| Course | MGMT 8725M Human Resource Talent Management |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 10 |
| Paper type | Succession memo |
| Length | About 600 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGMT 8725M Week 10
Memorandum
To: Executive Vice President, Distribution, Fenwick Markets
From: Talent Management Lead
Date: November 30, 2026
Re: Succession for Regional Operations Manager, Atlanta region
Recommendation
I recommend appointing the designated operations lead at the Atlanta distribution center as regional operations manager from February 1, and pairing that person for 14 months with the operations manager at the Jacksonville center, who has not been on any talent list, to lead the 2027 negotiation with the drivers' union. The pairing ends when the new agreement is ratified.
The Candidate
The Atlanta operations lead has run the center's two night shifts since 2022 and has been on the high-potential list since 2021. Over that period, the center's on-time dispatch rose from 93% to 97%, recordable injuries fell by a third, and the lead managed a $24 million operating budget within 2% of plan in each of the last three years. These are the core demands of the role, and no other internal candidate matches them.
The Gap
The role will face one task the candidate has never done: the Atlanta drivers' contract expires in June 2027, and the regional manager leads the company's side of the negotiation. The candidate has sat in on one round as an observer and has not led any part of a negotiation, prepared a cost model for an offer or handled a grievance at the arbitration stage.
Where the Capability Sits
[after]
The Jacksonville manager has never been nominated because, according to the talent review files, the regional director at the time rated them "solid, not a leader of leaders."
Table 1
The Negotiating Capability: Candidate Against Jacksonville Manager
| Experience | Atlanta candidate | Jacksonville manager |
|---|---|---|
| Contract rounds led | 0 | 3 (2017, 2020, 2023) |
| Offer cost models prepared | 0 | 3 |
| Grievances taken to arbitration | 0 | 5, four upheld for the company |
| Strikes or work stoppages during rounds led | Not applicable | 0 |
| Talent list status | Listed since 2021 | Never nominated |
The Arrangement
The Jacksonville manager would serve as lead negotiator for Atlanta's 2027 round, reporting to the new regional manager, who would take part in every session and prepare the cost model with them. The Jacksonville manager would receive a $15,000 project stipend and recognition in their own review. If the candidate is not ready to lead the 2030 round alone, as judged by the union relations director, that would be a reason to reopen the regional appointment.
Cost and Risk
The stipend and travel cost about $28,000. The larger risk is friction: the Jacksonville manager may resent advising someone chosen over them. I propose meeting them before the announcement and asking, not telling. If they decline, the fallback is an outside labor counsel at roughly three times the cost, with no capability left inside Fenwick once the round ends.
Note on Sources
Lazear and Rosen (1981) modeled promotion as a tournament in which a prize awarded by rank motivates every contestant. My own inference, not theirs, is that announcing a winner years early, as the list did in 2021, removes that motive for the others in the race; the Jacksonville manager's record suggests some kept performing anyway. Bidwell (2011), studying an investment bank's personnel data, found that external hires were paid more than workers promoted into similar jobs yet received lower performance evaluations at first and were more likely to leave. That finding argues against hiring an outside negotiator. Rosenbaum (1979) showed how early selection decisions in a corporation narrowed later mobility, which may explain why the Jacksonville manager's capability was never on the list.
References
Bidwell, M. (2011). Paying more to get less: The effects of external hiring versus internal mobility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(3), 369-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839211433562
Lazear, E. P., & Rosen, S. (1981). Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 841-864. https://doi.org/10.1086/261010
Rosenbaum, J. E. (1979). Tournament mobility: Career patterns in a corporation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 220-241. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392495
Reading the MGMT 8725M Week 10 instructions
Week 10 asks you to write a succession memo to the executive who owns a role. Put the recommendation in the first paragraph. Name the leading internal candidate by role and summarize what they have demonstrated against the role's demands. State precisely the capability the role needs that the candidate has not shown. Then locate that capability elsewhere in the organization, often with someone no talent review listed, and show the comparison in a short exhibit. Recommend an arrangement that combines the two for a defined period, or reopen the choice, and state its cost and risks. Follow with a note on sources that separates what the research claims from your own inference. Expect a three-page memo plus a two-page note.
Inside the MGMT 8725M Week 10 example
The sample's first paragraph recommends appointing the Atlanta operations lead and pairing them with the Jacksonville manager for the 2027 negotiation. A section records the candidate's results in dispatch, injuries and budget. A section states the gap: no contract round led, no offer cost model prepared and no grievance taken to arbitration. A short table compares the two managers on negotiation experience and talent list status, noting why the Jacksonville manager was never nominated. The arrangement sets reporting lines, a stipend and a condition for reopening the appointment. Costs and the risk of friction follow, with an outside counsel fallback. The note on sources marks its own inference from Lazear and Rosen and uses Bidwell's findings against an external hire.
Where the marks sit in the MGMT 8725M Week 10 rubric
Graders look first for a recommendation the executive can act on from the opening paragraph alone. The candidate should be described by demonstrated results, and the gap stated as specific tasks rather than general qualities. Locating the missing capability with a named role, and explaining why that person was overlooked, is the memo's distinctive step. The arrangement must have a defined period, reporting lines and a condition for ending or reopening it. Costs and risks belong in the memo, not left for later. The note on sources should represent research accurately and keep the writer's inference clearly separate. Memos that bury the recommendation, describe the gap vaguely or recommend an outside hire without considering internal holders score lower.
MGMT 8725M Week 10 help: mistakes that cost marks
Write the recommendation last and then move it to the top. Before that, list what the role will actually require in the next two years, including rare tasks like contract negotiations or system changes. Compare the candidate's record with that list and name the gap precisely. Then search the organization for anyone who has done that task, including people outside the talent list; incident logs, project records and long-serving managers are good sources. Design an arrangement with a beginning and an end. Price it. In the note on sources, say plainly where a theory stops and your own reasoning begins. A tutor can help you structure the memo for an executive reader, and the Fenwick memo above shows each part.
Get a MGMT 8725M Week 10 example written to your instructions
Send the memo prompt, the rubric, and the role and candidate your case describes; a composite can be built instead. Memo and source note are written inside 24 to 48 hours, free for a first request. Both people are described by role alone, and no real talent review supplies any detail.
More MGMT 8725M papers and PhD in Management samples
- MGMT 8725M Week 1: Discussion Post
- MGMT 8725M Week 2: Role Definition
- MGMT 8725M Week 3: Capability Audit
- MGMT 8725M Week 4: Supply Analysis
- MGMT 8725M Week 5: Sourcing Plan
- MGMT 8725M Week 6: Peer Reply
- MGMT 8725M Week 7: Selection Critique
- MGMT 8725M Week 8: Development Case
- MGMT 8725M Week 9: Retention Analysis
- MGMT 8725M Week 11: Final Talent Paper
- MGMT 8705M Week 10: Findings Interpretation
- MGMT 8625M Week 10: Impact Note
- MGMT 8615M Week 10: Report Comparison
- MGMT 8003M Week 10: Peer Review Letter
MGMT 8725M Week 10 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MGMT 8725M Week 10 sample paper?
The Fenwick regional operations succession memo above is the complete Week 10 sample, with its note on sources.
Who does the MGMT 8725M Week 10 sample recommend?
The designated Atlanta operations lead, paired for fourteen months with the Jacksonville operations manager.
What gap does the memo identify?
The candidate has never led a union contract negotiation, and the Atlanta drivers' agreement expires in June 2027.
Why was the Jacksonville manager never listed?
A former regional director rated them solid but not a leader of leaders, according to the talent review files.
What did Bidwell find about external hires?
They were paid more than internal promotees in similar jobs but received lower early performance evaluations and left more often.