| Course | GM505 Action Research and Consulting Skills |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Entry and contracting agreement |
| Length | About 940 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GM505 Unit 3
Three Signatures Before Any Data: A Unit 3 Entry and Contracting Agreement for an Internal Consultant
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GM505: Action Research and Consulting Skills
Unit 3 Entry and Contracting Agreement
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The college, its staff and the agreement's terms are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
Part 1: The Agreement
Clause 1, parties and roles. This agreement is between Dr. Renata Ellis, Dean of Enrollment, as sponsor; Marcus Webb, Director of Financial Aid, as client; and Jordan Alvarez, Financial Aid Advisor, as internal consultant. The consultant will continue her advising duties at 80 percent of her schedule and devote the remaining 20 percent to this project for one academic term.
Clause 2, presenting concern. The dean has described the concern as follows: students complain about long phone waits and unhelpful responses from the financial aid office, especially during the fall verification period.
Clause 3, scope. The work covers the office's telephone handling and the verification document workflow, from the request letter sent to students through the completed file review. It does not cover award policy, the office's budget or individual staff performance.
Clause 4, records. The consultant may use the phone system's call logs and dashboard for the past and current terms, the verification tracking reports and copies of the document request letters. Student records will be used only in de-identified form, following the college's records privacy policy. The consultant will not access personnel files.
Clause 5, staff interviews and confidentiality. Staff interviews are voluntary. The consultant will report themes, not attributed quotes, unless a staff member gives written permission. Confidentiality cannot be promised for information about safety, harassment or legal violations, which the consultant must report under college policy, and staff will be told this before any interview.
Clause 6, sequence of feedback. Findings will be presented first to the office staff, including the director, at a meeting where they may respond. The consultant will then present findings and the staff response to the dean.
Clause 7, dual position. The consultant is a member of the office she is studying. Interview notes and observations will never be used in anyone's performance review, including her own. If the consultant's role as advisor and her role as consultant conflict, she will raise the conflict with the director.
Clause 8, what the consultant needs. The director will release the consultant from phone coverage on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. The dean will meet with the consultant and director once at mid-term and once at the end.
Clause 9, deliverables and dates. A diagnostic report by week five, an intervention design by week seven and a final report by week fifteen.
Clause 10, ending. Any party may end the engagement with written notice. Data collected will remain confidential under clause 5.
Signature lines for the dean, the director and the consultant close the agreement.
Part 2: Rationale Memo
To: Dean Ellis and Director Webb From: Jordan Alvarez Re: Why the agreement is written as it is
Peter Block argues that most consulting problems can be traced to a poor contract, and that the contract should cover both the business deliverables and the wants of each party, including the consultant's (Block, 2011). This memo explains each clause in that light.
Why name a sponsor and a client. The dean asked for the work; the director runs the office and will live with its results. Naming both makes clear whose approval matters for what. Last spring, a recommendation I made to the director failed because it conflicted with a rule the dean owns. This time both are parties from the start.
Why state the concern in the dean's words. The presenting concern is courtesy and wait times. The diagnosis may find a different cause. Stating the concern as the dean described it, rather than as I suspect it to be, keeps the starting point honest.
The agreement records the dean's explanation of the problem before any data exists, so that if the diagnosis points elsewhere, nobody can say the question was changed to fit the answer.
Why exclude performance. If staff believe the project is a way to evaluate them, they will tell me what they think is safe rather than what happens. Excluding individual performance, and stating that notes will never enter a review, is the condition for honest interviews.
Why limit confidentiality. I cannot promise confidentiality about safety or legal matters. Saying so before interviews is more honest than a blanket promise I might have to break.
Why staff hear findings first. David Coghlan and Teresa Brannick note that insider researchers must protect their working relationships, since they will remain in the organization after the project ends (Coghlan & Brannick, 2014). If my colleagues heard findings about their work only after the dean did, trust in me as a colleague would suffer, and the next cycle of work would be harder.
Why ask for release time. Block encourages consultants to state their own wants in the contract rather than absorbing the cost silently. Without protected time, the project would happen in the gaps between calls, which is how my last recommendation was developed.
Why build in an exit. Edgar Schein reminds helpers that the relationship can go wrong and should be renegotiated or ended when it does (Schein, 1999). A clause allowing any party to end the work makes that possibility explicit and less threatening.
What Is Not Yet Covered
One gap remains. The agreement does not say what happens if findings implicate the sponsor's own decisions. I have raised this with the dean and will propose a clause at the mid-term meeting.
References
Block, P. (2011). Flawless consulting: A guide to getting your expertise used (3rd ed.). Pfeiffer.
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2014). Doing action research in your own organization (4th ed.). Sage.
Schein, E. H. (1999). Process consultation revisited: Building the helping relationship. Addison-Wesley.
The Purdue Global GM505 Unit 3 instructions
GM505's third unit asks for a contracting agreement and a rationale for it. Write the agreement in numbered clauses plain enough for anyone in the organization to read. Name the parties and their roles, distinguishing the sponsor who requested the work from the client who owns the process. Record the presenting concern in the sponsor's words. Draw the scope, list the records the consultant may use and set confidentiality terms honestly, including what cannot be promised. Decide who hears findings first. If you are an insider, address your dual position directly. State what you need from the parties, not only what you will deliver. Set dates and an exit clause, then add signature lines. In a separate memo, explain each clause and connect it to consulting research, especially Block on contracting. Note any gap the agreement does not yet cover. Expect about three pages of clauses and a two-page memo, citing sources in APA 7.
How the GM 505 Unit 3 example is put together
The agreement names Dean Ellis as sponsor, Director Webb as client and advisor Jordan Alvarez as consultant at 20 percent of her schedule for a term. Clauses record the dean's description of the problem, limit scope to phones and the verification workflow, allow de-identified records, report interview themes rather than quotes, exclude safety and legal matters from confidentiality, put staff ahead of the dean in hearing findings and keep notes out of performance reviews. Release time, three deliverable dates and an exit clause follow. The memo, built on Block's view that contracts should cover wants as well as deliverables, explains each clause, and the highlighted sentence explains why the concern is recorded verbatim. Coghlan and Brannick support the staff-first sequence and Schein the exit clause. A closing note names the missing clause on findings that implicate the sponsor.
GM505 Unit 3 rubric: what earns full points
Points on this GM505 agreement go to clarity, completeness and honest limits. Instructors check that roles distinguish the sponsor from the client and that the presenting concern is recorded in the sponsor's language. Scope and records clauses should be specific. Confidentiality terms earn credit when they state what cannot be promised rather than offering blanket assurances. A clause on the sequence of feedback shows the writer has thought about relationships after the project ends. For insiders, addressing the dual position directly is essential. Stating what the consultant needs follows Block's advice and is often overlooked. The rationale memo is graded on whether each clause is explained and grounded in research. Naming a remaining gap shows maturity. Block's contracting chapters carry most of the memo, with Coghlan and Brannick on insider roles and Schein on helping relationships in the APA 7 list.
GM505 Unit 3 help from the desk
GM505 Unit 3 agreements often read like project plans, listing tasks and dates while skipping who owns what and who will hear the results. Others promise complete confidentiality that an insider cannot guarantee. A common gap is the consultant's own needs, such as protected time, which Block treats as part of a sound contract. Some writers describe the problem in their own terms instead of the sponsor's, which later makes the findings look like a change of subject. Rationale memos often summarize the clauses without explaining why each is there. Name the sponsor and client separately, quote the presenting concern, set scope and records limits, state confidentiality honestly, decide the feedback sequence, address any dual role, ask for what you need, add an exit clause and explain each choice in a memo that also admits what the agreement still leaves out.
Get a GM505 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Sketch the engagement you are planning, real or drawn from the course case, and say who asked for the work; attach the Unit 3 instructions with their rubric. From that sketch comes an agreement and rationale memo, free on a first order and written to your setting in 24-48h, with names, offices and dates bracketed for confirmation. 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 GM505 papers and MS in Management samples
- GM505 Unit 1: Rejected Advice Discussion Post
- GM505 Unit 2: Action Research Methodology Comparison
- GM505 Unit 4: Diagnostic Report
- GM505 Unit 5: Intervention Design
- GM505 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GM505 Unit 7: Reflexivity Analysis
- GM505 Unit 8: Data Gathering Plan
- GM505 Unit 9: Client Feedback Report
- GM505 Unit 10: Action Research Cycle Report
- GM504 Unit 3: Delivery Order Process Map
- GM503 Unit 3: Admissions Team LMX Study
- GM502 Unit 3: Night Shift Manager Behavior Paper
- GM501 Unit 3: Empowerment or Standard Work Analysis
GM505 Unit 3 questions, answered
Does the agreement need real signatures?
For a course submission, signature lines are usually enough, and many sections supply a described client rather than a real one. If your engagement is real, follow your workplace's practice and your instructor's guidance on whether a signed copy should be submitted. The grade rests on the terms themselves, particularly scope, access, confidentiality and the order in which findings are shared.
Who counts as the client inside my own organization?
Often more than one person, which is why the question matters. The person who asked for the work, the person who owns the process and the people affected by it can all have different interests. Schein's client types give language for separating them, and an agreement that names each role avoids the common failure of serving only whoever made the request.
How much confidentiality can an insider promise?
Less than an outside consultant, and the agreement should say so. In a small team, colleagues can often recognize who said what even without names. Promising non-attribution, secure notes and no use in evaluations is realistic. Promising that nobody could ever identify a source is usually not, and reviewers tend to mark that promise down.
Where can I find a free GM505 Unit 3 sample paper?
This page carries a full GM505 Unit 3 entry and contracting agreement for an internal consultant in a college financial aid office, with ten clauses, a rationale memo tied to Block and APA 7 references.
Why do office staff hear the findings before the dean?
An insider consultant keeps working with her colleagues after the project ends. If they learned about findings on their own work only after the dean did, trust would suffer and later cycles of the work would be harder.