| Course | MLDR 6010 Managing People and Promoting |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Role analysis |
| Length | About 870 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Leadership |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MLDR 6010 Week 2
Duties Before People: A Role Analysis of the New Lead Technician Position at a Veterinary Clinic, Built From Critical Incidents and a Rated Task Inventory While Every Candidate Is Still Unnamed
Student Name
Walden University
MLDR 6010: Managing People and Promoting
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Duties Before People: A Role Analysis of the New Lead Technician Position at a Veterinary Clinic, Built From Critical Incidents and a Rated Task Inventory While Every Candidate Is Still Unnamed
Purpose
The Westerville clinic of Olentangy Animal Hospitals is creating a lead technician position because surgery days start late. Over the last quarter, the first scheduled procedure began more than thirty minutes after its booked time on 19 of 38 surgery days, and the reason given most often was the same: nobody owns the treatment board. Technicians, veterinarians and kennel assistants each adjust it, and when a technician calls out at 6:45 in the morning, the person who notices first does the rescheduling. This analysis describes the lead role as work, before any candidate is considered, so that later decisions about who fills it can be measured against something written down first.
Method
I gathered evidence in two ways. First, I collected critical incidents, following Flanagan (1954): I asked eight technicians, three veterinarians and two kennel assistants to describe a specific morning when the person running the floor handled a problem well or badly, what happened and what that person did. I asked for episodes rather than opinions because people asked to describe an ideal lead tend to describe a pleasant colleague, while people asked about a particular bad morning describe what the job requires. Second, I built a task inventory from those incidents and from three months of surgery schedules, and rated each task for how often it occurs and how much harm follows when it is done badly. Sanchez and Levine (2012) argue that work analysis should capture what the work demands in its context, not only a list of duties, and the incidents supply that context.
Task Inventory
Scheduling and coverage rate highest. Clinical procedures matter enormously, but the lead does not perform them more than other senior technicians, so they do not distinguish the lead role.
Table 1
Lead Technician Task Inventory, Rated
| Task | Frequency | Consequence if done badly | Priority | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Own the treatment board on surgery days | Every surgery day | Late starts, missed medications, client complaints | High | |
| Rebuild the day's schedule after a call-out | Weekly | Procedures run short-staffed or are canceled | High | |
| Assign technicians and kennel staff each morning | Daily | Idle staff in one area, overload in another | High | |
| Train new technicians through their first month | Monthly | Errors by new hires, early departures | Medium | |
| Check anesthesia equipment and controlled drug logs | Daily | Equipment failure, regulatory findings | Medium | |
| Perform advanced clinical procedures | Daily | Patient harm | Medium (shared with other senior technicians) | |
| Handle escalated client concerns at discharge | Weekly | Complaints, lost clients | Low | |
Composite clinic. Frequencies from three months of schedules; consequences from incidents and veterinarian review.
Incidents
Seven incidents shaped the requirements. Three are summarized here as examples. On one morning, two technicians called out, and a technician who had never run the board reassigned the kennel assistant to recovery monitoring without checking whether she had been trained; a veterinarian caught it. On another, a veterinarian arrived to find his first patient unprepared because the board showed the wrong order, and no one could say who had changed it. On a third, a senior technician noticed at 7:10 that the day held a double booking in surgery, moved a dental procedure to the afternoon, phoned the client and posted the change; every procedure that day started on time. The good mornings shared one feature: someone took the board early and announced the plan to everyone. The bad mornings shared another: the person best placed to fix the problem was already scrubbed in.
Requirements
Two candidate requirements were dropped because no incident or task supported them: a minimum of eight years' tenure and being "well liked by the team." I record the drops because both had been mentioned informally, and leaving them unwritten would let them return unannounced. Morgeson and Dierdorff (2011) note that work analysis can drift toward the person rather than the work; writing down what was removed is a small defense against that drift.
Table 2
Requirements and Their Sources
| Requirement | Source | Needed on day one or trainable | |
|---|---|---|
| Can rebuild a surgery day's schedule within fifteen minutes after a call-out | Incidents 1 and 3; task 2 | Day one | |
| Delegates by matching tasks to each person's training record | Incident 1; task 3 | Day one | |
| Announces the day's plan to all staff before the first procedure | Incidents 2 and 3 | Trainable | |
| Stays off the surgery floor when the board needs attention | Incidents 4 and 6 | Day one | |
| Teaches routine procedures to new technicians using the clinic's checklist | Task 4 | Trainable | |
| Maintains anesthesia and controlled drug logs to the clinic's standard | Task 5 | Day one | |
Composite clinic. Incidents are numbered in the order collected.
The Standard
Candidates for lead technician will be measured on six requirements, four needed on day one and two that the clinic will train: rebuilding a schedule quickly, delegating by training record, staying off the surgery floor when the board needs attention and keeping logs to standard, with plan announcements and new-hire teaching to be developed. Clinical excellence is expected of every senior technician and is not, by itself, a qualification for this role.
References
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327-358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061470
Morgeson, F. P., & Dierdorff, E. C. (2011). Work analysis: From technique to theory. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 2. Selecting and developing members for the organization (pp. 3-41). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12170-001
Sanchez, J. I., & Levine, E. L. (2012). The rise and fall of job analysis and the future of work analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 397-425. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100401
MLDR 6010 Week 2 instructions, in plain terms
Week 2 asks you to analyze a role before any candidate is discussed. State why the organization needs the role and what problem it answers, with a figure if you have one. Gather evidence about the work itself; asking people for specific good and bad episodes yields better material than asking for an ideal employee. Build a task inventory and rate each task for how often it happens and how much harm follows if it is done badly. Derive requirements last, tying each one to an incident or a high-consequence task, and record any requirement you drop and why. Separate what is needed on the first day from what can be trained, and close with the standard candidates will face.
How the MLDR 6010 Week 2 example is put together
The analysis opens with the late-start figure and the unowned treatment board. A method section explains the critical incident interviews with technicians, veterinarians and kennel assistants and the use of three months of schedules, citing Flanagan and Sanchez and Levine. A table rates seven tasks, putting board ownership, rescheduling after call-outs and morning assignments at the top. A section summarizes three incidents, including a kennel assistant sent to recovery untrained. A second table lists six requirements with their sources and timing. A paragraph records two dropped preferences, citing Morgeson and Dierdorff, and a final paragraph states the standard. Every requirement in the second table names the incident or task behind it, so a reader can test the link.
Reading the MLDR 6010 Week 2 rubric
Role analyses are assessed on whether every requirement can be traced to evidence about the work. A clear statement of the problem the role answers earns credit. Evidence gathered from specific episodes rather than general opinions shows sound method and is weighted heavily. Rating tasks by both frequency and consequence demonstrates judgment about what matters most. Requirements linked to their sources, with day-one and trainable items separated, make the analysis usable for selection. Recording dropped requirements shows transparency. Analyses that begin with a candidate in mind, list traits such as "team player" without evidence or copy a generic job description tend to score lower. A closing standard short enough to use when candidates are compared is also expected.
Common MLDR 6010 Week 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Before you write requirements, talk to three or four people who work beside the role and ask each for one morning, shift or project that went well and one that went badly. Write down what the person in charge did. Then list the tasks those stories reveal and rate each for frequency and for the damage when it goes wrong. Only after that should you draft requirements, and each should point to a story or a high-rated task. Students often draft requirements first and then find evidence, which tends to produce a description of whoever they already favor. Another trap is treating the most dramatic task as the most important. If your incidents feel thin, our writers can suggest interview questions that draw out specific episodes.
Get a MLDR 6010 Week 2 example written to your instructions
The Week 2 prompt and rubric are the working material, plus any job description the scenario supplies, and a completed role analysis comes back inside 24 to 48 hours, free on the first request. Roles outside veterinary care suit the same format; naming the job and its setting is enough for the tasks to be drawn from that work instead.
More MLDR 6010 papers and MS in Leadership samples
- MLDR 6010 Week 1: Popular vs Defensible Post
- MLDR 6010 Week 3: Lead Technician Selection Case
- MLDR 6010 Week 4: Performance Appraisal Write-Up
- MLDR 6010 Week 5: Feedback Conversation Script
- MLDR 6010 Week 6: Two-Sided Development Plan
- MLDR 6010 Week 7: Difficult Conduct Case Analysis
- MLDR 6010 Week 8: Handbook Policy Check
- MLDR 6010 Week 9: Peer Response on a Conduct Case
- MLDR 6010 Week 10: Organizational Justice Equity Review
- MLDR 6010 Week 11: Final Management Paper
MLDR 6010 Week 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MLDR 6010 Week 2 sample paper?
The complete role analysis, with both tables, is available below free of charge.
What problem does the MLDR 6010 Week 2 role answer?
Late surgery starts on 19 of 38 surgery days because nobody owns the treatment board.
How were incidents gathered?
By asking thirteen staff for specific mornings that went well or badly, following Flanagan's critical incident technique.
Which tasks rate highest?
Owning the treatment board, rebuilding the schedule after call-outs and assigning staff each morning.
Which requirements were dropped?
Eight years' tenure and being well liked, because no incident or task supported them.