| Course | MT260 Group and Organization Dynamics |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Communication pattern study |
| Length | About 1,110 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT260 Unit 5
Seventy-One Percent Through One Chair: A Unit 5 Communication Pattern Study of an Architecture Studio's Design Review
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT260: Group and Organization Dynamics
Unit 5 Communication Pattern Study
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The studio, its staff, the meetings and every count are composite and illustrative; recordings described were deleted after coding; the sources cited are real.
The Group and the Meeting
Arden and Vale Architects is a composite studio of nine people, seven of whom attend the Monday design review: the founding principal, two senior architects, the writer as project architect, an interior designer and two junior designers. The review is meant to let everyone comment on current projects before drawings go to clients. It runs about fifty minutes, around a table with drawings pinned to the wall.
Method
The writer coded three consecutive Monday reviews in September. With the studio's agreement, each review was audio recorded, coded within two days and the recording deleted. The writer also took notes during the meetings to identify who spoke to whom when the audio was unclear.
Coding used the Interaction Process Analysis of Bales (1950), which sorts every act in a group discussion into one of twelve categories in four areas: positive reactions (shows solidarity, shows tension release, agrees), attempted answers (gives suggestion, gives opinion, gives orientation), questions (asks for orientation, asks for opinion, asks for suggestion) and negative reactions (disagrees, shows tension, shows antagonism). Each act was also coded by speaker and by the person addressed, or "group" when addressed to everyone.
Across the three reviews the writer coded 612 acts.
The Who-to-Whom Matrix
The matrix counts acts from each speaker to each target. Its main features are these.
The principal spoke 248 acts and was addressed in 187, so 435 of 612 acts, or 71 percent, involved the principal as speaker or target.
The two senior architects spoke 172 acts between them, 109 of them addressed to the principal and only 11 to each other; most of the rest went to the group.
The two junior designers spoke 31 acts between them, mostly to the principal, and were addressed directly only four times in three meetings, three times by the principal and once by the writer.
The interior designer spoke 74 acts, about half addressed to the group.
The writer spoke 87 acts, 52 to the principal.
The Category Tally
The tally shows how each person took part.
The principal gave 61 percent of all opinions in the three meetings and received 58 percent of all questions. Most questions were asks for opinion: "What do you think of the entry?"
The senior architects gave orientation and suggestion, mostly to the principal, and rarely asked each other anything.
The junior designers' acts were almost all asks for orientation, questions about what a comment meant or what to change. Across three meetings they gave two suggestions between them.
Negative reactions were rare, 19 acts in all, and 14 of them came from the principal.
The juniors asked what to change; nobody asked them what they thought.
One Exchange in Detail
The second review shows the pattern in miniature. A junior designer had drawn the stair for a small library addition and knew that the client's contractor had questioned its rise. When the drawing came up, the principal said the stair felt steep and asked one of the senior architects what he thought. He agreed and suggested a longer run. The principal agreed. Only then did the junior designer speak, asking whether the longer run would still fit the landing. The principal answered that it would be worked out. The contractor's question, which the junior designer had heard directly, never entered the discussion. In Bales's terms, the exchange contained three opinions and one suggestion, all from senior people, and one ask for orientation from the person with the most relevant information.
What the Categories Miss
Interaction Process Analysis counts acts, not their weight. A single suggestion from the principal often settled a question that several comments from others had not, and the counts treat them equally. The categories also miss silence: the junior designers' low counts show that they spoke little, not why. The writer's notes suggest two reasons, uncertainty about whether comments were welcome and the habit of waiting to be asked, but those are interpretations, not codes.
The Network
Drawn as a network, the pattern is a wheel: nearly every line runs through the principal at the center, with few lines between the people around the rim. Leavitt (1951), testing communication networks in small groups, found that wheel networks solve simple problems quickly and with a clear leader, but that members at the rim are less satisfied and the group performs worse on complex, ambiguous problems. Design review is a complex, ambiguous task, the kind where Leavitt's findings suggest a more open network would help.
Why the Pattern Persists
The wheel is not imposed. Nobody is told to address the principal. But the principal owns the firm, signs every drawing and decides who works on which project, so comments addressed to her have the most effect. Forsyth (2019) notes that status differences in groups shape who speaks and who is addressed, and that lower-status members often stay quiet even when they have useful information. The junior designers had worked on the drawings under review and knew details nobody else did, but the meeting was not built to draw them out.
The Writer's Own Part
The coding showed something the writer had not expected: 23 of the writer's 87 acts were interruptions, most of them of the junior designers, usually to clarify or finish a point they were making. The writer had thought of this as helping. In the counts it looks like one more voice taking space from the two people who already had the least.
What Could Change
Three changes could open the network. The review could begin with the junior designers presenting the drawings they worked on, so their knowledge enters first. The principal could hold her own opinions until others have spoken, a practice Bales's categories would show as a rise in others' opinions. And the writer could stop interrupting. A repeat count after a month would show whether the wheel had loosened. The studio's principal, shown the matrix, agreed to try the first two changes for four reviews, which the writer will code the same way.
Limits
Three meetings is a small sample, and the studio's behavior may have shifted because members knew they were being recorded. Coding by one person, the writer, introduces bias; a second coder for a portion of the acts would test reliability.
References
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Addison-Wesley.
Forsyth, D. R. (2019). Group dynamics (7th ed.). Cengage.
Leavitt, H. J. (1951). Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46(1), 38-50. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057189
The Purdue Global MT260 Unit 5 instructions
The fifth unit asks students to observe a group's communication systematically and describe its pattern. Choose a recurring meeting, observe at least two or three sessions and code each contribution by speaker, target and type. Bales's Interaction Process Analysis is a common coding scheme, though some sections allow others. Get the group's agreement before recording, and delete recordings after coding if you use them. Present the results as a who-to-whom matrix and a category tally, draw the network shape, and explain the pattern with course concepts such as status or network type. Include your own behavior in the counts. About five pages in APA 7, with the matrix and tally as exhibits, is typical.
Inside the MT260 Unit 5 example
The study introduces the studio, the seven attendees and the purpose of the review. A method section explains the recordings, the deletion after coding and Bales's twelve categories in four areas, with a margin note on judging how counts were made. The who-to-whom matrix gives each person's acts and targets, and the category tally shows who gives opinions and who asks, with the highlighted line about juniors asking what to change. A detailed exchange about a library stair shows the contractor's question never reaching the table. A section on what the categories miss follows. The network is drawn as a wheel with Leavitt's findings, Forsyth explains status effects, and the writer's 23 interruptions are counted under a second note before three changes and the limits.
MT260 Unit 5 rubric: what earns full points
Communication studies are graded on a sound coding method, accurate counts, clear exhibits and interpretation grounded in theory. Stating how acts were coded, and over how many sessions, lets the reader trust the numbers. Instructors reward a matrix and tally that support specific findings, such as who addresses whom and who asks rather than tells. Drawing the network and linking it to research on network types shows depth. A short case of one exchange makes the pattern concrete. Counting the writer's own behavior demonstrates honesty. Ethical handling of recordings, a note on the limits of one coder and accurate citations complete the rubric. A proposed change, with a plan to recount afterward, shows the study can be used.
MT260 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points
Students often describe a meeting's atmosphere without counting anything, which leaves the pattern as opinion. Another frequent problem is coding one meeting only, too few to show a pattern. Some studies record without asking, or keep recordings after coding. Others present numbers without explaining what they show about status or structure. Check that matrix totals match the total acts reported, and that each category is defined before the counts appear. Include acts addressed to the whole group as their own column. Describe the meeting you plan to observe, and a writer will draft a coding sheet with you and convert the finished counts into the matrix, tally and network drawing.
Get an MT260 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
A study like this needs a meeting you can watch more than once, so choose a recurring one. Jot down who addresses whom, then forward the notes with any required coding scheme, the rubric and the Unit 5 prompt. The first study is free, due back inside 24-48h, with bracketed tallies waiting to be replaced by the counts you actually took. 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 MT260 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT260 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- MT260 Unit 2: Group Development Analysis
- MT260 Unit 3: Role and Structure Paper
- MT260 Unit 4: Norms Observation
- MT260 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT260 Unit 7: Decision-making Analysis
- MT260 Unit 8: Conflict and Cohesion Case
- MT260 Unit 9: Intervention Proposal
- MT260 Unit 10: Group Analysis Paper
- MT247 Unit 5: Estimation Exercise
- MT246 Unit 5: Project Schedule
- MT245 Unit 5: Scope Statement
- MT243 Unit 5: Sponsorship Proposal
MT260 Unit 5 questions, answered
Are Bales's categories required?
Only if your section requires them. Bales's Interaction Process Analysis suits a study of who speaks and how, because its categories separate task contributions from social ones. Simpler schemes, such as counting initiations, interruptions and questions, also work if applied consistently. What matters is a coding rule stated clearly enough that the numbers mean something to a reader.
Can I record the meeting?
Only with the group's agreement and within your workplace's rules, and many writers find notes sufficient. If you record, say how consent was obtained and that the recording was deleted after coding. Written notes with tally marks are acceptable for most prompts, provided you explain how you captured acts and what you did with interruptions or overlapping speech.
How many meetings should I observe?
At least two or three, because one meeting can reflect an unusual agenda or an absence. Several meetings let you distinguish a stable pattern from an accident of one day. If you can only observe once, say so and treat the findings as provisional. Consistency across meetings is itself a finding worth reporting in this study.
Where can I find a free MT260 Unit 5 sample paper?
Read the full MT260 Unit 5 communication pattern study here. It codes three architecture design reviews with Bales's categories, finds the principal in 71 percent of exchanges and draws the pattern as a wheel.
What did the writer learn about their own behavior in the MT260 Unit 5 sample?
That 23 of their 87 acts were interruptions, mostly of the junior designers. What felt like helping looked, in the counts, like another voice taking space from the two people who already had the least.