| Course | HA510 Organizational Development in Health Care |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Conflict and communication analysis |
| 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 6
Forty-Seven Emails Before Anyone Met: A Conflict and Communication Analysis of a Composite Health System's Dispute Over Clinic Appointment Templates, Coding Every Message by Task, Process and Relationship Conflict to Show How the Dispute Changed Type
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HA510: Organizational Development in Health Care
Unit 6 Conflict and Communication Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The system, the clinics and the messages are composite and bracketed; sample lines are paraphrased and attributed to roles, not people.
The Dispute in Dated Order
Week 1: central scheduling begins filling every open slot in clinic templates, including slots clinic managers had kept open for same-day patients. Week 1, day 3: a clinic manager emails that same-day slots are being filled with routine visits weeks ahead. Week 2: scheduling replies that unfilled slots cost the system [$X] a month and that the templates show them as available. Weeks 2 to 3: messages turn to who has the right to change templates and whether clinics were consulted. Weeks 4 to 5: messages question each side's competence and motives. A vice president, copied on [38] of [47] messages, finally calls a meeting.
Coding Method
Each message was coded for the kind of conflict it mainly carried, using Jehn's categories: task conflict, about the content of the work; process conflict, over methods, authority and the division of duties; and relationship conflict, about personal friction (Jehn, 1997). A second reader coded [15] messages independently; the two agreed on [13].
The Coding Table
Week 1: task [6], process [1], relationship [0]. Week 2: task [5], process [6], relationship [1]. Week 3: task [2], process [8], relationship [2]. Week 4: task [1], process [4], relationship [5]. Week 5: task [0], process [2], relationship [4]. Sample lines: task, "Same-day slots are needed for urgent visits"; process, "Who approved changing our templates?"; relationship, "Scheduling clearly doesn't understand how a clinic runs." The dispute began as a legitimate disagreement about slots, became a fight about authority within two weeks and turned personal by the fifth.
Why the Type Matters
Task conflict can improve decisions when it is handled openly and in an atmosphere of trust, but relationship conflict tends to harm both performance and satisfaction (Jehn, 1995). A meta-analysis found that task and relationship conflict were both, on average, negatively related to team performance, and that the two often occur together (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Here, the task disagreement was real and resolvable; it was never resolved because the process question displaced it.
The Channel
Email made each step worse. Copying a vice president turned every message into a public record and invited each side to defend itself to an audience. Messages were long, sent late in the day and answered the next morning, so misunderstandings sat overnight. No one picked up the phone.
The Real Task Disagreement
Both sides had a point. Clinics need same-day capacity for urgent problems, or those patients go to urgent care and emergency departments. Scheduling is measured on filling slots and sees open slots as waste. Neither side's measure accounted for the other's. Clinic managers were judged on patient access and complaints; scheduling supervisors were judged on fill rates and call answer times. With different scorecards, each side's position was rational.
What Should Have Happened
After the first two messages, the clinic manager and scheduling supervisor should have met with data: same-day demand by clinic and unfilled slot rates. A shared rule, such as holding [two] same-day slots per provider per day until 11:00 and then releasing them, would have settled the task question.
The Meeting That Finally Happened
In week 5 the vice president brought both groups together for an hour. The first twenty minutes went to grievances about tone. Then a clinic manager shared same-day demand data, and a scheduling supervisor shared unfilled slot rates, and within twenty minutes the group agreed to test a hold-and-release rule in two clinics. The task disagreement, unresolved through [47] emails, was settled in one meeting once both sides saw each other's numbers.
Communication Lessons
Three lessons apply beyond this dispute. Disagreements about work should be settled with shared data, not with arguments about who is right. Questions about authority need a named owner before they arise. And when a message thread grows past a few exchanges, the medium itself has become part of the problem.
Recommendations
1. A rule that disputes between departments move from email to a meeting after three messages.
2. Vice presidents copied only when a meeting has failed.
3. A joint template committee of clinic managers and scheduling supervisors with clear authority over template changes.
4. Shared measures: same-day access for clinics alongside slot fill rate for scheduling.
Limits
Coding by one person with a partial second reader is a simple method; some messages carried more than one type. Email captures only part of the dispute.
Conclusion
The conflict changed type because the process for resolving task disagreements was missing, and email amplified each step. A shared rule, a joint committee and a habit of meeting early would have kept the dispute about slots.
References
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741-749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530-557. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393737
Reading the HA 510 Unit 6 instructions
Unit 6 commonly sets a dispute between departments and asks how the way people communicated shaped it. Instructions usually require a description of the conflict, a framework for classifying it, an analysis of how communication shaped it and recommendations for managing similar conflicts. Many courses use Jehn's types or Thomas-Kilmann styles. Expect to cite conflict research in APA style, keep the organization composite, paraphrase messages and attribute them to roles, and describe any coding method you use. Showing how a conflict changed over time, rather than labeling it once, often reveals why it became so hard to resolve and what should have been done at each stage. Report how consistently messages were coded.
How this HA510 Unit 6 example is built
The sample tells the dispute in dated order, with a margin note on showing change over time. The coding method defines Jehn's three types with an example of each and reports agreement between two readers. A coding table shows message types by week, with sample lines, and the highlighted sentence summarizes the shift from task to relationship conflict. A section cites research on how conflict types affect teams, with a margin note. The channel, the real task disagreement and differing scorecards follow. The meeting that settled it carries a third note, then three communication lessons, four recommendations including a three-message rule, limits of single-reader coding and a conclusion.
Reading the HA510 Unit 6 grading rubric
Conflict analysis rubrics in HA 510 usually award points for describing the conflict, applying a framework, analyzing communication, using evidence, drawing lessons, making recommendations and citing sources. Description points depend on a dated, neutral account. Framework points go to accurate categories applied consistently. Communication points reward analysis of channel, timing and audience. Evidence points require coded data or quoted examples. Lesson points go to insights that apply beyond the case. Recommendation points need specific changes to process or structure. Analyses that show the conflict changing type over time often earn the highest marks, since that sequence explains the escalation and points to where it could have been stopped.
HA510 Unit 6 help: mistakes that cost points
Conflict papers often lose points by taking one side or describing the conflict as a clash of personalities. Another gap is applying a framework once, as if the conflict had a single type throughout. Some papers ignore the channel, such as email copied to executives, which can drive escalation. Others recommend communication training with no structural change. Tell the story in dated order, code messages consistently, show how the type changed, analyze the channel and recommend changes such as a rule for moving disputes to meetings. Then name shared measures that would align the two sides' incentives, since different scorecards often keep a dispute alive. Count how many people were copied.
Get an HA510 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Choose a conflict from your workplace or the case the Unit 6 prompt supplies, and gather the messages or remarks exchanged, anonymized, along with the instructions and rubric. Within 24-48h the analysis returns, coded with whichever conflict framework the unit reading names and with seminar examples worked in where they fit; a first request is free. 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 3: Competing Values Culture Diagnostic
- HA510 Unit 4: Lewin and ADKAR Change Analysis
- HA510 Unit 5: Transfer Center Team Development Case
- 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 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HA510 Unit 6 sample paper?
This page carries the full HA510 Unit 6 conflict and communication analysis, coding 47 emails between composite clinic managers and scheduling supervisors, with three sources. Your own dispute can be coded the same way.
What are Jehn's three types of conflict?
Task conflict over the content of work, process conflict over how work is done and who does what, and relationship conflict over personal friction.
Is task conflict always harmful?
Not always; it can improve decisions when handled openly, but research finds it often travels with relationship conflict, which tends to harm teams.
Why does email escalate workplace conflict?
It invites long, public messages, delays replies and, when executives are copied, turns each message into a defense before an audience.
How long is the HA510 Unit 6 analysis?
About six pages with a dated account and a coding table.