| Course | EDP 810 The Psychology of Leadership |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Doctoral human resource analysis |
| Length | About 1,103 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for EDP 810 Module 3
When the Work Stops Fitting the People: A Human Resource Analysis
Student Name
Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University
EDP 810: The Psychology of Leadership
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
When the Work Stops Fitting the People: A Human Resource Analysis
Modules 1 and 2 examined the invented Des Moines agency's stalled records system through all four frames and then through structure alone. This paper takes the human resource frame. Its question is what happened to the caseworkers, most of whom had been effective and committed before the rollout, and what would restore the fit between them and the agency. As in every module of this course, the agency and its caseworkers are invented.
The Human Resource Frame
Bolman and Deal's human resource frame rests on the idea that organizations exist to serve human needs as well as the reverse, that people and organizations need each other and that when the fit is poor, both suffer: people feel neglected or exploited, and organizations lose the energy and talent they depend on. A good fit benefits both. The frame directs a leader to look at needs, skills, relationships and the design of work.
Job Characteristics
Hackman and Oldham (1976) proposed and tested a model linking five core job characteristics to motivation, satisfaction and performance. Skill variety, task identity, the degree to which a job involves a whole, identifiable piece of work, and task significance shape the meaningfulness people experience. Autonomy shapes their sense of responsibility for outcomes. Feedback from the job itself shapes their knowledge of results. In data from several hundred employees across many jobs, these characteristics were related to internal motivation and satisfaction, especially for people high in growth need strength.
Before the rollout, caseworkers' jobs scored high on most characteristics. They used varied skills, followed a youth's case from start to finish, saw the significance of their work and exercised considerable judgment. The rollout changed several of these. Rigid fields reduced autonomy over how cases were described. Weekly compliance reports gave feedback about data entry rather than about youth, so feedback no longer came from the work itself. And documentation, once part of caring for a case, became a separate administrative task.
| Job characteristic | Before the rollout | After | Proposed change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Autonomy | Judgment over notes and case descriptions | Rigid fields; no exceptions | Narrative fields; caseworker input into forms |
| Feedback | From youth and families | Weekly compliance list | Monthly team review of youth outcomes in the data |
| Task significance | Notes seen as part of care | Data entry seen as paperwork | Stories linking documentation to services won |
| Skill variety | Wide | Wide, plus a frustrating new task | Tablet with voice entry to reduce burden |
| Task identity | Whole case | Whole case, split by data entry | Documentation done in the field, during the case |
Psychological Safety
Edmondson (1999) surveyed and observed teams in a manufacturer of office products. Where members believed their colleagues would not embarrass or punish them for raising a problem, a condition she called psychological safety, teams did more of the behavior that learning requires: they asked for help, sought out reactions to their work, talked openly about mistakes and tried new approaches. That behavior, in turn, went with better team performance. At the agency, several experienced caseworkers struggled with the system but did not say so. In interviews with Daniela's deputy, they described feeling embarrassed in front of younger colleagues and worried that their supervisors would see them as unable to adapt. Without psychological safety, the people who most needed help were least likely to ask for it.
People-Centered Practices
Pfeffer and Veiga (1999) drew together studies showing that firms which invest in their people tend to outperform those that do not. The practices they found in common included protecting jobs where possible, hiring carefully, pushing decisions down to teams, paying well with a link to results, training heavily, narrowing the gaps in status between levels and sharing financial and performance information widely. Measured against these, the agency had strong practices in hiring and in sharing information about its mission, but the rollout had moved decision-making away from teams and offered only one-size-fits-all training.
Proposals
Four proposals follow from the analysis. First, restore autonomy and task significance through the forms redesign described in the previous module, with caseworkers helping to design narrative fields. Second, replace the weekly compliance list with a monthly team review of youth outcomes, so feedback again comes from the work. Third, provide tablets with voice entry so documentation can happen during the case. Fourth, create peer coaching within teams, pairing caseworkers by comfort with technology, with supervisors modeling openness by naming their own difficulties with the system, a step Edmondson's findings suggest can build safety.
Measuring Change
The agency will repeat a short survey based on the job characteristics model at the start and after six months, track the proportion of notes entered within three days and ask in team meetings how comfortable staff feel asking for help with the system. A rise in requests for help would be a sign of progress, not a problem.
Limits
The human resource frame explains much of the caseworkers' experience, but not the veteran supervisor's open opposition or the system's meaning as surveillance, which belong to the political and symbolic frames. It also risks treating resistance as a need to be met when it may be a reasonable judgment about a poor system.
Individual Differences
Hackman and Oldham (1976) found that the link between job characteristics and motivation was strongest for people high in growth need strength, those who value learning and challenge at work. The caseworkers who resisted the system most visibly were among the agency's most committed, and probably high in growth need; the rollout took away the parts of the job they valued most. Some newer caseworkers, by contrast, found the structured fields reassuring. The redesign should therefore offer flexibility rather than replacing one uniform design with another: a required core for everyone and narrative fields for those who want them.
Sequencing the Changes
The order of changes matters. Training people to use a system that still does not fit their work tends to deepen frustration. The agency will therefore redesign the forms first, then introduce tablets and peer coaching, and only then offer refresher training, tailored to the questions caseworkers raise in coaching. Pfeffer and Veiga (1999) describe extensive training as a mark of successful organizations, but training works best when the work it prepares people for makes sense to them.
Conclusion
Hackman and Oldham's model shows how the rollout reduced autonomy, feedback and the significance of documentation, Edmondson's research explains why struggling caseworkers stayed silent and Pfeffer and Veiga's practices offer a benchmark. Proposals that return judgment and feedback to caseworkers, and make it safe to ask for help, aim to restore the fit between people and agency.
References
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
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
Pfeffer, J., & Veiga, J. F. (1999). Putting people first for organizational success. Academy of Management Executive, 13(2), 37-48. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1999.1899547
What the EDP 810 Module 3 instructions ask for
In Module 3, EDP 810 usually asks for an application of the human resource frame. Rely on your Aspen course's Module 3 instructions; this agency is a composite. Explain the frame's assumptions about people and organizations. Analyze jobs or teams with an established model and evidence. Identify where the fit between people and organization has broken down. Propose practices that restore it, each grounded in research. Explain how you would measure change. Keep APA 7 throughout, and anchor every proposal in a named study instead of broad goodwill toward staff. Where staff have hidden difficulties, consider team climate as well as individual needs, and say how leaders can make it safe to speak up.
How the EDP 810 Module 3 example is put together
Caseworkers at the composite youth agency, most with years of experience, describe the new case record system as taking their judgment away. Hackman and Oldham's test of the job characteristics model links five core job dimensions to motivation through experienced meaningfulness, responsibility and knowledge of results. Edmondson's study of manufacturing teams links psychological safety to learning behavior and performance. Pfeffer and Veiga describe practices such as training, decentralized decision-making and information sharing. A five-row table shows how the rollout weakened each job characteristic and what would restore it, and a section plans peer coaching in teams where asking for help feels safe. A limits section notes what the human resource frame cannot explain about the dispute.
Where the marks sit in the EDP 810 Module 3 rubric
A strong human resource paper uses a model to diagnose specific problems rather than calling for better morale. This example uses the job characteristics model to show how the rollout reduced autonomy and feedback and blurred the significance of documentation. Psychological safety explains why experienced caseworkers hid their difficulty with the system. Pfeffer and Veiga's practices provide a benchmark for the agency. Each proposal is tied to a finding and to a measure, so the plan can be tested. The paper also notes where the human resource frame alone cannot explain resistance. The analysis of psychological safety links an individual reaction, embarrassment, to a team condition that leaders can change. The proposals are sequenced so that changes to the work come before training, which avoids asking people to adapt to a design that still does not fit them.
EDP 810 Module 3 help: mistakes that cost marks
Human resource papers often recommend appreciation events or general support without a diagnosis. Use a model, such as the job characteristics model, to identify what changed in the work. Bring in evidence on team climate, especially psychological safety, when people hide problems. Benchmark against research on practices. Tie each recommendation to a finding and a measure. Remember that the frame assumes organizations and people need each other; recommendations should serve both, not only employee satisfaction. Consider growth need strength and other individual differences; the same job change can energize one person and discourage another. Sequence proposals sensibly, fixing the work before adding training.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More EDP 810 and Doctor of Education sample papers
- EDP 810 Module 1: The Four Frames and Reframing
- EDP 810 Module 2: The Structural Frame
- EDP 810 Module 4: The Political Frame
- EDP 810 Module 5: The Symbolic Frame
- EDP 810 Module 6: Personal Frame Preferences
- EDP 810 Module 7: The Neuroscience of Leadership
- EDP 810 Module 8: Leading Change Across the Frames
- EDO 820 Module 5: Rule-Breaking and Exceptions
- EDO 812 Module 8: An Innovation Leadership Plan
- EDN 810 Module 3: Evaluating Resources and Capabilities
- EDN 812 Module 5: End-of-Life Treatment Disputes Policy
EDP 810 Module 3 questions, answered
What does EDP 810 Module 3 usually ask for?
Aspen's EDP 810 covers the human resource frame in this module, so a paper diagnosing a people problem with evidence and proposing practices is typical. Your Module 3 prompt sets the details.
What is the job characteristics model?
Hackman and Oldham's model, in which five core features of a job (variety of skills, a whole piece of work, its significance, autonomy and feedback) affect motivation and satisfaction through three psychological states.
What is psychological safety?
Edmondson's term for a shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking, such as admitting mistakes or asking for help.
Where can I find a free EDP 810 Module 3 sample paper?
You can read the whole paper here: a job characteristics diagnosis, the role of psychological safety and a table of practices with measures.
What practices do successful organizations share?
Pfeffer and Veiga list employment security, selective hiring, self-managed teams, performance-linked pay, extensive training, reduced status differences and information sharing.