MGMT 8900M Week 2 Topic Memo Example

Course	MGMT 8900M Prospectus Development and Alignment
Week	Week 2
Paper type	Topic memo
Length	About 680 words, 4 pages
Format	Memo, APA 7 citations
School	Walden University
Program	PhD in Management
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for MGMT 8900M Week 2

Memorandum

To: Course Instructor, MGMT 8900M

From: Doctoral student, PhD in Management

Date: January 20, 2026

Re: Narrowing the dissertation topic to a level where the core statements align

The Interest

My interest is how hybrid work arrangements change supervision in professional firms, where much of the learning that turns a junior professional into a senior one has traditionally happened by working beside a supervisor. Since 2020 many firms have kept staff on hybrid schedules, and the question of what supervision looks like when supervisor and staff are seldom in the same room is still open.

What this page is doingThe memo states the interest in plain words before narrowing it, so the instructor can see what each level gave up.

Three Levels

Table 1

Narrowing the Topic Until the Statements Align

Level	Topic	Problem	Purpose	Question	Verdict
1	Hybrid work and supervision	Widely studied; no clear gap	No population named	Too broad to answer	Rejected: the purpose has nobody to study
2	Hybrid audit teams in regional accounting firms	Sound: quality depends on review, and review has moved online	Concerns staff experience of hybrid work	Could be answered by surveying partners about policy	Rejected: purpose and question name different people
3	How audit managers at regional firms decide which reviews to conduct in person when staff work hybrid schedules	Managers must choose which reviews of staff work to hold face to face, and how they choose is undescribed	To explore how audit managers make that choice	How do audit managers decide which reviews to conduct in person?	Kept: one population, one decision

Each level was drafted in full; the table records why the first two failed.

Why the First Two Levels Failed

At level one, the problem was easy to write and impossible to own. Studies of telework and hybrid work are numerous, and Gajendran and Harrison (2007), in a meta-analysis of telecommuting, already summarized many of its effects on relationships with supervisors. The purpose sentence had no population, because "professional firms" covers lawyers, consultants, architects and accountants, whose supervision differs.

Level two fixed the population for the problem but split it in the purpose and question. The purpose concerned staff on audit teams, while the question, which asked how firms set hybrid policies, would be answered best by partners. A study can have only one group whose accounts answer its question, and here the statements named two.

Why the Third Level Holds

Level three gives the problem, purpose and question one population, audit managers at regional accounting firms, and one decision, which reviews of staff work to conduct in person. That decision is observable: managers can describe recent choices, and their calendars and review notes record them. It is also consequential, since the review of work papers is where junior auditors learn professional judgment and where errors are caught.

The level is narrow enough to study with interviews of perhaps fifteen to twenty managers across several firms. It is not so narrow that the findings would matter only to one firm, because many regional firms face the same choice.

What this page is doingThe memo shows the alignment rather than claiming it, by pointing to the shared population and decision in each statement.

Sources That Make Level Three Arguable

Four sources support the narrowed topic. Bloom et al. (2024), in a six-month experiment at a large technology company where staff were randomly assigned to hybrid schedules, found that hybrid schedules improved retention without harming performance, which suggests hybrid arrangements are likely to persist and so the supervision question will not go away. Golden et al. (2008) found that professional isolation affected teleworkers' job performance, and that face-to-face interaction changed that effect, which supports treating in-person review as a deliberate choice with consequences. Gajendran and Harrison (2007) provide the broader evidence on telework and supervisor relationships against which a narrower study can be positioned. Alvesson and Sandberg (2011) argued that strong research questions come from challenging assumptions in the literature, not only from spotting gaps; the assumption challenged here is that hybrid policy is set by firms, when much of it may be enacted one review at a time by managers.

Next Step

Week 3 will draft the problem statement at level three, with the general problem stated at the level of the audit profession and the specific problem at the level of the managers' choice.

References

Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247-271. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0188

Bloom, N., Han, R., & Liang, J. (2024). Hybrid working from home improves retention without damaging performance. Nature, 630(8018), 920-925. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07500-2

Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524-1541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524

Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2008). The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1412-1421. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012722

The Walden MGMT 8900M Week 2 instructions

For Week 2, write a two- to three-page memo to your instructor that narrows a research interest until its problem, purpose and question align. State the interest plainly in the first paragraph. Then present at least three levels of narrowing in a table, each with a draft problem, purpose and question and a verdict. Explain why each rejected level failed, being specific about which statement went wrong, such as a purpose with no population or a question that would be answered by a different group. Show how the final level gives all three statements one population and one decision or event. Close by naming the sources that make the final level arguable and saying what each contributes. Use standard memo headings.

How the MGMT 8900M Week 2 example is put together

The memo states the hybrid supervision interest and why it is still open, then sets three levels in a six-column table with a verdict for each. The section on failed levels explains that level one drew on a field already summarized by Gajendran and Harrison and named no population, while level two's purpose concerned staff and its question would be answered by partners. The level-three section points to the shared population and the observable decision, which managers can describe and calendars record, and estimates fifteen to twenty interviews. A sources section explains what each of four works contributes, and a one-line next step points to the Week 3 problem statement.

MGMT 8900M Week 2 rubric: what earns full marks

Credit depends mainly on whether each level's verdict names the statement that failed and why. Graders look for narrowing driven by alignment, not by convenience: a level rejected because it seemed too hard to study earns less than one rejected because its purpose and question name different people. The final level must give the problem, purpose and question one population and one event, and the memo should show this rather than assert it. Sources count when each one supports a named step in the case for the final level. Memos that list topics without draft statements, or whose last level still splits its population, score lower, as do memos that skip the reasons for rejecting earlier levels.

MGMT 8900M Week 2 help from the desk

Draft a problem, purpose and question at every level, even the ones you expect to reject; the failures teach you what alignment requires. Compare the population in each statement word by word. If your purpose names one group and your question would be answered by another, you have found the split. Narrow by making the decision or event more specific, not only by shrinking the population. Look for a decision that participants could describe and that leaves some record. Then find three or four sources that make that level worth studying, and say in one sentence what each adds. Should you want a second look at your table, our tutors can review it, and the hybrid audit memo above shows a completed version.

Get a MGMT 8900M Week 2 example written to your instructions

Attach the Week 2 instructions and rubric along with the broad interest you started from and any narrower versions already tried. A memo walking a comparable interest down three levels, each with trial statements, comes back in 24-48h; the first request is free. The level it stops at fits its own example; the one your reading supports is yours to find.

More MGMT 8900M papers and PhD in Management samples

MGMT 8900M Week 2 questions, answered

Where can I find a free MGMT 8900M Week 2 sample paper?

The hybrid audit topic memo, three-level table included, is reproduced above in full.

Where does the MGMT 8900M Week 2 sample end up?

With audit managers at regional firms deciding which reviews of staff work to conduct in person.

Why was level two rejected?

Its purpose concerned audit staff, while its question would be answered best by surveying partners.

What did Bloom and colleagues find?

In a randomized trial, hybrid schedules improved retention without harming performance.

What does problematization mean here?

Alvesson and Sandberg's idea of building questions by challenging assumptions in the literature, not only spotting gaps.