MGMT 8725M Week 5 Sourcing Plan Example

Two Routes to the Same Three Jobs: A Sourcing Plan Choosing Between an Accelerated Track for Designated Assistants and an Open Program for the Whole Feeder Population, Spreading a Fixed Budget Across Positions and Writing Down What Every Bypassed Assistant Still Receives

Student Name

Walden University

MGMT 8725M: Human Resource Talent Management

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Two Routes to the Same Three Jobs: A Sourcing Plan Choosing Between an Accelerated Track for Designated Assistants and an Open Program for the Whole Feeder Population, Spreading a Fixed Budget Across Positions and Writing Down What Every Bypassed Assistant Still Receives

High-Impact Positions First

Fenwick Markets has 96 store manager roles, but not every vacancy matters equally. Three kinds of store are where a manager's quality shows up most in results: the 18 high-volume stores with over $40 million in annual sales, the 11 stores in markets where a competitor opened within the last two years, and the 8 stores with chronic shrink above 3% of sales. Across these 37 stores, Fenwick's own records show the gap between the best and worst quartile of managers comes to roughly $1.1 million of annual operating profit per store; across the other 59, it is about $250,000.

Positions, Not People

Boudreau and Ramstad (2005) argued that talent decisions should concentrate where a change in the quality of talent most changes organizational results, rather than where talent is simply scarce or highly paid. Collings and Mellahi (2009) built a model that starts with those positions and fills them from a pool of high-performing, high-potential people developed for them. Both arguments move the unit of investment from a named person to a position. For Fenwick, that means the development budget should be spent with the 37 high-impact stores in view, not on whoever is on the list.

The Two Routes

[after]

Readiness estimates use Fenwick's past rate for listed assistants and, for the open program, the rate the Week 3 audit observed among rated-strong assistants who received acting assignments, discounted by a third for those with weaker records.

Table 1

Two Routes to High-Impact Store Leadership, Fixed Budget of $420,000 per Year

The Route Chosen

The plan chooses a blend weighted toward Route B. Every assistant can apply for the open program; those who complete its modules and meet performance criteria qualify for an acting assignment; and the accelerated features, such as executive mentoring and second acting stints, go to qualifiers who will be placed in the 37 high-impact stores. Selection for the accelerated layer happens after demonstrated acting results, not before, so the list no longer decides who gets the experience that produces the evidence. An acting stint judged on store results works much like a work sample test, which Schmidt and Hunter (1998) found among the more valid predictors of later job performance in their review of selection methods.

Timing and Checkpoints

The open program begins in the first quarter, with the first acting assignments in the third. At 12 months, the plan expects 10 assistants ready for any store and 4 for high-impact stores; at 24 months, 26 ready, of whom 12 are ready for high-impact stores. If fewer than 6 qualifiers succeed in acting assignments by month 12, the plan shifts budget back toward Route A for high-impact stores.

The Floor for the Bypassed

Every assistant who does not enter the program, or enters and does not qualify, still receives a written development conversation each year with a named next step, access to the leadership modules online, and first consideration for acting cover at their own store during a manager's leave. These cost about $35,000 a year in total and are not reallocated.

Costs of the Choice

The blend asks the 14 currently listed assistants to compete for the accelerated layer rather than receive it automatically, which some will read as a demotion. It also costs more management time, since store managers must supervise more acting assignments. Fenwick should expect some listed assistants to leave and should decide in advance whether to accept that loss.

How the Plan Will Be Judged

Fenwick should judge the plan on three numbers each quarter: high-impact vacancies filled internally, the share of acting assignments that met their targets, and turnover among assistants in the program compared with those outside it. If internal fills rise while acting results hold steady, the route is working; if acting results fall, entry criteria need tightening before the budget grows.

Limits

The readiness estimates depend on the Week 3 audit's small sample of nine acting stints and may prove optimistic. The plan's checkpoint at 12 months is designed to catch that early.

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

Collings, D. G., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19(4), 304-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.04.001

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262