| Course | HA510 Organizational Development in Health Care |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Organizational structure comparison |
| Length | About 850 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Master of Health Administration (MHA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HA510 Unit 2
Ten Weeks and Five Signatures Versus Two Weeks and a Hallway: An Organizational Structure Comparison Tracing One Decision, Adding Weekend Physical Therapy, Through a Composite Health System's Regional Medical Center and One of Its Critical Access Hospitals
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HA510: Organizational Development in Health Care
Unit 2 Organizational Structure Comparison
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The health system, the facilities, the roles and the timelines are composite and bracketed; the organization charts are simplified for a course comparison.
Why One Decision
Abstract descriptions of structure make every hospital sound alike: a chief executive, vice presidents, departments. Following one request shows who could say yes, who could say no and how long each step took.
The Regional Medical Center's Path
Week 1: the orthopedic service line director asks for weekend physical therapy to shorten length of stay after joint replacement. Week 2: the rehabilitation director agrees and drafts a staffing proposal for [1.4] new positions. Weeks 3 to 5: the finance business partner reviews the cost and asks for a length-of-stay analysis. Week 6: the position control committee, which meets monthly, approves the positions. Weeks 7 to 9: the chief nursing officer and the chief operating officer sign; human resources posts the positions. Week 10: weekend therapy begins with contract therapists while recruiting continues. Signatures: rehabilitation director, finance, position control committee chair, chief nursing officer, chief operating officer.
The Critical Access Hospital's Path
Day 1: the hospital's administrator, walking the floor, hears from the rehabilitation lead that two patients stayed an extra day waiting for weekend therapy. Day 2: the administrator asks what it would take; the lead suggests shifting one therapist's schedule to Tuesday through Saturday. Week 2: the change starts. The administrator informs the system's finance office by email. Signatures: none formally; the administrator's agreement. The regional center spreads the power to say yes across five people and a committee; the small hospital concentrates it in one person who walks the floor.
Side by Side
1. Who initiated: regional center, service line director; small hospital, rehabilitation lead.
2. Who could say yes: regional center, five signatures and a committee; small hospital, the administrator.
3. Who could say no: regional center, any of five; small hospital, the administrator alone.
4. Time: ten weeks versus two.
5. Cost of change: new positions at the regional center; a schedule shift at the small hospital.
6. Information used: a length-of-stay analysis at the regional center; two patients' stories at the small hospital.
What the Comparison Shows
Both facilities turn out to be centralized, in different ways. The regional center pushes decisions up to committees and executives, a form Mintzberg called a machine bureaucracy, where standardized procedures and formal approvals coordinate work (Mintzberg, 1979). The small hospital resembles a simple structure, coordinated by direct supervision from the top. Neither is decentralized; the difference lies in how many people the decision passes through and how close the decider is to the work.
What Each Structure Buys
The regional center's path costs time but buys scrutiny: the length-of-stay analysis showed the change would pay for itself, and the committee caught a conflict with another department's request. The small hospital's path is fast but depends on one person's judgment and attention; a different administrator might never hear the story. Research comparing organizations suggests that rigid, rule-based structures suit stable conditions and that more fluid structures suit changing ones (Burns & Stalker, 1961).
Implications for the Merged System
The system's integration plan applies the regional center's approval process to both small hospitals. That would slow decisions the small hospitals now make in days, without adding much scrutiny for small changes. A tiered approval rule, with administrators deciding changes below a cost threshold, would keep speed for small decisions and scrutiny for large ones.
Professional Worlds
The comparison also shows how the four worlds meet. At the regional center, the request moved from cure (the service line) through control (finance, committees). At the small hospital, care (the therapist) spoke directly to control (the administrator) (Glouberman & Mintzberg, 2001).
What the People Involved Said
The orthopedic service line director said the ten weeks felt like "permission by exhaustion" but admitted the finance review improved the proposal. The small hospital's rehabilitation lead said the speed came from the administrator being in the building every day, and worried that the merger's new rules would end that. The administrator said she had approved the schedule change without knowing whether the system required her to ask anyone.
A Second Decision as a Check
To test whether the pattern holds, the writer traced one more decision at each site: replacing a broken wheelchair scale. The regional center took [six] weeks and three signatures; the small hospital took [four] days and the administrator's approval. The pattern is consistent, which strengthens the main finding.
Limits
One decision cannot describe a whole structure. Other decisions, such as capital purchases, may follow different paths.
Conclusion
Tracing one decision showed two different centralizations, each with its own costs. The merged system should match approval paths to the size of the decision rather than impose one path on both.
References
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock.
Glouberman, S., & Mintzberg, H. (2001). Managing the care of health and the cure of disease: Part I: Differentiation. Health Care Management Review, 26(1), 56-69. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004010-200101000-00006
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. Prentice-Hall.
Reading the HA 510 Unit 2 instructions
Unit 2 typically asks students to compare the organizational structures of two health care organizations or units. Instructions commonly require a description of each structure, an analysis of how decisions are made, a comparison of strengths and weaknesses and implications for performance or change. Many instructors welcome organization charts in an appendix. Expect to cite structure theory, such as Mintzberg's configurations, in APA style, keep facilities composite and compare on specific dimensions rather than general impressions. Following one decision through both organizations is a powerful method, because it shows who can say yes, who can say no and how long each step takes, which an organization chart alone cannot reveal.
How the HA 510 Unit 2 example is put together
The sample explains why one decision is used as the thread, with a margin note on the method. The regional center's path is listed week by week with five signatures, and the small hospital's path day by day. The highlighted sentence contrasts spreading the power to say yes with concentrating it. A side-by-side list compares six dimensions. The analysis names a machine bureaucracy and a simple structure, citing Mintzberg, with a margin note on two kinds of centralization. Sections cover what each structure buys, citing research on rigid and fluid structures, implications for the merger, the four worlds, staff views with a third note and a second decision as a check.
HA510 Unit 2 rubric: what earns full points
Structure comparison rubrics in HA 510 usually give points for describing each structure accurately, analyzing decision making, comparing on clear dimensions, applying theory, drawing implications, citing sources and presenting clearly. Description points depend on concrete roles and reporting lines. Decision points go to tracing how authority actually works. Comparison points reward a side-by-side view. Theory points require correct use of structural concepts. Implication points go to recommendations for the organization. Source points need structure theory. Presentation points cover tables and appendices. Comparisons that avoid the easy conclusion, that small is flexible and large is slow, and show a subtler pattern often earn top marks, especially when they end with a usable recommendation such as tiered approval.
Common HA510 Unit 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Structure comparisons often lose points by describing two organization charts side by side without showing how decisions move through them. Another gap is stopping at the observation that one place is faster. Some papers apply theory labels without evidence. Others draw no implications. Pick one decision both organizations faced, trace it step by step, compare on several dimensions, name the structural type each resembles and say what each structure buys and costs. Then recommend how the organization should use what you found. Checking your pattern against a second decision shows the finding is not a one-off, and quoting the people on each path shows how the structure feels from inside.
Get an HA510 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Two facilities, or two parts of one system, make the best material for this comparison. Name them by type and size, describe one decision that passed through both if one exists, and add the Unit 2 instructions and rubric. The model comparison arrives in 24-48h, free as a first request. 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 HA510 papers and MHA samples
- HA510 Unit 1: Four Worlds Theory Post
- HA510 Unit 3: Culture Diagnostic
- HA510 Unit 4: Change Model Analysis
- HA510 Unit 5: Team Development Case
- HA510 Unit 6: Conflict and Communication Analysis
- HA510 Unit 7: Engagement Research Paper
- HA510 Unit 8: Resistance to Change Analysis
- HA510 Unit 9: Development Intervention Plan
- HA510 Unit 10: Organizational Development Proposal
- HA520 Unit 4:
- HA540 Unit 5:
HA510 Unit 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HA510 Unit 2 sample paper?
This page carries the full HA510 Unit 2 organizational structure comparison, tracing one weekend therapy decision through a composite regional center and critical access hospital, with three sources. Your own comparison can follow one decision the same way.
What is a machine bureaucracy?
Mintzberg's term for a structure coordinated by standardized procedures and formal approvals, common in large organizations.
What is a simple structure?
A structure coordinated mainly by direct supervision from the top, common in small organizations.
Why trace one decision to compare structures?
It shows who can approve, who can block and how long each step takes, which organization charts do not reveal.
How long is the HA510 Unit 2 comparison?
About six pages with a side-by-side table and simplified organization charts in an appendix.