside an organization are valuable evidence, but a diagnosis grows stronger when they are combined with something more systematic, such as a few informal conversations, turnover or scheduling records, or documented policies. Summarize sources without names and describe records in general terms or brackets where confidentiality applies.
Should the diagnosis include recommendations?
Read the prompt closely on this point. Many diagnosis assignments ask only for the problem to be located and explained, sometimes because a later unit asks for the intervention. If recommendations are requested, keep them brief and tied directly to the root cause identified, so the analysis remains the main body of the paper.
Where can I find a free GM500 Unit 9 sample paper?
This page carries a full GM500 Unit 9 organizational diagnosis of crew turnover at a landscaping company using Weisbord's six-box model, with interview evidence, formal and informal comparisons, a synthesis and APA 7 references.
Why did the quality bonus increase turnover?
Crew leaders could not explain how the inspection score was calculated, so crews received unpredictable partial payments in place of the founder's certain end-of-season bonus. Crew members suspected their leaders of keeping the money, and the friction pushed both crews and leaders out.