| Course | MT497 Bachelor's Capstone in Organizational Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Literature review |
| Length | About 1,130 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 MT497 Unit 3
Integration, Relational Coordination and Shelter Strain: An MT497 Unit 3 Literature Review for the Caldwell Run Study
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT497: Bachelor's Capstone in Organizational Management
Unit 3 Literature Review
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Caldwell Run is composite; every study cited is real and is described from its published findings.
Introduction
The study concerns Caldwell Run, where the kennel and adoption teams each say the other drops the behavior information about dogs. Dog length of stay has risen from 11 to 19 days in two years, and behavior-related returns have increased. The review follows one question: what organizational conditions produce complaints of poor communication between two interdependent departments, and what reduces them? Sources were found through business and psychology databases using terms for interdepartmental coordination, integration, relational coordination and animal shelter staff, and the review is organized by idea rather than by author.
Different Tasks, Different Orientations
Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) compared plastics, food and container firms and saw that sales, production and research units each came to want different things, think on different clocks, treat colleagues differently and run with more or less formality, because each faced a different slice of the market. They called this differentiation. The highest-performing firms in their study were not those with the least differentiation but those that matched it with strong integration, using roles, teams or procedures whose job was to link the departments.
The theory fits Caldwell Run's two departments closely. Kennel work is measured in hours and tasks: feeding, cleaning, medication and enrichment for every dog on every shift. Adoption work is measured in placements and visitor satisfaction. The two teams face different pressures every day, and on Lawrence and Lorsch's account their drift apart is expected rather than a failure of goodwill.
On this account, two departments drifting apart is the expected result of different work, not a sign that anyone has stopped caring.
The implication for the diagnosis is to look for integrating mechanisms. If the shelter relies on a monthly managers' meeting to link two departments that touch every dog every day, the theory predicts exactly the kind of complaint leadership describes.
Galbraith (1974) adds a mechanism. When work becomes more uncertain, an organization must process more information between the people doing it, and it can respond in two ways: reduce the need for that information, for example by adding slack time, or increase its capacity to move information, through better information systems or direct lateral contact between departments. Caldwell Run's board raised its placement goal two years ago, which made each dog's path faster and more consequential. If nothing was added to carry behavior information between the kennel and the adoption desk, Galbraith's account predicts that the gap would show up first as delays and then as complaints about the other team.
Relational Coordination
Gittell (2016) developed relational coordination to describe how people in different roles coordinate interdependent work. It has seven dimensions. Four concern how often, how promptly and how accurately the roles talk, and whether a problem leads them to fix it or to blame someone. Three concern the relationships underneath: whether the roles want the same outcome, understand what the other role does, and value it. Weak relationships tend to produce weak communication, and the reverse.
The evidence comes largely from settings where work passes between roles under time pressure. In a study of surgical care across nine hospitals, Gittell et al. (2000) found that stronger relational coordination among doctors, nurses, therapists and case managers was associated with better reported quality of care, less postoperative pain and shorter lengths of stay. Gittell (2002) later found that relational coordination carried much of the effect of formal coordinating mechanisms on performance, and that its effects were stronger where the work was more uncertain.
Two features make this strand useful for the study. Its dimensions can be measured, so they can become survey items in which each department rates its coordination with the other. And the finding about uncertainty matters: an open-admission shelter cannot predict which dogs will arrive or how they will behave, which is the kind of uncertainty under which coordination counts most. The strand predicts that Caldwell Run will show weak timeliness and shared knowledge between kennel and adoption roles, and possibly strong shared goals.
Strain in Shelter Work
Management research has little to say about the emotional side of shelter work, and a third strand fills that gap. Reeve et al. (2005) surveyed animal shelter workers and described a caring-killing paradox: people who enter the work to care for animals may be involved in euthanizing them, and those involved reported more work stress, more conflict between work and family and lower job satisfaction. Rogelberg et al. (2007) found that shelters with higher euthanasia rates had higher employee turnover.
This strand explains something the first two do not. Kennel attendants live with the animals that are not adopted, and their turnover at Caldwell Run is already high. When an adoption counselor asks why a dog's notes are late, a kennel attendant may hear criticism from someone who does not carry the same cost. The review treats this as context for the tension between the teams rather than as a diagnosis; it predicts that kennel staff will describe the conflict in more emotional terms than adoption staff and that turnover will make notes less consistent.
Synthesis
The three strands make different predictions about what the study will find.
1. Integration research predicts weak linking mechanisms between kennel and adoption, such as infrequent meetings and no shared role or procedure.
2. Relational coordination predicts low ratings for timely communication and shared knowledge between the two roles, with shared goals possibly intact.
3. Shelter strain research predicts that kennel staff will report more stress and describe the conflict as personal, with turnover weakening the quality of notes.
The predictions are not mutually exclusive. The strongest diagnosis will be the one that explains the most evidence across all three, and the data collection plan in Unit 5 will gather evidence that could support or contradict each.
Gaps
The review found few studies of coordination inside animal shelters. Most relational coordination research comes from hospitals, airlines and other settings with clear professional roles and paid staff, while shelters rely heavily on volunteers and have flatter structures. The fit of the framework to a shelter is therefore argued from similarities in the work, not demonstrated. The data collection will compensate by combining survey items with interviews and records, so that the diagnosis does not depend on a measure tested only elsewhere. A second gap concerns volunteers, who walk and promote dogs at Caldwell Run but appear in none of the coordination studies reviewed; the interviews will include three of them so their part in the path is not lost.
References
Galbraith, J. R. (1974). Organization design: An information processing view. Interfaces, 4(3), 28-36. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.4.3.28
Gittell, J. H. (2002). Coordinating mechanisms in care provider groups: Relational coordination as a mediator and input uncertainty as a moderator of performance effects. Management Science, 48(11), 1408-1426. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.11.1408.268
Gittell, J. H. (2016). Transforming relationships for high performance: The power of relational coordination. Stanford University Press.
Gittell, J. H., Fairfield, K. M., Bierbaum, B., Head, W., Jackson, R., Kelly, M., Laskin, R., Lipson, S., Siliski, J., Thornhill, T., & Zuckerman, J. (2000). Impact of relational coordination on quality of care, postoperative pain and functioning, and length of stay: A nine-hospital study of surgical patients. Medical Care, 38(8), 807-819. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200008000-00005
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1-47. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391211
Reeve, C. L., Rogelberg, S. G., Spitzmüller, C., & DiGiacomo, N. (2005). The caring-killing paradox: Euthanasia-related strain among animal-shelter workers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(1), 119-143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02096.x
Rogelberg, S. G., Reeve, C. L., Spitzmüller, C., DiGiacomo, N., Clark, O. L., Teeter, L., Walker, A. G., Starling, P. G., & Carter, N. T. (2007). Impact of euthanasia rates, euthanasia practices, and human resource practices on employee turnover in animal shelters. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 230(5), 713-719. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.230.5.713
What the MT497 Unit 3 assignment asks for
The third unit of MT497 asks what research says about the problem area you chose. Organize the review by idea, not by author, so each section answers part of a guiding question you state at the start. For each strand, explain the main findings accurately and apply them to your organization, ending with what the strand would predict you will find. Include research specific to your industry where it exists, since management studies often come from very different settings. Set the strands against each other in a synthesis, showing where they agree and where they make different predictions. Close with gaps in the evidence and how your data collection will compensate. Peer-reviewed sources carry the most weight, cited in APA style throughout.
How the MT 497 Unit 3 example is put together
The review states its guiding question and search approach, then moves through four strands. Lawrence and Lorsch's study of plastics, food and container firms frames differentiation and integration, with a highlighted line that drifting apart is expected rather than a failure of goodwill; Galbraith's information processing view follows. Gittell's seven dimensions and the nine-hospital surgical study supply a measurable account of coordination, and the 2002 finding on uncertainty is tied to open-admission intake. Reeve and colleagues' caring-killing paradox and Rogelberg and colleagues' turnover study cover shelter strain as context. A three item synthesis sets the predictions apart, and the gap section notes that coordination research comes from hospitals and airlines and that volunteers appear in none of it.
Where the points sit in the MT497 Unit 3 rubric
Synthesis usually counts most. Sources grouped by idea and set against one another earn more than one summary per paragraph, and a review that never connects back to the organization reads as a research exercise detached from the capstone. Accuracy matters: findings should be described as the studies reported them, without inflating what they proved. Instructors look for each strand to end on its implication for the diagnosis, since that link prepares the model choice in Unit 4. Industry-specific research earns credit where available, and honest treatment of gaps is valued over pretending borrowed findings fit perfectly. A synthesis that produces competing predictions shows the review will guide data collection. Peer-reviewed sources and correct APA references complete the expectations.
MT497 Unit 3 help: mistakes that cost points
The most common weakness is an annotated bibliography presented as a review, with each source summarized in turn and no comparison. Another is choosing sources that all support the explanation the writer already favors. Students often overstate findings, writing that a study proved a cause when it reported an association. Industry gaps are sometimes ignored, so hospital research is applied to a retailer or a shelter without comment. Reviews also tend to end with a summary instead of predictions the fieldwork can test. Before submitting, check that each section ends with a sentence about your organization, that at least two strands make different predictions, and that every finding you cite matches what the abstract of the study actually says.
Get an MT497 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Tell us the problem area your organization presents, the sources already in hand and how many your Unit 3 instructions require, along with the rubric. A thematic review that ties each strand back to your organization, with its gaps named, is ready within 24-48h. Your opening request is free of charge. 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 MT497 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT497 Unit 1: Complaint Diagnosis Board Post
- MT497 Unit 2: Access and Scope Proposal
- MT497 Unit 4: Diagnostic Model Rationale
- MT497 Unit 5: Data Collection Plan
- MT497 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT497 Unit 7: Organizational Diagnosis
- MT497 Unit 8: Intervention Design
- MT497 Unit 9: Change Management Plan
- MT497 Unit 10: Consulting Report
- MT494 Unit 3: Bowling Center Situation Analysis
- MT483 Unit 3: S&P 500 Risk and Return Calculation
- LI410 Unit 3: Leadership Style Analysis
- MT482 Unit 3: Common-Size Statement Analysis
MT497 Unit 3 questions, answered
How many sources does the literature review need?
Requirements differ by section, so follow your prompt. Many undergraduate capstone reviews use somewhere between twelve and twenty-five sources, mostly peer-reviewed. Fewer, well-chosen sources that you synthesize carefully usually outweigh a long list you only summarize. Include foundational works where your problem area has them, such as the classic studies newer articles keep citing.
What if there is almost no research on my type of organization?
That is common for small or unusual settings. Draw on research from comparable settings, explain why the findings should transfer, and note where they might not. Stating the gap honestly is a strength, and it can justify the kinds of evidence you plan to gather yourself in later units. Your instructor may also suggest adjacent fields worth searching.
Should the review mention the organization at all?
Yes, briefly and purposefully. The review exists to inform your diagnosis, so each section should end with what the research implies for the organization you are studying. Keep organizational detail short, since the full description belongs in your proposal, and avoid presenting findings about the organization before you have collected data.
Where can I find a free MT497 Unit 3 sample paper?
This page carries the complete MT497 Unit 3 review for a composite animal shelter, organized around integration, relational coordination and shelter strain, with a synthesis and gaps.
Why does the MT497 Unit 3 sample include research on euthanasia-related strain?
Management studies say little about the emotional cost of shelter work, and that cost may shape how kennel staff hear questions from adoption counselors.