| Course | BU 302 Leadership and Organizational Behavior |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Individual differences memo |
| Length | About 850 words, 5 pages |
| Format | Business memo with analysis, APA 7 references |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Business Management |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 302 Unit 2
Memorandum
To: Renee Castillo, Operations Manager, Maintenance Division
From: Operations Coordinator
Date: February 4, 2026
Re: Supervising Travis Boone and Andre Walker differently this season, using the Big Five
Purpose
You asked how to get more from two of our strongest crew leads before the season starts in March. This memo applies one framework from our course reading, the Big Five model of personality, to Travis Boone and Andre Walker, compares them on the dimensions where they differ most and recommends one change in how each is supervised. Greenline Grounds, both crew leads and every behavior described here are composites built for this course; no real employee's record is used.
The Framework
The Big Five model describes personality on five broad dimensions: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness to experience (Robbins & Judge, 2019). Each person falls somewhere along each dimension rather than into a type. The model is useful for supervisors because its dimensions are linked to work behavior. In a meta-analysis of 117 studies, Barrick and Mount (1991) found that conscientiousness predicted job performance across every occupational group they examined, while extraversion predicted performance mainly in jobs involving interaction with others, such as sales and management. A later meta-analysis of personality and leadership found extraversion to be the Big Five dimension most consistently related to both emerging as a leader and being judged effective, with conscientiousness also related (Judge et al., 2002). A crew lead's job includes both: careful, repeated work on properties and daily contact with crew members and, increasingly, with property managers.
A framework like this describes tendencies, not destinies, and it should be used to choose supervision strategies, not to label people. The descriptions below are based on behavior observed during last season, not on a personality test.
Behavioral Sketches
Travis Boone has led a maintenance crew for three seasons. In the Monday safety huddle he is usually the first to speak and often jokes with the other crews. Property managers ask for him by name; two of them mentioned him favorably in contract renewals. His crew finishes more properties per day than any other, and he is proud of the whiteboard. He loads his trailer quickly and often skips the walk-around check. His crew had the most client callbacks last season, 14, mostly for missed edging and bed cleanup on the last property of the day. When he is stuck, he calls you or the account manager right away.
Andre Walker has led a crew for two seasons. He rarely speaks in the huddle unless asked, and he prefers to text rather than call. He walks a full circle around his trailer every morning and checks each property against the work order before leaving. His crew had three callbacks last season, the fewest in the division, and his properties per day were slightly below average. Property managers describe his work as excellent, but when a manager approaches him on site with a request, he usually says he will pass it along to the account manager rather than answer. When he is stuck, he works the problem himself before asking.
Applying the Framework
Travis shows the behaviors associated with high extraversion: he seeks out conversation, energizes the group in the huddle and builds relationships with clients quickly. His callbacks and skipped trailer checks suggest lower conscientiousness, the dimension associated with thoroughness, organization and following through on routine tasks. The pattern of callbacks on the day's last property fits this reading: attention to detail fades when the goal becomes finishing the list.
Andre shows the reverse pattern. His daily trailer check, work order review and low callback count are behaviors associated with high conscientiousness. His preference for texting, his quiet presence in meetings and his habit of passing client requests along rather than handling them suggest lower extraversion. The findings of Barrick and Mount (1991) suggest Andre's conscientiousness is the more reliable predictor of performance across jobs, but the growing client-contact part of the crew lead role is where extraversion matters.
Comparison
The table compares the two crew leads on the three dimensions where their behavior differs most. Both appear similar on agreeableness and emotional stability, so those dimensions are not used for the recommendations.
| Dimension | Travis Boone: observed behavior | Andre Walker: observed behavior |
|---|---|---|
| Extraversion | Speaks first in huddles; clients ask for him by name | Speaks when asked; prefers text; defers client requests |
| Conscientiousness | Skips trailer check; 14 callbacks, often last property | Full trailer check; work order review; 3 callbacks |
| Openness to experience | Suggests new shortcuts, some untested | Prefers the established checklist |
Recommendations
For Travis, add structure without taking away the client contact that he does well. Give him a short end-of-property checklist, five items covering edging, beds, blowing, gates and photos, and have him mark it in the app before closing each property. Review his callbacks with him weekly for the first month, framed around protecting the client relationships he has built. This addresses the conscientiousness gap directly while respecting his strength.
For Andre, build confidence in client contact rather than asking him to become outgoing. Pair him with an account manager for two property walks in March so he can see how requests are handled, and give him authority, in writing, to agree on the spot to small requests under 15 minutes of work. Clear authority reduces the need to improvise in conversation, which is where he hesitates. Both recommendations aim at the specific behaviors observed and can be checked after a month by counting callbacks and client requests handled on site.
References
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.
Reading the BU 302 Unit 2 instructions
Unit 2 in BU 302 calls for a memo applying one framework of individual differences, often personality or perception, to people in a workplace and recommending how a supervisor should act. Most rubrics want the framework named and cited, a short behavioral description of each person, an application that links behaviors to the framework, a comparison and specific recommendations. The memo format matters, with a header and a purpose statement. Many instructors allow composite coworkers. Sources such as the course textbook and one or two research articles strengthen the application. Expect a couple of pages, cited in APA 7. A memo addressed to a real supervisor role, with a date and subject line, reads more convincingly than one addressed to no one.
How the BU 302 Unit 2 example is put together
The sample opens with a memo header and a purpose paragraph that names the framework and states that both crew leads are composites. A framework section summarizes the five dimensions and brings in two research findings linking them to job performance and leadership. Behavioral sketches describe each crew lead's habits in meetings, on properties and with clients, using counts such as callbacks. The application section reads those behaviors through extraversion and conscientiousness, one person at a time. A three-row table compares them. The memo ends with one recommendation for each, a checklist and weekly callback review for one and paired property walks with written authority for the other.
Where the points sit in the BU 302 Unit 2 rubric
The rubric for this memo generally rewards correct use of the framework, quality of the behavioral evidence, the comparison and the practicality of the recommendations, with memo format and citations as a smaller criterion. Framework points depend on defining dimensions accurately and citing the source. Evidence scores highest when each claim about a person rests on a described behavior rather than a label. The comparison criterion looks for the dimensions that actually differ. Recommendations carry the most weight in many sections and earn full points when they are specific, tied to observed behavior and measurable, as the sample's are. A proper memo header and APA references complete the grade.
BU 302 Unit 2 help before you submit
A frequent mistake in Unit 2 is assigning a personality type without describing any behavior that supports it. Another is treating the framework as a fixed label rather than a set of tendencies. Students often describe both people well and then give identical advice, such as communicate more, which ignores the differences they just found. Some papers rely on an online quiz result instead of observation. Others forget the memo format. Finally, keep the recommendations small and checkable; a checklist and a count of callbacks after one month are more convincing than a promise to develop each person's potential. Remember too that two people who differ on one dimension may be similar on others, so compare only where the evidence shows a difference.
Get a BU 302 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 2 instructions and the rubric from your BU 302 classroom, along with the framework your section reads. We write a custom example that sketches behavior before naming a type, applies the model to two composite coworkers and ends on the supervision each would receive. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 302 papers and business management samples
- BU 302 Unit 1: Organizational setting profile
- BU 302 Unit 3: Motivation theory application
- BU 302 Unit 4: Team dynamics write-up
- BU 302 Unit 5: Communication breakdown analysis
- BU 302 Unit 6: Influence tactic comparison
- BU 302 Unit 7: Organizational culture read
- BU 302 Unit 8: Applied behavior case file
- BU 242 Unit 2: Segment definition
- BU 245 Unit 2: Routine memo or email
- BU 106 Unit 2: Forms of ownership paper
- BU 217 Unit 2: Legal environment paper
BU 302 Unit 2 questions, answered
Which personality framework should the memo use?
Whichever your reading supplies, named in the first paragraph. Sections differ, and a memo applying a popular workplace inventory while the classroom teaches a five factor description reads as borrowed from elsewhere. If your instructions leave the choice open, take one from the assigned chapters and stay with it, since switching midway costs consistency marks.
Do I have to take an inventory myself?
Only where the instructions ask, and some sections do include a self report exercise. Where they do, your own result belongs to you and is safe to write about; another person's result is not yours to publish. Report your outcome in general terms and spend the space on what it explains about your behavior at work.
Can both people be composites?
Yes, and in many sections that is the safer choice. Build each one from patterns you have seen across several teams rather than from one identifiable person, and say in a line that you did. The memo is graded on whether the framework reads the behavior, and behavior assembled for the assignment tests that just as well.
Where can I find a free BU 302 Unit 2 sample paper?
The complete BU 302 Unit 2 memo is available above at no cost, including the comparison table and both recommendations. If your framework or coworkers differ, share the assignment details and a custom memo will be drafted free for you, normally in 24 to 48 hours.
Which framework fits BU 302 Unit 2 best?
The one your course reading emphasizes, most often the Big Five. The sample uses it because research links its dimensions to job performance, which makes supervision advice easier to justify. Whatever framework you use, describe behavior first and then connect it to the dimensions.