| Course | HA510 Organizational Development in Health Care |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Culture diagnostic |
| 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 3
Clan at the Edges, Hierarchy at the Center, and a Center That Wants to Change: A Culture Diagnostic Reading Competing Values Profiles From Sixty-Four Managers Across a Composite Three-Hospital System Two Years After Its Merger
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HA510: Organizational Development in Health Care
Unit 3 Culture Diagnostic
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The system, the respondents and every score are composite and bracketed; the instrument's items are not reproduced, and the profiles are described in words for this page.
Why the Competing Values Framework
The framework describes culture on two dimensions, flexibility against control and internal against external focus, producing four types: clan, adhocracy, market and hierarchy (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). For each of six aspects of culture, respondents split 100 points across four statements, once for the current culture and once for the preferred culture, so the two can be compared on the same scale (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). A review of culture instruments in health care noted that this approach is practical for comparing units but captures values only through managers' perceptions (Scott et al., 2003).
Method
All [74] managers, from unit managers to vice presidents, were invited; [64] responded, [86] percent. Responses were averaged by facility: regional medical center [44] managers; critical access hospitals [20] combined, because each alone was too small to report without identifying people.
Scores
Critical access hospitals, current then preferred:
1. Clan: [41], [43]
2. Adhocracy: [17], [21]
3. Market: [14], [12]
4. Hierarchy: [28], [24]
Regional medical center, current then preferred:
1. Clan: [24], [33]
2. Adhocracy: [15], [22]
3. Market: [23], [18]
4. Hierarchy: [38], [27]
Reading the Profiles
Cameron and Quinn suggest that differences of about ten points between current and preferred deserve attention, and smaller ones usually do not (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). Applying that rule: At the critical access hospitals, no difference reaches ten points. Managers there largely want what they have: a clan culture, collaborative and personal, with moderate hierarchy. At the regional medical center, two differences reach the threshold: managers want [11] fewer points of hierarchy and [nine] more of clan, close to ten. They want to move toward the culture the small hospitals already have. The merger plan assumes the small hospitals must become more like the center, but the center's own managers want to become more like the small hospitals.
Quadrant by Quadrant
Clan: managers at all three sites want more of it. At the small hospitals this means keeping what exists; at the regional center it means building collaboration across departments that now coordinate mainly through approvals. Adhocracy: everyone wants a little more, but no difference reaches the threshold. Innovation is not where the tension lies. Market: the regional center scores higher than the small hospitals and wants less. Its managers describe pressure on targets and competition with nearby systems as stronger than they would like. Hierarchy: the clearest finding. The regional center wants a substantial reduction; the small hospitals want a modest one.
What Managers Said in Follow-Up
In three follow-up conversations, regional center managers described waiting for approvals they considered routine and said the merger had added steps rather than removed them. Small hospital managers said they valued being able to solve problems in person and feared the system's procedures would replace that.
Comparing the Facilities
The largest gap between facilities is in clan, [17] points in current culture, and in hierarchy, [10] points. In preferred culture the gap narrows to [10] and [three] points. The facilities agree more about where they want to go than about where they are.
What This Means for Integration
The integration plan, written by the regional center's executives, standardizes approvals, reporting and scheduling across the system. Those are hierarchy tools. At the small hospitals, they push against a clan culture managers want to keep. At the regional center, they push in the direction its managers want to leave. An integration plan that strengthened collaboration across sites, rather than control from the center, would match what managers at all three facilities prefer.
Cautions
The instrument measures managers' perceptions, not front-line staff or physicians. Averaging hides variation within the regional center, where some departments may be very different. Preferred scores express wishes that may not survive budget pressure or a change in leaders. Combining the two small hospitals hides differences between them.
How the Results Were Shared
Results were presented first to the managers who took part, at each site, before going to the executive council. Sharing results with respondents first builds trust in the process and lets managers correct misreadings before decisions are made.
Next Steps
Repeat the instrument with a sample of front-line staff; hold a facilitated session at each site to discuss what more clan and less hierarchy would mean in practice; and review the integration plan's standardization items against the findings.
Conclusion
The diagnostic confirms a culture gap between the small hospitals and the regional center, but its more useful finding is shared direction: managers everywhere want more collaboration and less control. That gives the merger a route that does not require the small hospitals to give up what they value.
References
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363-377. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.3.363
Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H., & Marshall, M. (2003). The quantitative measurement of organizational culture in health care: A review of the available instruments. Health Services Research, 38(3), 923-945. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.00154
Reading the HA 510 Unit 3 instructions
Unit 3 commonly asks students to diagnose the culture of a health care organization using a recognized framework and instrument. Instructions usually require explaining the framework, describing the method and respondents, reporting results, interpreting them and discussing implications for change. Many courses use the Competing Values Framework and its instrument. Expect to cite the framework's sources and a review of culture measurement in APA style, avoid reproducing protected instrument items, bracket composite scores and keep respondents anonymous. Separating measurement from interpretation, and both from recommendation, makes the diagnosis easier to trust, because readers can check the arithmetic before following the argument. Explain any choice to combine small sites, since anonymity often requires it. Report the response rate.
How this HA510 Unit 3 example is built
The sample explains the framework's two dimensions and four culture types, citing its originators and the instrument's authors, and notes a review's caution about measuring culture through managers' perceptions. The method reports a response rate of 86 percent and why the small hospitals were combined. Scores are listed by site, current then preferred, with a margin note. The ten-point rule is applied, and the highlighted sentence contrasts the merger plan with what the center's managers want. A quadrant-by-quadrant reading carries a second note. Follow-up comments, a cross-site comparison with a third note, implications, cautions, how results were shared and next steps, including a repeat with front-line staff, close it.
Where the points sit in the HA510 Unit 3 rubric
Culture diagnostic rubrics in HA 510 tend to award points for explaining the framework, describing the method, reporting results accurately, interpreting them with a stated rule, discussing implications, acknowledging limits and citing sources. Framework points depend on accurate dimensions and types. Method points go to respondents, response rate and aggregation choices. Results points reward scores that can be checked. Interpretation points require a stated threshold rather than impressions. Implication points go to links with the organization's change plans. Limit points reward honest cautions. Diagnostics that compare preferred cultures across sites, not only current ones, often earn the highest marks, because shared preferences give a merger common ground to build on.
Common HA510 Unit 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Culture diagnostics often lose points by labeling an organization with one culture type and stopping there. Another gap is interpreting every small difference as meaningful. Some papers reproduce the instrument's items, which are protected. Others ignore preferred culture, which is often where the useful finding lies. Report scores first, apply a threshold, read each quadrant, compare sites on both current and preferred profiles and link the findings to the organization's plans. Then list cautions, such as relying on managers' perceptions. Share results with respondents before leaders act on them, and say so in the paper. Describe each radar chart in a sentence so the page works without images.
Get an HA510 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Have access to a workplace where a few colleagues would complete a short culture survey? Their responses make the strongest material; without them, a description of the setting works. Send either with the Unit 3 instructions and rubric, and a free first diagnostic returns within 24-48h using whichever instrument your section names. 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 2: Hospital Structure Comparison
- 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 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HA510 Unit 3 sample paper?
The complete HA510 Unit 3 culture diagnostic is available here, reading Competing Values profiles from 64 managers across a composite three-hospital system, with three sources. Your own organization's profiles can be read the same way.
Which four cultures does the HA510 Unit 3 diagnostic measure?
Clan, adhocracy, market and hierarchy, placed by whether a culture favors flexibility or control and looks inward or outward.
How is the culture instrument scored?
Respondents divide 100 points among four descriptions for each of six aspects of culture, for both current and preferred culture.
What difference between current and preferred scores matters?
Differences of about ten points are commonly treated as worth attention, while smaller ones usually are not.
How long is the HA510 Unit 3 diagnostic?
About seven pages with two profile charts and a table of scores.