| Course | MGT 514 Human Relations Management |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 7 |
| Paper type | MBA reflective paper |
| Length | About 1,046 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Master of Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGT 514 Module 7
Five Languages on One Line and Four Tables at Lunch: Working Across Differences in a Poultry Plant
Student Name
Master of Business Administration, Aspen University
MGT 514: Human Relations Management
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Five Languages on One Line and Four Tables at Lunch: Working Across Differences in a Poultry Plant
I supervise the evening deboning line at Ozark Valley Poultry, a composite processing plant in northwest Arkansas. Forty-eight workers on the line cut and trim chicken at stations along a moving conveyor. They come from many places: workers born in Mexico and Guatemala who speak Spanish, Marshallese workers from the Pacific islands, Burmese refugees, Congolese refugees who speak Swahili and French, and workers born in Arkansas. Most stations are staffed by people from the same language group, because new hires were placed next to friends who could translate. At breaks and lunch, workers sit in four or five groups. Last quarter, two near-miss injuries occurred when a worker did not understand a shouted warning from a neighbor in another language. This paper reflects on working across differences on my line.
When Contact Reduces Prejudice
Allport (1954) proposed that contact between groups could reduce prejudice, but only under certain conditions: the groups should have equal status in the situation, pursue common goals, depend on each other to reach them and have the support of authorities or institutions. Contact without these conditions, such as working side by side while competing or under unequal treatment, could strengthen stereotypes rather than reduce them.
What the Evidence Shows
Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) gathered 515 studies of contact between groups and found that, in most of them, more contact went with less prejudice, whether the groups differed by race, age, disability or other lines. Effects were stronger when Allport's conditions were present, though contact helped even without all of them. The finding suggests that bringing people together under the right conditions is one of the most reliable ways to improve relations between groups.
What Diversity Programs Achieve
Dobbin and Kalev (2016) studied decades of data from hundreds of American firms and found that the most common diversity efforts, mandatory training, hiring tests and grievance systems, often failed to increase diversity in management and sometimes reduced it, partly because people resist being told what to think. Programs that engaged managers in solving problems, increased contact and built accountability worked better: voluntary training, mentoring, cross-training, task forces and targeted recruitment.
The Line Against Allport's Conditions
| Condition | Current practice | Gap |
|---|---|---|
| Equal status | Same pay and job grades across groups | Met |
| Common goals | Individual pace measured; no team goals | Missing |
| Cooperation | Stations staffed by language group | Missing across groups |
| Authority support | Plant posts diversity statement; supervisors untrained in practice | Weak |
| Communication | Safety warnings in whatever language a worker knows | Risky |
What Workers Told Me
I asked a translator from the plant's human resources office to help me talk with workers from each group during breaks. Marshallese workers said they felt others assumed they did not want to learn English, when in fact classes were scheduled during their shifts. Burmese workers said that warnings shouted in Spanish were the most common source of confusion. Several Spanish-speaking workers said they had trained newer workers from other groups informally, without recognition, using gestures. An Arkansas-born worker said she felt like an outsider on her own line because conversations around her were in languages she did not speak. Each group, in other words, felt excluded in its own way.
Safety as a Shared Goal
Safety offers the clearest common goal on the line. Every worker wants to go home uninjured, and a near miss at one station can injure someone at the next. Allport's condition of common goals is easiest to meet when the goal matters to everyone and requires cooperation to achieve. Framing mixed teams around safety, rather than around diversity itself, gives workers a reason to cooperate that needs no persuasion.
My Own Assumptions
Reflecting honestly, I placed new hires next to people who spoke their language because it was easier for training, and I assumed the groups preferred to stay apart. When I asked a few workers, several said they would like to learn other workers' names and some English, but had no chance. My convenience became the line's structure.
A Plan for the Line
First, I will create mixed station teams of four, each with members from at least two language groups, with a team safety goal: zero near misses each month, recognized at the start of each shift. Second, the line will learn twenty shared safety words and hand signals, practiced in a five-minute huddle each week and posted at stations in pictures. Third, each new worker will have a mentor from a different language group for their first month, a voluntary role recognized with a small premium. Fourth, I will ask for volunteers to form a line committee that suggests improvements, following Dobbin and Kalev's evidence on task forces.
What the Plant Must Support
Allport's fourth condition, support from authorities, requires more than my line. I will ask the plant manager to move English classes to the start of the evening shift, paid, so workers who want them can attend, and to translate the safety handbook into the five languages on the line. The human resources office has agreed to provide an interpreter for monthly line meetings.
Why Not Mandatory Training
The plant's corporate office offered a one-hour mandatory diversity video. Dobbin and Kalev's findings suggest it would change little and might breed resentment, especially among workers who already feel lectured. The mentoring, shared goals and line committee in this plan create contact and cooperation rather than instruction.
Measures
I will track near misses and injuries, the share of station teams that are mixed, turnover by language group and a short survey on whether workers know the names of coworkers outside their group.
Starting Small
Changing every station at once would disrupt training and production. I will start with two stations whose workers volunteer, run them as mixed teams for a month and ask those workers to help design the next step. Volunteers make the change something workers shape rather than something done to them.
Conclusion
Allport's conditions show why working side by side has not brought my line together: there are no shared goals or cooperative tasks across groups. Pettigrew and Tropp's evidence shows that contact under better conditions reduces prejudice, and Dobbin and Kalev point toward mentoring and shared problem solving rather than mandatory training.
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard Business Review, 94(7), 52-60.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
Reading the MGT 514 Module 7 assignment instructions
Module 7 of Aspen's MGT 514 turns to diversity and working across differences of language, culture and background. Students usually reflect on a workplace they know and apply research on what reduces tension and builds cooperation. Module 7's prompt in your course sets the details; one production line is examined here. Describe the people and the differences that matter at work, without relying on stereotypes. Use research on intergroup contact and on diversity programs, including what does not work. Compare current practices with the conditions research identifies. Reflect on your own assumptions and role, including choices made for convenience. Recommend specific practices and how you will know whether they help.
Inside the MGT 514 Module 7 example
The writer supervises a deboning line at Ozark Valley Poultry, where workers from five language groups work side by side but rarely talk. Two near-miss injuries last quarter involved misunderstood warnings. Allport's book on the nature of prejudice set out the conditions under which contact reduces prejudice. Pettigrew and Tropp's Journal of Personality and Social Psychology meta-analysis found contact typically reduced prejudice, with stronger effects under Allport's conditions. Dobbin and Kalev's Harvard Business Review article found mandatory diversity training often failed or backfired, while voluntary training, mentoring, cross-training and task forces increased diversity in management. A table shows the line meets equal status but lacks common goals and cooperative tasks. The plan mixes language groups within each station team, sets team safety goals, teaches twenty shared safety words and pairs new workers with mentors from other groups.
Reading the MGT 514 Module 7 grading rubric
Diversity papers earn credit for describing people respectfully and specifically, applying research accurately and recommending practices with evidence behind them. This example uses Allport's conditions as a checklist for the line's current practices. Pettigrew and Tropp's meta-analysis shows the approach rests on broad evidence. Dobbin and Kalev's findings steer the plan away from mandatory training toward practices that work, such as mentoring and shared problem solving. The writer's reflection on their own assumptions adds honesty. The table and plan turn research into changes on the line, and interviews with each group show that every group felt excluded in a different way.
Common MGT 514 Module 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Diversity papers often recommend training or celebrations without examining how work is organized. Look at whether people work toward shared goals and cooperate as equals. Another weakness is describing groups in stereotyped terms; describe people and situations specifically. Use research on intergroup contact and on what diversity programs actually achieve. Reflect on your own assumptions. Consider practical barriers, such as language. Finally, set measures, such as safety incidents, mixed teams and turnover by group, to see whether changes help. Talk with people from each group about their experience of the workplace, then decide on changes.
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 MGT 514 and Master of Business Administration sample papers
- MGT 514 Module 1: Self-Understanding at Work
- MGT 514 Module 2: Attitudes, Values and Emotions at Work
- MGT 514 Module 3: Communication and Feedback
- MGT 514 Module 4: Working Relationships With Supervisors and Coworkers
- MGT 514 Module 5: Conflict and Difficult Conversations
- MGT 514 Module 6: Stress and Personal Problems at Work
- MGT 514 Module 8: Career Advancement and a Development Plan
- MGT 647 Module 6: Scaling Agile
- MGT 645 Module 7: Measurement
- MGT 570 Module 2: The External Environment and Uncertainty
- MGT 646 Module 6: Risk Assessment
MGT 514 Module 7 questions, answered
What does MGT 514 Module 7 usually ask for?
Aspen's MGT 514 covers diversity and working across differences in this module, so an MBA paper applying research to the writer's workplace is typical. Read your classroom prompt.
What is the contact hypothesis?
Allport's proposal that contact between groups reduces prejudice when the groups have equal status, common goals, cooperation and support from authorities.
Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice?
Pettigrew and Tropp's meta-analysis of more than 500 studies found that contact typically reduced prejudice, especially under Allport's conditions.
Where can I find a free MGT 514 Module 7 sample paper?
The example above reflects on working across five language groups on a poultry plant line and sets a plan built on mixed teams and shared goals.
Does diversity training work?
Dobbin and Kalev found mandatory training often failed or backfired, while voluntary training, mentoring and cross-training produced better results.