Motivating potential scores of 50.7 and 131.0, computed by script from Job Diagnostic Survey items, frame this MT302 Unit 5 job design analysis of two title office jobs. Searches like "mt 302 unit 5 assignment example", "mt302 unit 5 sample" and "mt302 unit 5 example" land here.
What a finished MT302 Unit 5 job design analysis looks like
Of seven pages, the first describes the two jobs as sequences of tasks across a working day, from assembling a closing package to logging a recorded deed that arrives weeks later. A ratings table follows: five core characteristics, skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback, each rated 1 to 7 on items adapted from the Job Diagnostic Survey by the author and two colleagues per job, then averaged. Coordinators score 5.3, 2.7, 5.8, 3.8 and 2.9; specialists score 3.2, 5.9, 3.9, 5.4 and 5.6. A twelve-line script in the appendix computes the motivating potential score, the mean of the first three multiplied by autonomy and by feedback, alongside an additive index, the plain sum. Interpretation fills three pages, and a final page ties the numbers to the critical psychological states and to the author's experience.
How a MT302 Unit 5 example is structured
The work comes before the person, as the unit asks, so both jobs are described task by task before any rating appears. Ratings come from more than one incumbent per job and are averaged, a small sample, as the paper admits. Printing the script lets a reader rerun a formula that is easy to misapply. Interpretation then follows the model's logic. Coordinators build a package they never see completed, so task identity is low, and errors surface weeks later through post-closing rather than coming back to them, so feedback is low. Because the formula multiplies, those two weaknesses drag the whole score down despite high variety and significance. The paper also reports the additive index, 20.5 against 24.0, citing research that simple sums often predict outcomes about as well, and asks what the gap between the two indices means.
Two jobs, described as days
Each job is broken into its recurring tasks with rough durations, so every later rating has a concrete activity behind it.
Five characteristics, three raters
Items adapted from the Job Diagnostic Survey are rated by the author and two colleagues in each role, with the spread between raters reported beside each mean.
The script and its output
Twelve lines compute both indices, and the output table shows 50.7 and 131.0 for the multiplicative score and 20.5 and 24.0 for the plain sum.
Why the product punishes gaps
A feedback rating under 3 cuts the coordinator result sharply, since the model assumes a job offering no knowledge of results cannot motivate, whatever its variety.
The same numbers, added
The additive index narrows the gap to 3.5 points, and the paper discusses research suggesting the simpler form predicts satisfaction nearly as well.
The work's effect on the worker
Low task identity and slow feedback connect to the psychological states the model names, and the author's sense of never knowing whether a closing went well completes the reading.
Where marks go in MT302 Unit 5
Rating the characteristics before describing the work is the frequent miss, because numbers need tasks behind them to mean anything. Calculation errors cost more here than in most papers: averaging all five characteristics, or adding autonomy and feedback instead of multiplying, produces a different model. Instructors typically want the result interpreted through the critical psychological states rather than reported as a bare score. Papers treating the motivating potential score as a precise measure, ignoring how few people rated the job, overstate their evidence. Growth need strength, the moderator the model includes, is often left out, and many rubrics note the omission. Redesign proposals arriving before the analysis, or adding tasks without asking which characteristic they change, reverse the logic of the unit and usually lose the application marks.
Get a MT302 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Pick the job to be analyzed and paste the Unit 5 prompt and rubric. The first custom sample is free, rated and calculated by script or spreadsheet, whichever the instructions favor, and it returns within 24-48h with the job described task by task and the formula shown, so any figure can be rechecked.
MT302 Unit 5 questions, answered
How is the motivating potential score calculated?
Average skill variety, task identity and task significance, then multiply that average by autonomy and by feedback. On 1-to-7 ratings the result ranges from 1 to 343. Because the formula multiplies, a very low autonomy or feedback rating lowers the total sharply. Show the calculation in the paper, not just the final number.
Who should rate the job characteristics?
Ideally more than one person who does the job, with the ratings averaged, since one rater's mood or history colors the result. In coursework, the author plus one or two willing colleagues is common, and a paper should acknowledge the small sample. A supervisor's ratings can add a comparison view where the prompt allows it.
Is the Job Diagnostic Survey still used?
It remains the classic measure behind the job characteristics model and appears widely in textbooks, though newer instruments such as the Work Design Questionnaire cover a broader set of characteristics. For an MT302 paper built on the model, items adapted from the original survey are appropriate, provided the paper says they were adapted.