| Course | MGMT 8725M Human Resource Talent Management |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 11 |
| Paper type | Final talent paper |
| Length | About 800 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGMT 8725M Week 11
A Shortage Partly of Its Own Making: A Final Talent Paper Attributing a Share of a Grocery Chain's Store Leadership Gap to Its Exclusive Talent Philosophy, Proposing Differentiation by High-Impact Position Over a Broad Base and Naming Who Pays for the Change
Student Name
Walden University
MGMT 8725M: Human Resource Talent Management
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
A Shortage Partly of Its Own Making: A Final Talent Paper Attributing a Share of a Grocery Chain's Store Leadership Gap to Its Exclusive Talent Philosophy, Proposing Differentiation by High-Impact Position Over a Broad Base and Naming Who Pays for the Change
Claim and Proposal
Between a third and a half of Fenwick Markets' shortage of ready store and regional managers was produced by its own talent philosophy, which since 2021 has concentrated development on a short list and starved everyone else. Fenwick should replace that philosophy with one that differentiates by position, investing most where a manager's quality changes results most, while giving every assistant and supervisor a real route to the experiences that build capability.
What the Term's Work Established
The argument draws on four earlier findings. The role definition for regional operations manager showed that inherited requirements had shrunk the internal pool from 31 plausible candidates to 7. The capability audit found that rated-strong assistants who received acting assignments hit targets at nearly the rate of listed assistants, and estimated that one-third to one-half of the listed group's advantage came from the investment rather than the selection. The selection critique found that a relocation statement removed a third of nominees for a requirement most appointments never used. And the retention analysis found that strong performers left off the list resigned in a cluster in the three months after each April review.
The Central Contest
Michaels et al. (2001) argued that companies win by treating talent as a scarce asset: sorting managers into A, B and C players, investing heavily in the A players, developing the Bs and removing the Cs. Pfeffer (2001) answered that this mindset harms organizations: it labels most employees as less able, which can become self-fulfilling, it encourages internal competition at the expense of teamwork, and it overlooks the systems that make ordinary people perform well. Fenwick's 2021 list is close to the first view in practice. Its results over five years support several of Pfeffer's warnings: the unlisted performed nearly as well as the listed when given the chance, and many left when told they would not get it.
The Position Taken
The paper does not reject differentiation. Boudreau and Ramstad (2005) argued that investment should follow high-impact roles, the positions where better talent makes the largest difference to results. Fenwick's 37 high-volume, contested or high-shrink stores, and its three regional operations roles, fit that description. The position taken here differentiates by role, not by person: development budgets weighted toward preparing people for high-impact positions, selection into them based on demonstrated results in acting assignments, and a broad base of development beneath, open to every assistant and supervisor. In a well-known typology (Meyers & van Woerkom, 2014), this moves Fenwick from an exclusive, fixed philosophy toward one that treats potential as more widespread and developable, while still accepting that some roles warrant more investment.
The Unchosen
Any differentiation leaves people outside the favored group, and the organization owes them something specific. Under this proposal, every assistant and supervisor not selected for high-impact preparation is owed three things: a written statement each year of what would make them eligible, at least one acting opportunity every two years if their ratings meet a stated level, and access to the full leadership curriculum. Robinson and Rousseau (1994) found that perceived violations of employers' obligations were common and were associated with turnover and lower trust; the retention analysis suggests Fenwick's unlisted strong performers already experience the list as a broken implicit promise. Stating obligations explicitly, and keeping them, costs less than replacing the people who leave.
Who Bears the Cost
The proposal has costs, and they fall on identifiable people. The 14 currently listed assistants lose automatic access to rotations and must compete for high-impact preparation; some will leave. Store managers carry more acting assignments to supervise. And Fenwick's finance team gives up about $340,000 a year now spent on competitor hires, money redirected to internal development before its returns are proven.
What Would Prove the Paper Wrong
The claim fails if, after two years, assistants entering high-impact roles through the open route perform worse than listed assistants did, or if the shortage persists unchanged once acting assignments are spread widely. It also fails if unlisted strong performers continue to resign after the April review at the same rate under the new system.
Limits
The share attributed to the philosophy rests on a small number of acting assignments and on performance reviews written before the list existed, both imperfect. The estimate is offered as a range for that reason, and the proposal is built so that its first two years produce the data that would narrow it: every acting stint, under the new rules, is recorded with its results and the route by which the assistant reached it.
References
Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2005). Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability: A new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition. Human Resource Management, 44(2), 129-136. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20054
Meyers, M. C., & van Woerkom, M. (2014). The influence of underlying philosophies on talent management: Theory, implications for practice, and research agenda. Journal of World Business, 49(2), 192-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.003
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Harvard Business School Press.
Pfeffer, J. (2001). Fighting the war for talent is hazardous to your organization's health. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 248-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(01)00031-6
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), 245-259. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030150306
The Walden MGMT 8725M Week 11 instructions
For the final paper you argue how much of your organization's talent gap its own philosophy produced and to propose a different allocation of development. State the claim, as a share of the gap, and the proposed philosophy in the opening two sentences. Carry forward earlier weeks' findings where they support a step. Stage the central debate between investing heavily in top performers and building systems that develop many, representing each side accurately. Take a position of your own and justify it with strategic talent management research. Include a section on the organization's obligations to people outside the favored group, a section naming who bears the cost and a closing section on evidence that would prove you wrong. Expect twelve to fifteen pages.
How this MGMT 8725M Week 11 example is built
The sample opens by attributing one-third to one-half of Fenwick's gap to its philosophy and proposing differentiation by position. A section summarizes four earlier findings: the regional role's pool shrinking from 31 to 7, the audit's range, the relocation filter and the post-review exit cluster. The contest section states The War for Talent's A, B and C sorting and Pfeffer's critique before relating each to Fenwick. The position section uses Boudreau and Ramstad on high-impact roles and Meyers and van Woerkom's typology. A section on the unchosen lists three entitlements and draws on Robinson and Rousseau. The cost section names the listed assistants, store managers and finance as bearers. Falsifying results and limits close the paper.
MGMT 8725M Week 11 rubric: what earns full marks
Graders weight the claim and the integration most. The claim should be specific enough to dispute, ideally a share of the gap. Earlier work should be carried forward accurately and used where it supports a step, not repeated whole. The central debate must represent both sides fairly before the student takes a position. A position that differentiates thoughtfully earns more than one that rejects or embraces differentiation outright. The section on the unchosen should state concrete obligations. Naming who bears the cost shows maturity of argument, and a falsification section with observable results is required. Papers that summarize the term without a claim, misstate the literature or omit the cost section score in the middle band at best.
Common MGMT 8725M Week 11 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most common problem in final papers is a summary of the course instead of an argument. Write your claim first, as a number or range, and check each section against that claim. Go back through your earlier assignments and keep only the findings that support a step. Read both sides of the debate in the original sources, since secondary summaries often flatten them. Decide where you stand and why, then write down what you owe people outside the favored group as specific entitlements. Name who loses under your proposal; readers trust papers that admit costs. Finish on the results that would defeat your argument. A tutor can help you shape the claim and organize the integration, and the Fenwick paper above shows a finished version.
Get a MGMT 8725M Week 11 example written to your instructions
The final paper draws on the whole term, so attach its prompt and rubric together with the earlier assignments it should build on and any comments they received. Expect the full paper, with the contest staged and the unchosen addressed, within 24 to 48 hours; with no charge for a first sample. Missing weeks are reconstructed as sections.
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 10: Succession Memo
- MGMT 8805M Week 11: Closing Case
- MGMT 8815M Week 11: Design Argument
- MGMT 8705M Week 11: Final Evaluation Paper
- MGMT 8625M Week 11: Final Leadership Paper
MGMT 8725M Week 11 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MGMT 8725M Week 11 sample paper?
The Fenwick final talent paper above serves as the full Week 11 sample.
What share of the gap does the MGMT 8725M Week 11 sample attribute to Fenwick's philosophy?
Between one-third and one-half of its shortage of ready store and regional managers.
What philosophy does the sample propose?
Differentiation by high-impact position, with broad development and acting opportunities open to every assistant and supervisor.
What did Pfeffer argue against star-centered talent management?
That it labels most employees as less able, sets colleagues against each other and neglects the systems that make ordinary people effective.
What does Fenwick owe those not selected?
A yearly statement of eligibility criteria, an acting opportunity every two years if ratings qualify, and full curriculum access.