One manufacturer's acquisition team almost never advised walking away, and the Week 9 incentive analysis for MGMT 8009M ties that record to pay, evaluation and known preferences. Searches like "mgmt 8009m week 9 assignment example", "mgmt8009m week 9 sample" and "mgmt 8009m week 9 example" land here.
What a finished MGMT 8009M Week 9 incentive analysis looks like
Two exhibits frame about six pages: the team's twelve recommendations with outcomes where known, and the bonus plan, which paid on deals closed and said nothing about deals declined. The analysis opens with Kerr's observation that organizations frequently pay for conduct other than the conduct they say they want, applied here to a team asked for judgment and paid for closings. Prendergast's model of yes men follows, arguing that when evaluation is subjective, employees gain by echoing the evaluator's opinion, and the analysis shows the chief executive's enthusiasm for growth was stated at each kickoff. Lerner and Tetlock's review of accountability research supplies the third mechanism: accountability to an audience whose views are known in advance produces conformity rather than careful thought.
How a MGMT 8009M Week 9 example is structured
The record comes first, eleven proceeds in twelve, because the pattern needs no interpretation to be striking. The bonus plan follows as the first explanation, and Kerr's argument is kept to a paragraph, since the mismatch between paying for closings and asking for judgment is plain once the plan is shown. The evaluation section carries more weight. Annual reviews of the analysts were written by the head of corporate development, who reported to a chief executive with a public growth target; Prendergast's reasoning predicts that analysts will align with the evaluator's known view. The accountability section then explains timing: analysts learned the chief executive's position at each deal's kickoff, before any analysis began. The analysis ends with a redesign that separates recommendation from reward, and it prices the redesign in slower deal flow.
Eleven proceeds in twelve
The recommendation record is shown with outcomes where they are known. The lone exception, a deal the seller had already withdrawn, is identified as no exception at all.
A plan that paid for closings
The bonus formula rewarded completed transactions and was silent on declined ones. Kerr's point about paying for conduct other than the conduct wanted takes a single paragraph, since the plan itself makes it.
Evaluators with known views
The head of corporate development wrote every analyst's review and reported to a chief executive with a public growth target. Prendergast's yes-men reasoning predicts alignment with that known view, and the record shows it.
The answer before the analysis
Each deal's kickoff opened with the chief executive's remarks on strategic fit. Lerner and Tetlock's review shows accountability to a known view breeds conformity, and here the view arrived first.
Separating advice from reward
Analyst pay moves to the accuracy of past recommendations judged two years on, and a review panel whose members' views are not disclosed reads each recommendation. The analysis estimates the slowdown in deals closed.
Where marks go in MGMT 8009M Week 9
Incentive analyses earn most of their credit by showing mechanism, not motive. A paper claiming the analysts were greedy or timid has moved the explanation into their characters, leaving the course's premise behind however well it is written. Credit gathers where each mechanism is tied to a document: the bonus formula, the review form, the kickoff agenda showing when the chief executive spoke. Prendergast and Lerner and Tetlock are credited for accurate application, and confusing accountability with monitoring costs marks. The strongest analyses notice timing, that the analysts knew the preferred answer before they started. The redesign earns when it addresses all three mechanisms and admits its cost in deals not done.
Get a MGMT 8009M Week 9 example written to your instructions
Hand over the Week 9 prompt and rubric along with the role or team whose recommendations you are studying, and an incentive analysis with both exhibits comes back inside 24-48h; there is no charge the first time. Compensation details are described by structure, never by figure.
MGMT 8009M Week 9 questions, answered
Is this analysis accusing the analysts of dishonesty?
No, and saying so directly helps the paper. The analysts' recommendations were sincere judgments shaped by what the organization rewarded and whose view they knew. The mechanisms work on honest people, which is why they matter. An analysis that implies bad faith invites a defense of the individuals and loses the argument about the system.
Why include accountability research in an incentive analysis?
Because pay is only one thing the organization rewards. Approval, standing and the next assignment also depend on how a recommendation lands with the people who read it. Accountability research explains how knowing an audience's view shapes the recommendation itself, which the bonus plan alone cannot. The three mechanisms together account for the record better than any one.
Does the redesign have to cost something?
It should, and saying what makes it believable. Rewarding recommendations for accuracy rather than completion will slow the deal pace, and some good deals may be declined. The analysis names that cost and argues it is outweighed by the price of acquisitions approved by a process that could not say no. A redesign claiming no downside will not be believed.