| Course | MHRM 6701 Strategic Positioning and Social Change |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 11 |
| Paper type | Strategy paper |
| Length | About 1,030 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Human Resource Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MHRM 6701 Week 11
Extending County-Referred Hiring to Both Plants With a Funded Path Into Maintenance: A Strategy Paper That Builds the Staffing Argument and the Social Argument to the Same Standard, Each Able to Fail
Student Name
Walden University
MHRM 6701: Strategic Positioning and Social Change
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Extending County-Referred Hiring to Both Plants With a Funded Path Into Maintenance: A Strategy Paper That Builds the Staffing Argument and the Social Argument to the Same Standard, Each Able to Fail
Recommendation
Allerton Linen Services, the family-owned hospital laundry examined throughout this course, should extend its county-referred hiring pilot from the Cheektowaga plant to its Henrietta plant in 2027 and fund four maintenance apprenticeships each year for overnight operators with good attendance, referred or not. The extension would hire up to twenty referred residents a year across both plants. The added cost is about $95,000 a year: $60,000 for the two plants' onboarding and coaching time and $35,000 for four apprenticeship places. This paper builds the staffing argument and the social argument to the same standard, each with evidence, each with a cost and each able to fail.
Where the Pilot Stands
Over its first twelve months, the Cheektowaga pilot took on twelve referred residents. Nine were still on the overnight crew at the end of the year and one had left for a better-paid day job elsewhere; two were dismissed, one for attendance and one for a safety violation. Overnight direct-hire turnover for other hires over the same period was about 70 percent a year. Agency staffing on nights fell from about 25 workers a night to 9, partly because of the pilot and partly because of direct hiring. On-time cart delivery rose from 94 to 98 percent of hospital floors.
These results are encouraging but small. With twelve hires, the difference in retention could narrow with another year's data, and the delivery gain cannot be credited to the pilot alone, since direct hiring of other overnight operators rose over the same months. The pilot has not yet reached its twelve-month social measure for most hires.
The Staffing Argument
The staffing argument is that referred hires, supported by a job coach and onboarded by experienced operators, stay longer than other overnight hires and replace agency workers who cost about $6 an hour more. Hausknecht et al. (2009) found that service quality falls when turnover is high and newcomers concentrate, which is consistent with the delivery improvement as the crew stabilized. Lundquist et al. (2018) found no performance penalty for people with felony records in a very large employer, which is consistent with the pilot's performance results.
Across the two plants, this argument costs roughly $60,000 annually. The benefit, if referred hires replace agency workers at the rate Cheektowaga saw, is about $12,000 per replaced position per year in agency markup alone, not counting lower turnover costs. Ten replaced positions would return about $120,000.
The staffing argument fails if, across both plants, referred hires' one-year retention is no better than other overnight hires' or agency hours do not fall. Henrietta's labor market is different from Cheektowaga's, with lower agency use, so the argument there rests more on turnover than on agency savings.
The Social Argument
The social argument is that referred residents hired into steady overnight work are more likely to remain in paid work and less likely to be rearrested at twelve months than qualified referred residents who could not be hired. The evidence is mixed: Valentine and Redcross (2015) found reduced recidivism in one transitional jobs program but not another, and in the national work experiment Uggen (2000) analyzed, the crime-reducing effect of a job appeared among older participants but not among those in their teens and early twenties. The pilot's lottery among equally qualified candidates provides a fair comparison, but with twelve hires the first year cannot settle the question. Twenty hires a year across two plants would give a clearer answer by the end of 2028.
The cost of the social argument is mostly borne by the reentry office, which funds the job coach and the follow-up. Allerton's cost is the time its supervisors and operators spend onboarding and the risk of a placement that fails publicly.
The social argument fails on either of two results: under 60 percent of hires working a year on, or a rearrest rate that matches or exceeds the lottery group's.
Why the Maintenance Path
The maintenance path answers a problem the two arguments share. The one referred hire who left for a better job was a loss on the staffing ledger and a gain on the social one. A path inside Allerton lets ambitious operators advance without leaving. The plant has had two maintenance technician openings unfilled since spring; four apprenticeship places, open to all overnight operators, not only referred hires, address that shortage while giving the overnight crew a visible reason to stay. Porter and Kramer (2011) describe this kind of overlap, where solving a social problem also addresses a constraint on the business, as the core of shared value.
Opening the path to all operators matters. A path reserved for referred hires would create resentment among the crew whose cooperation the pilot depends on, and it would mark referred hires as different on the floor, the opposite of what the onboarding is designed to do.
Risks
The largest risk remains a serious incident involving a referred hire, which would test hospital clients' confidence. The plant-only limit, the reentry office's screening standard and advance notice to clients remain in place. A second risk is that Henrietta's managers adopt the program reluctantly; the extension should begin only after Henrietta's plant manager and two of its experienced operators have visited Cheektowaga and agreed to lead it.
Measures for 2027 and 2028
Report to the board every six months, separately for each argument and each plant: one-year retention of referred and other overnight hires, agency hours, on-time delivery, employment status of referred hires a year after hire, rearrest against the lottery group and apprentices enrolled and completing. If either argument fails at both plants by the end of 2028, the board should decide whether to continue the program on the strength of the other argument alone.
Conclusion
The pilot's first year justifies extending it, not declaring it a success. Both arguments are promising, neither is proven, and the extension is designed to test both with more cases while adding a path that serves the business and the residents at once.
References
Hausknecht, J. P., Trevor, C. O., & Howard, M. J. (2009). Unit-level voluntary turnover rates and customer service quality: Implications of group cohesiveness, newcomer concentration, and size. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 1068-1075. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015898
Lundquist, J. H., Pager, D., & Strader, E. (2018). Does a criminal past predict worker performance? Evidence from one of America's largest employers. Social Forces, 96(3), 1039-1068. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sox092
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62-77.
Uggen, C. (2000). Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: A duration model of age, employment, and recidivism. American Sociological Review, 65(4), 529-546. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657381
Valentine, E. J., & Redcross, C. (2015). Transitional jobs after release from prison: Effects on employment and recidivism. IZA Journal of Labor Policy, 4, Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40173-015-0043-8
The Walden MHRM 6701 Week 11 instructions
The final paper asks you to make one strategic recommendation that integrates business and social aims. State the recommendation, its scope and its cost first. Summarize where things stand honestly, including results that are small or uncertain. Build the business argument and the social argument to the same standard: a claim, evidence, a cost and a condition under which it fails. Explain any element that serves both arguments. Name each risk and the design feature that limits it. Give decision makers measures and a point at which they should reconsider. Using parallel headings for the two arguments makes it easy for a reader to compare them.
Inside the MHRM 6701 Week 11 example
The paper opens with the recommendation to extend the pilot to both plants with four apprenticeship places. A section reports first-year results and cautions that twelve hires is a small number. A section builds the staffing argument with Hausknecht and colleagues and Lundquist and colleagues, prices it and states its failure condition. A section builds the social argument with Valentine and Redcross and Uggen, notes the lottery comparison and states its failure condition. A section justifies the apprenticeship on both ledgers, citing Porter and Kramer, and insists it be open to all operators. Risks, six measures and a conclusion follow. The staffing and social sections use the same internal order, claim, evidence, cost and failure condition, so the reader can compare them line by line.
Where the marks sit in the MHRM 6701 Week 11 rubric
Strategy papers are graded on integration and rigor. A recommendation stated first with cost and scope earns credit. Honest reporting of early results, including their limits, builds credibility. Holding the business and social arguments to the same standard, each with evidence, cost and a failure condition, is the paper's central task and is weighted heavily. Explaining how one element serves both aims shows integrated thinking. Concrete risk management and decision-ready measures complete the paper. Papers that treat the social case as a side benefit, or present early results as proof, receive lower marks. Clear headings that mirror the argument's structure help graders follow it.
MHRM 6701 Week 11 help from the desk
Start with the one thing you want the organization to do, how big it is and what it costs. Gather your results so far and say plainly how strong they are. Then write your business argument and your social argument using the same four headings: claim, evidence, cost and how it could fail. Look for an element of your plan that helps both, and explain it. Write down each risk with your response to it. Pick the measures you will report and the result that would send you back to the drawing board. Many final papers argue the business case thoroughly and the social case loosely. If you want help balancing the two, send us your outline. Four pages is typical for this paper.
Get a MHRM 6701 Week 11 example written to your instructions
Provide the final paper prompt, the rubric and your earlier weekly submissions for the course. The strategy paper assembles them into one recommendation, argued on staffing and social evidence in matching order, and returns within 24 to 48 hours, the first without charge. The sample's pilot results are illustrative, and the plants, clients and county belong to one invented company.
More MHRM 6701 papers and MS in Human Resource Management samples
- MHRM 6701 Week 1: Strategy Statement Discussion Post
- MHRM 6701 Week 2: Overnight Staffing Direction Memo
- MHRM 6701 Week 3: Reentry Hiring Stakeholder Analysis
- MHRM 6701 Week 4: Shared Value Position Paper
- MHRM 6701 Week 5: Social Claim Evidence Brief
- MHRM 6701 Week 6: Hidden Costs Peer Replies
- MHRM 6701 Week 7: Testable Social Change Claim
- MHRM 6701 Week 8: Board Approval Memo
- MHRM 6701 Week 9: Departure Counting Objection Memo
- MHRM 6701 Week 10: Hospital Laundry Outsourcing Case
- MHRM 6601 Week 11: Total Rewards Plan
- MHRM 6101 Week 11: HR Position Paper
MHRM 6701 Week 11 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MHRM 6701 Week 11 sample paper?
The full strategy paper appears on this page for free.
What does the MHRM 6701 Week 11 paper recommend?
Extending county-referred hiring to both plants and adding a funded path into maintenance.
What did the first year show?
Nine of twelve referred hires stayed, agency staffing fell from 25 to 9 a night and on-time delivery rose.
Why is the apprenticeship open to all operators?
A path only for referred hires would breed resentment and mark them as different on the floor.
When should the board reconsider?
If either argument fails at both plants by the end of 2028.