Nomination, mobility screen, performance cutoff: each stage of one identification process is examined for the capable people it drops; that examination is the Week 7 critique in MGMT 8725M. Searches like "mgmt 8725m week 7 assignment example", "mgmt8725m week 7 sample" and "mgmt 8725m week 7 example" land here.
What a finished MGMT 8725M Week 7 selection critique looks like
About five pages, carried by a stage table. Rows follow the process in order: manager nomination, a rating threshold, a stated willingness to relocate, an interview panel, final calibration. Columns record what each stage is meant to detect, what it actually screens on, and who it plausibly removes, such as part-time staff, people whose managers rarely nominate anyone, or caregivers who cannot move at short notice. For mechanism, the critique leans on Kanter's account of homosocial reproduction, in which managers favor candidates who resemble them, and on Benson, Li and Shue's evidence that firms promoting their best sales performers into management often got weaker managers, which the critique uses to question performance cutoffs as a test of potential. It closes by ranking the stages by the capability they remove and proposing one change to the worst.
How a MGMT 8725M Week 7 example is structured
Process, intent, actual screen, casualties, ranking, change. The process is reconstructed from the case or from published descriptions of common practice, and every stage appears, including informal ones such as who managers think to mention. Each stage's intent is stated in the language the organization itself uses before the critique examines what the stage actually responds to, which keeps the argument from assuming bad faith. Casualties are described by kind of person and by the capability they carry, never by name. The literature then explains the mechanisms: similarity in nomination, and the confusion of present results with capacity for a different job. The ranking orders stages by how much needed capability they discard, which is a different order from how unfair each looks. A single proposed change closes the paper, with its expected effect and the new filter it might introduce.
Informal stages included
The moment a manager decides whom to mention in a talent review is a stage, even though no policy describes it. The critique puts it in the table, because it often removes more people than any formal threshold.
Intent before critique
Each stage is described first by what the organization says it detects. The critique then asks what it actually responds to, which frames the problem as design rather than bad faith and makes the argument harder to dismiss.
Present results, different job
A sales record predicts selling. Evidence that top sellers promoted into management often underperform there supports the critique's claim that a performance cutoff tests the current role, not the target one.
Casualties by capability
People removed at each stage are described by kind and by what they could have contributed, never by name. That keeps the paper confidential and ties each loss to the work the organization is short of.
Ranked by what is lost
Stages are ordered by the needed capability they discard. The most unfair-looking stage is sometimes not the costliest, and saying so shows the critique is about supply, not only about fairness.
One change and its side effect
The proposed fix to the worst stage carries an expected effect and the new filter it could create, such as a nomination quota that rewards managers for naming anyone at all.
Where marks go in MGMT 8725M Week 7
The stage table carries the main weight, and graders check that informal stages appear alongside formal ones; a critique limited to written policy misses where most people leave the process. Stating each stage's intent before critiquing it earns a distinct portion, since papers that assume managers act in bad faith are marked as polemic. The literature is judged on mechanism: citing research on similarity bias or on promotion outcomes counts only when it explains a specific row. Casualty descriptions are checked for both specificity and confidentiality. The ranking is where stronger papers separate, particularly when they show that the costliest stage is not the one that looks worst. The proposed change earns full credit only when its own side effect is named, because every filter replaced introduces another.
Get a MGMT 8725M Week 7 example written to your instructions
Forward the Week 7 critique assignment and rubric, plus a description of the identification process where the case describes one; a common multi-stage process is used when it does not. A ranked stage table with its literature and one costed change is ready in 24 to 48 hours, with the first free. Removed candidates are described by kind only.
MGMT 8725M Week 7 questions, answered
Is this critique about discrimination law?
No. The week examines which capable people a process loses and what that costs the organization's supply of capability. Legal questions about selection belong to other courses and to qualified counsel. Where a filter plausibly falls harder on one group, the critique can say so as a capability finding, but it should not offer a legal judgment about it.
Where does evidence about who a stage removes come from?
Case materials sometimes give counts at each stage. Otherwise, published research on nomination and promotion processes supplies the likely pattern, and the critique labels it as inferred. A stage's casualties can also be reasoned from its rule: a relocation requirement removes people who cannot move, whatever their capability. State which kind of evidence supports each row.
Is performance really a poor test of potential?
It tests readiness for more of the same work better than readiness for different work. Silzer and Church's review of how organizations define potential cautions against equating strong current performance with potential, and the evidence on promoting top sellers into management shows the gap in practice. The critique need not discard performance; it argues how much weight a cutoff deserves.