MT302 Unit 10 Applied Behavior Job Redesign Report Example

Course	MT302 Organizational Behavior
Unit	Unit 10
Paper type	Applied behavior report
Length	About 840 words, 6 pages double-spaced
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Purdue University Global
Program	BS in Business Administration
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for MT302 Unit 10

Owning the File Through Recording: An MT302 Unit 10 Applied Behavior Report on Redesigning the Closing Coordinator Job

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

MT302: Organizational Behavior

Unit 10 Applied Behavior Report

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The office, people and figures are composite; the theories and studies cited are real.

What this part is doingNaming a single change in the lead signals that every section will serve one proposal.

Summary

Change. Each coordinator follows the files she prepares through recording and policy issue, receiving post-closing errors directly. Pilot. Two of five coordinators, one quarter, with a pay-grade review at six months and the phone rotation in place first. Success. Fewer errors reaching post-closing, more voluntary month-end hours and no rise in coordinator departures.

Current State

From earlier units:

Job design (Unit 5). Coordinators rate task identity at 2.7 and feedback at 2.9. Motivating potential score: 50.7, against 131.0 for post-closing specialists.

Equity (Unit 4). Voluntary month-end hours fell from about fourteen a month per coordinator to four after the officer bonus.

Satisfaction (Unit 8). Coordinators had the lowest team satisfaction in four of six quarters and five of eleven departures.

Stress (Unit 9). Revised lender figures and front-desk phone duty came before eleven of the fourteen month-end errors.

The Redesigned Job

After signing, the coordinator keeps the file. She receives the post-closing checklist, reviews signatures and notarizations with the specialist, sees the recording confirmation when it returns and approves the final policy. Errors found by post-closing come to her directly with the specialist's note. This adds about forty minutes per file, spread over the weeks after closing. To make room, the coordinator stops covering phones during closings, which moves to the rotation proposed in Unit 9, and new-file intake shifts to the specialist team during month-end.

The Behavioral Case

Job characteristics. Hackman and Oldham (1976) predict that higher task identity and feedback will raise knowledge of results and experienced responsibility, increasing internal motivation. If the redesign raises task identity from 2.7 to about 5.0 and feedback from 2.9 to about 5.0, the recomputed motivating potential score rises from 50.7 to about 102.

Equity. Adams (1963) predicts a risk. Added responsibility without added recognition worsens the comparison with officers that the bonus created. The pilot therefore makes a pay-grade review at six months a condition, so that coordinators who take on post-closing ownership can be recognized for it.

Stress. LePine et al. (2005) found that challenge stressors tend to accompany higher motivation and hindrance stressors lower motivation. Post-closing follow-up should register as a challenge, more responsibility for one's own work, only if the hindrances go first. That is why the phone rotation must precede the pilot.

Ownership will only feel like a challenge if the obstacles from Unit 9 are cleared before it begins.

What this part is doingShowing that each theory predicts a condition, not only a benefit, shows the case was built from the evidence.

Why This Change and Not Another

Several other changes were possible: a coordinator bonus, a new title, more staff at month-end. Each addresses one finding. A bonus answers the equity problem but leaves task identity and feedback where they are. More staff eases volume, which Unit 9 showed was not the main source of errors. Ownership through recording addresses the two weakest job characteristics directly, and with the pay-grade review and phone rotation as conditions, it also answers the equity and stress findings. It is the one change that connects to all four earlier units, which is why the report argues for it alone.

Pilot Plan

Participants. Two volunteer coordinators; the other three continue as now and serve as a comparison.

Sequence. Phone rotation begins the month before; ownership begins on the first of the quarter.

Measures. Errors reaching post-closing per hundred files; voluntary month-end hours; files per coordinator; team satisfaction; departures. Each is compared with the three comparison coordinators and with the previous quarter.

Decision date. The last week of the quarter. Expand if errors fall and voluntary hours rise without a fall in files handled. End if files per coordinator fall more than 10 percent or either pilot coordinator asks to stop.

Risks and Objections

"Coordinators will have less time for new files." Forty minutes per file is real. The phone rotation and month-end intake shift recover most of it, and the pilot measures files handled to check.

"Post-closing specialists will lose their role." Specialists keep recording, rejections and policy issue; coordinators review, not replace. Specialists' own job design scores should not fall.

"This is a raise in disguise." The pay-grade review is a condition, not a promise. If ownership does not improve outcomes, there is no case for a new grade.

"Two coordinators are too few." The pilot cannot prove the change works everywhere, but it can show whether the predicted effects appear, at low cost. Robbins and Judge (2019) recommend testing job redesigns on a small scale before a wider rollout.

What this part is doingAnswering objections from the people most affected shows the report anticipates resistance.

Conclusion

Ownership through recording addresses the coordinator job's weakest characteristics, task identity and feedback, and is supported by job characteristics research, but equity and stress research identify two conditions: recognition and the removal of hindrances first. A one-quarter pilot with two coordinators, clear measures and an advance decision rule is a proportionate way to test it.

References

Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422-436. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040968

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7

LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764-775. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.18803921

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.

What the MT302 Unit 10 assignment asks for

In Unit 10 students propose one change to a job and defend it with organizational behavior evidence from the course. The report should open with a short summary of the change, the pilot and what would count as success. A current-state section should restate earlier findings with their figures. The proposal should describe the redesigned job concretely, including what is added and what stops. Instructors expect the behavioral case to use more than one lens and to note risks each lens predicts, not only benefits. A pilot plan with participants, measures, a comparison group and a decision date is usually required. Risks and objections should be answered. Arguing for one change, rather than a list, keeps the report focused.

Inside the MT302 Unit 10 example

The sample's summary names the change, a two-person pilot and three success measures. Current state draws on Units 4, 5, 8 and 9. The redesigned job adds about forty minutes per file after closing and removes phone coverage and month-end intake. The behavioral case projects a higher motivating potential score, makes a pay-grade review a condition under equity theory and requires the phone rotation first under stress research, under the highlighted line that ownership will only feel like a challenge if the obstacles are cleared first. A section explains why this change was chosen over a bonus or more staff. The pilot, measures and decision rule follow, and four objections are answered.

MT302 Unit 10 rubric: what earns full points

Final applied behavior reports are usually assessed on integration of course evidence, concreteness of the proposal, strength of the behavioral case and quality of the pilot. Graders reward one change argued thoroughly. Earlier findings should be restated accurately. The redesigned job should be described in enough detail to picture a working day. Each theory should predict outcomes, including risks, and the proposal should respond to those risks. A pilot with measures, a comparison group and an advance decision rule shows rigor. Objections from affected staff should be anticipated. Theories and course text belong in APA 7. Explaining why alternatives were rejected strengthens the case. Reports that list several changes without defending any of them in depth tend to score lower.

Common MT302 Unit 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Final reports often propose several changes at once and defend none in depth. Another common weakness is using theories only to predict benefits, ignoring risks such as equity problems. Some students describe the redesigned job vaguely. Pilots may lack a comparison group or a rule for ending them. Earlier findings are sometimes restated with different figures. Before drafting, choose the single change that connects to the most findings from your earlier units and list what it adds and removes from the job. That list and your earlier units give a writer everything needed to defend one change well.

Get an MT302 Unit 10 example written to your instructions

Choose one job to change, describe it, and share the Unit 10 prompt, the rubric and whichever earlier papers should carry forward. Your first custom report is written free and arrives in 24-48h, arguing one change with the theories your course used and figures kept consistent with your earlier work. 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 MT302 papers and BS in Business Administration samples

MT302 Unit 10 questions, answered

Why only one change?

Because a behavioral defense depends on linking a specific change to specific mechanisms and outcomes. With several changes, predictions blur and no measure can say which change worked. Many prompts ask for one change explicitly. Where a prompt allows more, a report leading with one and treating others as later steps usually reads stronger.

Which theories should the defense use?

Those the course covered that bear on the change, usually two or three. Each should predict something about the outcome, positive or negative, and the report should say how that prediction will be checked. Theories included only to show coverage, with no prediction attached, add length without adding argument.

Can the report draw on my earlier papers?

It should build on them, restating findings and figures briefly rather than copying passages. A closing report is where consistency gets tested, so numbers that change without explanation weaken the case. If an instructor corrected something in an earlier paper, carry the corrected version forward and mention the correction.

Where can I find a free MT302 Unit 10 sample paper?

The complete MT302 Unit 10 applied behavior report is on this page, proposing ownership of each file through recording for title office coordinators.

What conditions does the MT302 Unit 10 sample attach to the pilot?

A pay-grade review at six months, to address equity, and the phone rotation in place first, so post-closing work registers as a challenge.