MGMT 8725M Week 6 Peer Reply Example

Course	MGMT 8725M Human Resource Talent Management
Week	Week 6
Paper type	Peer reply
Length	About 450 words, 3 pages
Format	Discussion reply, APA 7 citations
School	Walden University
Program	PhD in Management
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for MGMT 8725M Week 6

Week 6 Discussion: Does the Cause Travel?

Moving Two Classmates' Causes to Settings Where They May Not Hold: Talent Designation's Retention Effect in a Firm That Keeps the List Secret, and an Inclusive Program's Effect in a Plant Where Seniority Decides Promotion

Response to Priya

Priya, your claim is that naming high potentials improves retention, and you support it with a study in which staff who thought their employer had marked them as talent felt better about their work and were less inclined to quit (Björkman et al., 2013). I accept the finding. I want to move your claim to a firm that keeps its high-potential list secret, which several large employers do to avoid discouraging everyone left off.

The mechanism in that study runs through belief: the effect was measured among people who perceived that they had been identified. In a secret-list firm, the designated may never know, so the condition the effect depends on is missing. Some will guess from the assignments they receive, and the effect might operate for them, but those guesses are unreliable. Interviews with high potentials and HR directors found that this kind of ambiguity in high-potential programs can create unspoken promises that are later broken (Dries & De Gieter, 2014), which suggests that guessing could produce resentment rather than commitment.

So in a secret-list firm, I would expect your cause to weaken sharply. Where it should still operate is a firm that tells its high potentials directly and follows through on what that designation implies. Did the company in your post announce its list?

What this page is doingThe reply restates the classmate's causal sentence first, so the reader knows exactly which claim is being moved.

Response to Marcus

Marcus, you argue that your hospital's inclusive leadership program, open to every charge nurse rather than to a nominated few, caused its supervisor shortage to ease within two years. That is an inclusive, developable philosophy of talent in a published typology of talent philosophies (Meyers & van Woerkom, 2014), and your timeline is persuasive.

Now move the program to a unionized manufacturing plant where the collective agreement fills supervisor posts by seniority among qualified applicants. The program could still build skills in every lead hand who attends. What the seniority rule switches off is the link between skill and selection: the most capable graduate of the program cannot be promoted ahead of a more senior qualified colleague. The program would raise the floor of the candidate pool but would not let it reorder that pool.

That suggests the program might still ease a shortage there, though through a different route: by making more senior lead hands qualified, rather than by surfacing the most capable. Where your cause should operate as you described is any setting where completion of the program actually changes who is chosen. Did your hospital's promotion panel treat program completion as evidence?

What this page is doingThe relocation is chosen so that one enabling condition is clearly absent, which isolates the part of the mechanism being tested.

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

Dries, N., & De Gieter, S. (2014). Information asymmetry in high potential programs: A potential risk for psychological contract breach. Personnel Review, 43(1), 136-162. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2011-0174

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

What the MGMT 8725M Week 6 instructions ask for

Week 6 asks you to reply to two classmates whose posts each claimed a cause for a talent outcome. For each, quote or restate the classmate's causal claim first, then identify the finding or mechanism it rests on. Move the claim to a different setting in which one enabling condition is absent, and argue whether the cause would still produce the outcome there. Use published research to identify the condition, and cite it accurately. Avoid simply disagreeing; the point is to locate the boundary of the classmate's claim. Close each reply by naming the setting where the cause should still operate, and ask one question that would help the classmate test it. Keep each reply to about two hundred words, posted on different days.

How the MGMT 8725M Week 6 example is put together

The first reply restates Priya's claim that naming high potentials helps retention and accepts the evidence from Björkman and colleagues. It moves the claim to a firm with a secret list, noting that the effect was measured among people who believed they had been identified, and uses Dries and De Gieter's interviews on ambiguity in high-potential programs to suggest guessing could breed resentment. The second reply restates Marcus's claim about an inclusive hospital program, places it in Meyers and van Woerkom's typology, and moves it to a plant where seniority governs promotion. It argues the program could still raise the floor of the pool but could not reorder it. Each reply ends on a question that only the classmate's own case could settle.

Reading the MGMT 8725M Week 6 rubric

Graders reward replies that state the classmate's causal claim precisely and choose a relocation that removes one identifiable condition. The new setting should be realistic and explained briefly. Accurate use of the research the classmate relied on, plus at least one additional source, matters. Strong replies reason through the mechanism to say which part the new setting switches off, rather than asserting that the claim fails. Ending on where the cause should still work shows the reply is constructive. Replies that only agree, only criticize, or move the claim to a setting that differs in many ways at once score in the middle, since no single condition is tested. A focused question for the classmate and correct citations complete the marks.

MGMT 8725M Week 6 help: mistakes that cost marks

The difficult step in these replies is choosing a relocation that changes one thing. List what the classmate's mechanism needs to work, such as employees knowing their status or promotions following merit, then pick a real setting where exactly one of those is missing. Check the study the classmate cited, since the conditions are often in its sample or method. Write out how the mechanism would run in the new setting, step by step. If part of it still operates, say so. End by naming where the original claim should hold. A tutor can help you identify enabling conditions in a study, and the two replies above show how to keep each one short.

Get a MGMT 8725M Week 6 example written to your instructions

The two classmate posts under reply, plus the Week 6 reply requirements and rubric, are all the desk needs. Both replies, each relocating one claim and naming its boundary, come back in 24 to 48 hours, the first without charge. Classmates are referred to by their argument, never by name.

More MGMT 8725M papers and PhD in Management samples

MGMT 8725M Week 6 questions, answered

Where can I find a free MGMT 8725M Week 6 sample paper?

Two complete Week 6 replies, one on secret talent lists and one on seniority rules, appear above as the sample.

Where does the MGMT 8725M Week 6 sample move the first classmate's claim?

To a firm that keeps its high-potential list secret, so employees may not know they were identified.

Why might designation not aid retention under a secret list?

Because the finding was measured among people who believed they had been identified, a condition a secret list removes.

What does the seniority rule switch off in the second reply?

The link between skill and selection, since the most capable graduate cannot be promoted ahead of a more senior qualified colleague.

How long should each Week 6 reply be?

About two hundred words, posted on different days.