MGMT 8705M Week 1 Discussion Post Example

Organizational Behavior Performance and Evaluation Walden University Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This MGMT 8705M Week 1 discussion post example predicts one observable response to a new count at a composite insurer's property claims office: once adjusters are measured on the share of files closed within thirty days, they will close simple files early and let complicated ones age, because the count cannot tell a broken window from a disputed water claim. The mechanism comes from Kerr's classic complaint about reward systems that pay for A while wishing for B and from Holmstrom and Milgrom's multitask model, and Bevan and Hood's study of English health targets supplies a case where similar gaming was observed. Walden MGMT 8705M, Organizational Behavior Performance and Evaluation, opens the PhD in Management term by asking what switches such a response off, and the post names it.

CourseMGMT 8705M Organizational Behavior Performance and Evaluation
WeekWeek 1
Paper typeDiscussion post
LengthAbout 520 words, 3 pages
FormatDiscussion post, APA 7 citations
SchoolWalden University
ProgramPhD in Management
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for MGMT 8705M Week 1

1

Week 1 Discussion: What Happens After Something Starts Being Counted?

Easy Files Close Early, Hard Files Age: A Discussion Post Predicting One Response to a Claims Office's Thirty-Day Closure Count, the Mechanism Behind It, the Research That Saw It Elsewhere and the Condition That Would Switch It Off

The Prediction

When the property claims office at Granger Mutual, a composite regional insurer, starts counting the share of files each adjuster closes within thirty days, adjusters will close the simple files early and let the complicated ones age, because the count cannot tell a simple file from a hard one. A broken window and a disputed water-damage claim with a contractor estimate both count as one file. An adjuster under pressure to raise the share will clear the windows first.

What this page is doingThe post commits to one observable response in its first sentence, so the prediction can be checked rather than agreed with.
2

The Mechanism and the Research Behind It

Kerr (1975) described organizations whose reward systems paid for one thing while their leaders wished for something else, and argued that people predictably deliver what the reward system pays for. Here the office hopes for faster, fair resolution of all claims and counts only the share closed within thirty days. Holmstrom and Milgrom (1991) gave the mechanism a precise form: if only part of a job's work shows up in a measure, heavy pay for that part draws effort toward the measured task draw effort away from the unmeasured ones. The hard files, which need site visits, contractor negotiations and coverage decisions, are the unmeasured task in effect, since the count rewards closing them only if they happen to close in time. Bevan and Hood (2006), studying targets in English public health care, documented similar gaming, including effort concentrated on cases just inside a threshold while others waited.

What Would Switch It Off

The response depends on the count treating all files alike. If files were sorted by complexity when they opened, using the office's existing severity codes, and each adjuster's thirty-day share were compared only within each complexity band, closing easy files first would no longer raise anyone's number. I would expect the aging of hard files to shrink under that design, though some gaming within bands could remain.

What this page is doingThe post names a condition under which the predicted response would not occur, which makes the prediction falsifiable.
3

What I Would Watch For

Within two quarters of the count's launch, the average age of open complex files should rise while the thirty-day share rises too. If both fall together, my prediction is wrong.

Why This Response and Not Another

Other responses are possible. Adjusters might rush hard files to closure with low settlements, which would show up in reopened claims and complaints rather than in aging. I rank aging first because it requires no rule-breaking: an adjuster simply works the queue in a different order, and no supervisor would see anything wrong in any single file. Responses that are easy to justify file by file are the ones most likely to spread.

Reply to Corinne

You predict that a hospital's door-to-doctor time target will improve care. Which study observed that response directly, and in which kind of department?

Reply to Malik

Your prediction that a sales team will pull orders forward into the bonus quarter is plausible. Is there research that measured it, and did it find the effect strongest near the quarter's end?

References

Bevan, G., & Hood, C. (2006). What's measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration, 84(3), 517-538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00600.x

Holmstrom, B., & Milgrom, P. (1991). Multitask principal-agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 7, 24-52. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/7.special_issue.24

Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 769-783. https://doi.org/10.2307/255378

The Walden MGMT 8705M Week 1 instructions

Your first discussion post asks what happens once something at work starts being counted. Choose one measure and predict one specific response that someone could watch for, stated in your first sentence. Say briefly why people would respond that way and connect it to published research that observed something similar elsewhere. Then state the condition that would switch the response off, which makes your prediction testable. Close with what you would expect to see in the data if you were right and if you were wrong. Expect around four hundred words for the main post, followed on separate days by two replies asking classmates which study stands behind the response they predicted. Avoid general statements that people adjust to measures; name the adjustment.

How this MGMT 8705M Week 1 example is built

The sample opens with its prediction about easy and hard claim files. A mechanism section uses Kerr on misaligned rewards and Holmstrom and Milgrom on how incentives on measured tasks pull effort from unmeasured ones, treating hard files as effectively unmeasured. Bevan and Hood's documentation of gaming under English health targets provides an observed parallel. A section names the switch: sorting files by complexity at opening and comparing closure rates only within complexity bands. A short section states what the data would show within two quarters, rising average age of complex files alongside a rising closure share, and what would refute the prediction. Two replies ask classmates for the studies behind their own predictions about hospital and sales targets.

Where the marks sit in the MGMT 8705M Week 1 rubric

Graders give most credit to a specific, observable prediction and a stated off switch. Posts that say measured people adjust their behavior, without naming how, score in the middle. Strong posts state one response someone could watch for, explain the mechanism briefly, connect it accurately to research that observed a similar response and name the condition under which it would not occur. A short statement of what the data would show if the prediction failed demonstrates that the claim can be tested. A good reply presses a peer on which study stands behind a prediction. Accurate representation of Kerr and of the multitask model matters, and clean APA citations round out the grade.

MGMT 8705M Week 1 help from the desk

The common weakness is a prediction too vague to check. Write your first sentence so that someone could stand in the workplace and see whether it happened. Ask what the count cannot tell apart, since that is usually where gaming begins. Look for a published study, ideally in a different setting, that observed the same response. Then ask what design change would remove the reason for the behavior, and write it down. State what you would expect to see in records if you were wrong. Keep replies short and focused on evidence. A tutor can help you choose a measure with a clear predicted response, and the claims office post above shows each step.

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.

Request this week free All MGMT 8705M weeks Finished samples

More MGMT 8705M papers and PhD in Management samples

MGMT 8705M Week 1 questions, answered

Where can I find a free MGMT 8705M Week 1 sample paper?

The claims office discussion post, with two replies, is reproduced above as the Week 1 sample.

What response does the MGMT 8705M Week 1 sample predict?

That adjusters will close simple claim files early and let complicated files age once a thirty-day closure count is introduced.

What is the multitask problem?

Holmstrom and Milgrom's finding that strong incentives on measured tasks draw effort away from tasks that are not measured.

What would switch the predicted response off?

Sorting files by complexity when they open and comparing closure rates only within each complexity band.

How could the prediction be proven wrong?

If the average age of complex files falls along with the thirty-day closure share after the count begins.