DBAX 9102 Week 11 Stage 2 Assembly Document Example

Course	DBAX 9102 Business Research Project Stage 2
Week	Week 11
Paper type	Stage assembly
Length	About 1,000 words, 6 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	Doctor of Business Administration (DBA)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for DBAX 9102 Week 11

One Argument With a Turn in the Middle: Stage 2 Assembled for a Study of Mandated Sales Coaching, Moving From What the Coaching Literature Settles to the Records-Based Design That Tests What It Leaves Open

Student Name

Walden University

DBAX 9102: Business Research Project Stage 2

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title describes the document's shape, a review that turns into a design, which is how Stage 2 should read when assembled.

Introduction

This document assembles ten weeks of review and design work into one argument. Its first half asks what published research establishes about coaching by managers and where that research stops. Its second half turns on that stopping point and builds a design to test what remains open. The setting throughout is the industrial supply distributor where I work in sales operations, where a company policy since last year has set a monthly quota of two coaching sessions per outside salesperson for every sales manager.

What this page is doingThe assembled document announces its shape at the start, so the reader knows where the turn from review to design will come.

The Burden of Proof

Before reading, I set a standard that evidence had to meet before I would call coaching effective in a setting like ours: outcomes from company records rather than ratings, controls for differences between territories, and coaching by the salesperson's own manager. I set the bar against the claim I hoped was true, since I helped design the policy.

How the Literature Was Gathered

A documented search of three databases, with stated strings, limits and screening rules, followed the transparency that Tranfield et al. (2003) recommend for management reviews. It produced 37 studies, each coded on who coached, how coaching was measured, where the outcome came from and what design was used. A classmate's independent screening of a random sample led to one added rule.

What the Literature Claims

Sorted by what they claim, the studies fall into five groups. The best supported is that coaching improves individual outcomes on average, shown in meta-analyses by Theeboom et al. (2014) and Jones et al. (2016), though most coaching in those samples came from trained professionals. Field studies, including Ellinger et al. (2003) in distribution warehouses, link managers' coaching with employees' performance, but mostly through ratings. A smaller set separates coaching skill from frequency; Dahling et al. (2016) found that in a sales organization, frequent coaching paid off mainly when the manager coached skillfully.

What this page is doingThe review is summarized by claim, not by topic, carrying forward the sort from Week 3.

Why the Studies Disagree

Effects in the meta-analyses are larger than those in managerial field studies that use records. Two explanations survived testing: ratings-based outcomes inflate associations, consistent with the common method concerns Podsakoff et al. (2003) describe, and frequency counts capture less than skill does. Jones et al. (2016) also saw no dependable link between how many sessions were held and how large the benefit was. A records-based study of managerial coaching should therefore expect smaller effects than the meta-analyses report.

What Is Settled

Goal-setting research has established that specific, challenging goals with feedback raise performance (Locke & Latham, 2002). Feedback research has established that feedback helps on average but harms performance in a substantial share of cases (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). These findings let the study assume that coaching can work through goals and feedback, and warn it that more coaching is not guaranteed to help.

The Turn: What Remains Open

The review leaves one combination untested. No study in the set related manager-logged coaching frequency to recorded quota attainment among outside salespeople in industrial distribution while accounting for salespeople's ratings of coaching skill, under a policy that mandates frequency. The policy element matters: where frequency is required, poor coaches may coach as often as good ones, which changes what frequency means. Alvesson and Sandberg (2011) encourage questioning the assumptions behind a literature; here the assumption that coaching varies naturally no longer holds.

Design Options and the Choice

The design is multilevel and correlational, with salespeople nested within managers. Antonakis et al. (2010) caution that such designs support association, not causation. The study narrows the gap with a one-quarter lag between sessions and results, controls for prior attainment, territory potential and tenure, and by collecting the skill rating before outcome quarters. Shadish et al. (2002) explain why the rejected before-and-after design would have been exposed to concurrent events.

Table 1

From Remainder to Design

Requirement from the remainder	How the chosen design meets it \|
Managers in industrial distribution	Eleven branch sales managers at the author's employer \|
Logged coaching frequency	Sessions recorded in the customer relationship system, counted per quarter \|
Rated coaching skill	Salesperson survey using items adapted from Heslin et al. (2006) \|
Recorded attainment over time	Four quarters of quota attainment from the enterprise system \|
A mandated frequency policy	All managers subject to the two-session target \|

Random assignment was unavailable since the policy covers every manager; a before-and-after comparison failed because no coaching logs exist from before the policy.

The Evidence Plan in Brief

Each construct has a stated source and a standard for use: logged sessions must carry notes, skill scores need at least five raters per manager and quotas must be fixed before each quarter. Rules for setting aside unusable data are written in advance. A pilot on one branch's prior quarter will test the links between data sources.

What Changed After Challenge

Classmates' challenges led to two changes. A secondary outcome, gross profit, was added so that attainment gained through discounting would be visible. And four manager interviews were added, asking each to describe recent logged sessions, so a hollow frequency measure can be detected.

Reach and Limits of the Findings

Once controls are in place, the findings will show at this firm how session counts and coaching quality track with quota results, and whether frequency matters more where skill is high. It cannot say that the coaching policy caused any change, or that more coaching would raise results elsewhere. With sixty-four salespeople and eleven managers, the interaction will be treated as exploratory and reported with confidence intervals.

Conclusion

Read as a whole, Stage 2 makes one argument. The literature establishes that goals, feedback and skilled coaching can raise performance, but it has not tested whether mandating coaching frequency does. The design follows from that turn, and its limits are the price of the only design the setting allows. Stage 3 will put that design to work, beginning with the pilot.

References

Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247-271. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.59330882

Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086-1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010

Dahling, J. J., Taylor, S. R., Chau, S. L., & Dwight, S. A. (2016). Does coaching matter? A multilevel model linking managerial coaching skill and frequency to sales goal attainment. Personnel Psychology, 69(4), 863-894. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12123

Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., & Keller, S. B. (2003). Supervisory coaching behavior, employee satisfaction, and warehouse employee performance: A dyadic perspective in the distribution industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4), 435-458. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1078

Heslin, P. A., Vandewalle, D., & Latham, G. P. (2006). Keen to help? Managers' implicit person theories and their subsequent employee coaching. Personnel Psychology, 59(4), 871-902. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00057.x

Jones, R. J., Woods, S. A., & Guillaume, Y. R. F. (2016). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A meta-analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(2), 249-277. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12119

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.

Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & van Vianen, A. E. M. (2014). Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context. Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.837499

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

What the DBAX 9102 Week 11 instructions ask for

In Week 11 you bring the Stage 2 work together as a single argument. Open by announcing the document's shape, a review that turns into a design. Restate your burden of proof and summarize how the literature was gathered. Present the review by claim, explain why studies disagree and state what is settled. Make the turn explicit: state what remains open and why it matters. Then present the design, showing in a table how it meets each requirement of the remainder, followed by its threats and controls, the evidence plan and changes made after peer challenge. Close with what the study can and cannot say, and a conclusion that reads the whole stage as one argument.

Inside the DBAX 9102 Week 11 example

The introduction announces a review that turns into a design, set at an industrial supply distributor with a coaching policy. Sections restate the burden of proof and the search, citing Tranfield and colleagues. A section summarizes the claims, from the two meta-analyses to the warehouse and sales field studies. A section explains disagreement, citing Podsakoff and colleagues, and one states settled findings, citing Locke and Latham and Kluger and DeNisi. The turn section frames the remainder with Alvesson and Sandberg. A table links requirements to design, followed by threats, citing Antonakis and colleagues and Shadish and colleagues, and Heslin and colleagues' measure. The conclusion restates the turn in two sentences so the argument's shape is clear at the end as well as the start.

Where the marks sit in the DBAX 9102 Week 11 rubric

Assembled stages are judged on whether they read as one argument. An explicit turn from review to design carries the most weight. A table linking each requirement of the remainder to the design demonstrates coherence. Summarizing the review by claim, not by study, shows synthesis. Carrying forward the burden of proof, settled findings and threats shows consistency. Reporting changes made after peer challenge shows responsiveness. A final word on the limits of the findings keeps the reader's expectations honest. Assemblies that paste weekly papers together, lose the turn or overstate the design's reach will be returned for revision. Restating earlier weeks in fresh words, so the document reads as one piece, is expected. A conclusion that names both what the literature settles and what the design can claim shows the author has kept the argument's two halves in balance.

Common DBAX 9102 Week 11 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Before assembling, write the stage's argument in three sentences: what the literature shows, what it leaves open and how your design tests that. Use those sentences as section anchors. Restate earlier weeks in fresh words rather than copying, so the document reads as one piece. Make the turn visible with its own heading. Check that every requirement of the remainder appears in the design table. Many students assemble by stacking weekly papers, which repeats material and hides the argument. Others drop the limits they worked hard to identify. Read the finished document aloud from start to finish. Our writers can help you find where the argument loses its thread.

Get a DBAX 9102 Week 11 example written to your instructions

Enclose the Week 11 guidelines and rubric, the weekly pieces worth carrying forward and any instructor comments on them. The assembled stage document, crosswalk included, is back within 24-48h at no charge for a first request. Its review follows a parallel topic, leaving the substance of your own literature in your hands.

More DBAX 9102 papers and DBA samples

DBAX 9102 Week 11 questions, answered

Where can I find a free DBAX 9102 Week 11 sample paper?

The assembled Stage 2 document is posted in full below at no cost.

What shape does the DBAX 9102 Week 11 document follow?

A review that turns into a design at the point where the literature stops.

What remains open in the literature?

Whether mandated coaching frequency relates to recorded quota attainment in industrial distribution.

What design does the study use?

A multilevel correlational study with lagged quarters and controls.

What changed after peer challenge?

Gross profit was added as a secondary outcome and four manager interviews were added.