Two replies sit under this MGMT 8705M opening thread, which names the response a thirty-day closure count provokes and cites research that recorded it first. Searches like "mgmt 8705m week 1 assignment example", "mgmt8705m week 1 sample" and "mgmt 8705m week 1 example" land here.
What a finished MGMT 8705M Week 1 discussion post looks like
Four hundred words or so carry the post, and two replies follow on separate days. The first sentence commits: a count of files closed inside thirty days will be met by closing the simple files early and letting the complicated ones age, because the count cannot tell a simple file from a hard one. The second paragraph sets that prediction beside Kerr's argument that organizations routinely reward one behavior while hoping for another, and beside Holmstrom and Milgrom's model, in which strong incentives on a measured task draw effort away from the tasks nobody measures. A third paragraph states the condition that would switch the effect off, usually files sorted by difficulty before the count begins. The replies ask each classmate which study stands behind the response they predicted.
How a MGMT 8705M Week 1 example is structured
The prediction leads, and it names a behavior somebody could watch for, which rules out saying the count will distort performance. The mechanism follows in one sentence: the tally rewards the date a file closes and records nothing about how hard it was, so difficulty becomes something a claims handler can choose. Research then enters as support for the mechanism and not for the conclusion, since no study observed this office; Kerr supplies the general pattern and the multitask model supplies the reason effort moves. The boundary paragraph is the writer's addition, naming the condition under which the predicted response should not appear. Replies come last. Each takes a classmate's predicted response, asks whether any published study observed that response, and says what the classmate would have to cite for the claim to stand.
A response somebody could watch for
The opening names what handlers will do: close simple files early and let hard ones age past the window. Predicting that the count will distort work names nothing, and leaves a classmate nothing published to test it against.
The mechanism in one sentence
The tally records the closing date and nothing about difficulty. That single gap is what makes the predicted response rational, and stating it plainly lets a reader check whether the research cited actually describes the same gap.
Research behind the mechanism
Kerr's account of rewarding one behavior while hoping for another gives the pattern; Holmstrom and Milgrom's multitask model explains why effort moves toward whatever is counted. Neither studied this office, and the post says so rather than implying a direct finding.
The condition that switches it off
Files sorted by difficulty before counting, or a count kept separately for complex files, should remove the incentive to choose easy work. Naming that condition turns a complaint about measurement into a claim the literature could confirm or refute.
Replies that ask for the study
Each reply quotes a classmate's predicted response and asks which published work observed it, in what kind of organization. A reply that supplies its own workplace story in agreement adds an anecdote where the thread asked for evidence.
Where marks go in MGMT 8705M Week 1
The predicted response earns the first block, and it is read for specificity: a post saying measurement changes behavior has stated the premise of the course, not a claim. Credit then follows the fit between mechanism and source. Citing Kerr for a prediction Kerr's argument does not reach, or treating the multitask model as an empirical study, costs more than citing less. The boundary condition takes two sentences and carries weight out of proportion to its length, since it makes the prediction falsifiable and most posts omit it. Source type is checked from the first thread onward, so a consultancy blog cited for a behavioral effect loses marks a journal article would have held. Replies carry their own allocation, which climbs when a reply exposes a predicted effect nobody has studied and stays at the floor for agreement.
Get a MGMT 8705M Week 1 example written to your instructions
Send the thread instructions for Week 1 along with the participation rubric; the finished post and two replies return inside 24 to 48 hours, first one free. An assigned reading becomes the source for the mechanism, and a different counted practice can replace the claims-office example on request, so the thread argues about something your classmates will recognize.
MGMT 8705M Week 1 questions, answered
Does the post need a study of the exact organization?
No, and almost none exists. What the post needs is research documenting the same mechanism somewhere else, with the setting named, so a reader can judge how far it travels. A study of hospital targets can support a prediction about a claims office if the post says what the two settings share and where they differ.
Can the post predict that counting improves the work?
Yes. Goal-setting research gives that prediction solid ground, since visible, specific targets often raise effort on the counted task. The post then has to say what happens to the uncounted parts of the job, because an improvement on the tally and a decline elsewhere can both be true at once, and the thread will ask which one the writer expects.
How much of my own workplace can appear?
The kind of count and the kind of work, described generally, are enough. Keep internal reports, figures and anyone's name out of it; that material belongs to the employer, and colleagues did not sign up to become evidence in a graded thread. The post argues from published research anyway, so a described setting does everything an identified one would.