Six milestone disputes at one studio, each coded as task, relationship or process conflict with its evidence: the MT340 Unit 2 classification exercise, worked through in full. Searches like "mt 340 unit 2 assignment example", "mt340 unit 2 sample" and "mt340 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished MT340 Unit 2 conflict classification exercise looks like
A short introduction, a classification table and a page of commentary, about four pages in all. The introduction defines the three types Karen Jehn separated: task conflict over the content of the work, relationship conflict over the people, and process conflict over who does what and how. The table gives each episode a row with five columns: what happened, a quoted line, the assigned type, the cue that justified it and a drift note. Episodes include an art director and a designer disputing a color palette's readability for colorblind players, a code-review comment asking who approved a designer's script, a severity argument between the QA lead and the producer, and a credit dispute between two environment artists after a trailer. Commentary then examines the two episodes that changed type midstream.
How a MT340 Unit 2 example is structured
Definitions are brief and operational, because the exercise tests application rather than recall. Each type is tied to a cue a reader could spot in a message or meeting: task conflict names the work, relationship conflict names a trait, process conflict names a role or a resource. Most of the marks ride on the table, and its order is deliberate, moving from the clean cases to the mixed ones so the coding is learned before the hard calls arrive. The commentary follows two drifts. A palette dispute turned personal when the designer called the art director's objection precious, and a severity argument about one bug became a standing fight over who owns the triage list. What the pattern suggests about the studio fills the final paragraph, with no remedy proposed yet.
Three definitions with observable cues
Task, relationship and process conflict are each defined in one sentence and then given a marker. A dispute that names the work is task conflict; one that names a trait of a person is relationship conflict; one that names a role, a deadline or a resource is process conflict.
Five columns per episode
Every row quotes a line, which keeps the coding checkable. A reader who disagrees with a label can see the words it rests on. The drift column records whether the episode kept its type or began sliding toward another one before it ended.
Two clean cases
Subtitle size and checkpoint spacing in chapter two stayed about the work from first message to decision. The exercise explains why: each was settled against an external standard, a readability guideline in one and playtest completion rates in the other.
Where the palette dispute turned
One word, precious, moved a readability argument into personal territory. The commentary traces the exchanges before and after it and notes that the design question was settled within a day while the two leads avoided each other for three weeks.
A bug that became a standing process fight
Whether a save-file corruption bug blocked release was a task question. Who gets to decide blocking status became a process question the studio never answered, and the same argument returned at each of the next two builds.
Where marks go in MT340 Unit 2
Forcing every episode into a single category is the classic weakness in this MT340 exercise, since most real conflicts carry more than one strand and the rubric tends to reward seeing that. A label with no quoted evidence cannot be checked, and readers treat it as assertion. Confusing process conflict with task conflict is the error instructors correct most often; an argument over who decides differs from an argument over what to decide, and the difference changes the remedy. Episodes drawn from hearsay weaken the exercise since the writer cannot supply the cue. Commentary that jumps to fixes before the classification is finished reads as impatient with the assignment. Stronger exercises explain how one type converted into another, name the word or event that did it, and admit the cases where the call was close.
Get a MT340 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Collect four to six disagreements from a group you work in, a line or two each on what was said, and include the Unit 2 instructions and marking criteria. The custom exercise codes them by type, quotes the evidence and follows any that drifted. Your first sample is free, delivered within 24-48h.
MT340 Unit 2 questions, answered
Is process conflict part of the Unit 2 exercise?
Many sections work with task and relationship conflict only, and some add process conflict from Jehn's later studies. The instructions normally say which set applies. Where only two types are required, process disputes are typically coded as task conflict with a note, since arguments over roles and schedules concern the arrangements of the work rather than the people doing it.
How many episodes should the table include?
Instructions commonly ask for four to eight. Fewer than four rarely shows a pattern, and more than eight leaves too little room for commentary on the hard cases. The strongest tables include at least one mixed episode and one that changed type partway, since those are the cases where the classification shows judgment.
Can episodes come from outside work?
Some sections allow family, volunteer or classroom disputes. Workplace episodes tend to fit the course better because roles and deadlines make process conflict visible. Whatever the source, the writer needs to have been present, since classification depends on the exact words used and the order in which the disagreement developed.