MGMT 8725M Week 3 Capability Audit Example

Course	MGMT 8725M Human Resource Talent Management
Week	Week 3
Paper type	Capability audit
Length	About 750 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 3

Did Investment Follow Ability or Manufacture It? A Capability Audit Counting Store Leadership Capability Across a Grocery Chain's Whole Assistant Manager Population Alongside Three Years of Development Money, and Committing to a Range on How Much the List Created

Student Name

Walden University

MGMT 8725M: Human Resource Talent Management

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title poses the audit's direction-of-cause question and states its distinctive move, counting investment beside capability.

The Whole Feeder Population

Fenwick Markets has 194 assistant store managers, the feeder role for its 96 store manager positions. This audit counts store leadership capability across all of them, in three groups defined by designation rather than by any judgment of ability: the 14 on the high-potential list since 2021, 38 rated "strong" in at least two annual reviews but never listed, and the remaining 142. For each group, it records demonstrated capability on the skills store managers need and the development each group received over three years.

What this page is doingThe audit covers every assistant manager, not only the listed few, because the question concerns what happened to the people the list left out.

The Audit Grid

[after]

Capability is counted from what each group has done: periods running a store as acting manager, recorded in scheduling data, and results during those periods, recorded in store performance reports. Development is counted from training records and the mentoring program's logs.

Table 1

Capability Demonstrated and Development Received, by Group, 2023 to 2025

Group	Assistants	Led a store as acting manager for 4+ weeks	Hit sales and shrink targets while acting	Stretch assignments per person	Leadership course places per person	Mentoring hours per person
High-potential list	14	13	10	3.4	2.0	41
Rated strong, never listed	38	9	7	0.6	0.3	6
All others	142	11	6	0.2	0.1	2

Which Came First

The grid shows capability and investment moving together. The listed group has the most acting experience and the best results, and it received many times the development of the other groups. The question is direction. On the selection reading, Fenwick identified its most capable assistants in 2021, and the later differences reflect that initial judgment. On the other reading, the list created part of the difference: designated assistants received acting assignments, which are both development and the main evidence of capability, so the list manufactured the record that now justifies it.

The Matthew Effect, Extended

Merton (1968) described the Matthew effect in science: eminent scientists receive more credit for similar work than unknown ones, which brings them more resources and further recognition, so early advantage compounds. Extending his idea to corporate designation is this audit's own step. A place on the high-potential list brings acting assignments, which produce visible results, which confirm the designation. Eden and Shani (1982) showed a related expectancy effect in a military training course: trainees whom instructors were led to expect high performance from performed better, apparently because instructors treated them differently. Both mechanisms predict that an early label will widen the gap it claims to measure.

What this page is doingThe audit borrows a mechanism from the sociology of science and applies it, as its own extension, to corporate designation.

Evidence on Direction

Two pieces of evidence bear on direction. First, the 2020 performance reviews, written before the list existed, rated the 14 later-listed assistants only slightly higher on average than the 38 rated strong, suggesting the initial gap was small. Second, when the nine rated-strong assistants who did get acting assignments led stores, seven of them hit their targets, a success rate close to the listed group's. Where the never-listed group received the same opportunity, it performed nearly as well.

A Range, Committed To

On this evidence, the audit estimates that between one-third and one-half of the listed group's capability advantage, measured by successful acting stints, was produced by the development the list directed to it rather than identified by the list. The lower bound assumes the 2020 reviews understated the listed group's initial ability; the upper bound assumes they captured it. Björkman and colleagues found that employees who believed they had been identified as talent reported more positive attitudes and lower intention to leave (Björkman et al., 2013), so the list also shaped commitment, not only capability.

What the Audit Implies

If even a third of the gap was manufactured, Fenwick's shortage of ready store managers is partly a product of how it distributed acting assignments, and extending those assignments to rated-strong assistants is the cheapest way to enlarge the pool.

Limits of the Audit

The audit cannot observe what the 38 rated-strong assistants would have achieved with the listed group's full development, only what nine of them did with one acting stint. Its counts of capability also depend on acting assignments, which the list itself distributed, so the measure is not independent of the cause being tested. A cleaner test would give acting assignments to a random selection of rated-strong assistants over the next two years and compare their results with those of newly listed assistants.

References

Björkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., Mäkelä, K., Smale, A., & Sumelius, J. (2013). Talent or not? Employee reactions to talent identification. Human Resource Management, 52(2), 195-214. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21525

Eden, D., & Shani, A. B. (1982). Pygmalion goes to boot camp: Expectancy, leadership, and trainee performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2), 194-199. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.2.194

Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56-63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56

Reading the MGMT 8725M Week 3 instructions

In Week 3 you audit a capability across the whole population that could supply it, not only the people your organization has already designated. Define the groups by designation status, then record demonstrated capability and development received for each over the same period. Explain where each count comes from. Address the direction of cause: whether designation identified capability or helped create it. Use at least two sources on cumulative advantage or expectancy effects, and say plainly where you extend them beyond their original setting. Bring in any evidence that bears on direction, such as ratings written before designation or results among undesignated people given the same opportunity. Commit to a numerical range and state the assumptions behind each bound. Most audits for this week fill five or six pages.

How the MGMT 8725M Week 3 example is put together

The sample opens by defining three groups of Fenwick assistants without judging their ability. Its grid shows acting stints, results while acting, stretch assignments, course places and mentoring hours for each group from 2023 to 2025. A section sets the selection reading against the reading that the list produced the record now justifying it. Merton's account of compounding credit in science is extended, as the audit's own step, to corporate designation, and Eden and Shani's training study supplies an expectancy parallel. Two pieces of evidence follow: pre-list reviews showing a small initial gap, and seven of nine rated-strong assistants hitting targets when given acting stints. The range, its bounds and a note on Björkman and colleagues' findings about commitment close the analysis, with limits and a cleaner test.

MGMT 8725M Week 3 rubric: what earns full marks

Graders weight the population and the direction question most. An audit limited to designated people cannot answer whether designation created capability, so including everyone in the feeder role is essential. Each count should have a stated source. Strong audits present both the selection and creation readings fairly before weighing evidence. The use of cumulative advantage or expectancy research should be accurate and should mark clearly where the student extends it. A committed range, with assumptions attached to each bound, earns more credit than a statement that both readings have merit. Audits that note how their own measure depends on the investment being tested show awareness that marks the strongest work. Missing sources, invented findings or vague conclusions keep a paper in the middle band.

MGMT 8725M Week 3 help from the desk

The hard part of this audit is getting data on people the organization never tracked closely. Scheduling records, acting assignment logs and training registers often hold it. Define groups by designation, not ability, so your grouping does not assume the answer. Before you weigh direction, look for anything written before designation, such as earlier reviews. Then look for cases where undesignated people got the same opportunity, since their results are your best evidence. When you commit to a range, explain what would push the estimate to each end. Say what a cleaner test would look like. A tutor can help you build the grid and test your reading of the research, and the Fenwick audit above shows one complete version.

Get a MGMT 8725M Week 3 example written to your instructions

Upload the capability audit instructions, the rubric and any workforce figures the case supplies, and name the target work if your section leaves it open. Group-level grid, investment columns and the timing argument arrive inside 24 to 48 hours; a first sample is free. Individuals never appear, only groups defined by designation.

More MGMT 8725M papers and PhD in Management samples

MGMT 8725M Week 3 questions, answered

Where can I find a free MGMT 8725M Week 3 sample paper?

The Fenwick assistant manager capability audit appears above as the complete Week 3 sample.

Which groups does the MGMT 8725M Week 3 sample compare?

Fourteen listed assistants, thirty-eight rated strong but never listed, and the remaining 142.

What is the Matthew effect?

Merton's term for the way recognized scientists gain more credit and resources for similar work, so early advantage grows.

What evidence bears on direction in the audit?

Pre-list reviews showing a small initial gap, and rated-strong assistants succeeding at similar rates when given acting stints.

What range does the audit commit to?

That one-third to one-half of the listed group's advantage came from the development the list directed to it.