| Course | MHRM 6751 Global and Cultural Effectiveness |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 7 |
| Paper type | Expatriate brief |
| Length | About 560 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Human Resource Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MHRM 6751 Week 7
Choosing Who Leads the Design Office Abroad: Criteria Weighted Before Either Candidate Is Scored, Predeparture Training Matched to How Unfamiliar the Posting Will Be, and an Adjustment Calendar for Twenty-Four Months
Student Name
Walden University
MHRM 6751: Global and Cultural Effectiveness
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Choosing Who Leads the Design Office Abroad: Criteria Weighted Before Either Candidate Is Scored, Predeparture Training Matched to How Unfamiliar the Posting Will Be, and an Adjustment Calendar for Twenty-Four Months
The Decision
Two Ostrander engineers have volunteered to run the firm's new office abroad for twenty-four months, and only one can go. Candidate A is a structural engineer with twelve years at the firm who has led two bridge designs, spent a university year abroad and speaks some of the host language. Candidate B is a project manager with fifteen years at the firm, strong client relationships and no international experience, whose family would relocate with them. This brief set its criteria and weights first, scored both candidates against them and then planned training and support for the one selected.
Criteria and Scores
The weights reflect the posting. The office's first need is technical leadership of young engineers on complex bridge work. Adaptability and language are weighted because Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al. (2005), combining dozens of studies, found that language ability and relational skills predicted international adjustment, and that family adjustment was among the strongest predictors. Caligiuri (2000) found that emotional stability, extraversion and agreeableness were linked to a weaker wish to end an assignment early. Relocation readiness was scored only on what each candidate chose to discuss, without assumptions about family circumstances.
Candidate A is recommended. Candidate B's client strengths are real and are better used leading the joint bridge project from Pittsburgh.
Table 1
Selection Criteria, Weights and Scores
| Criterion | Weight | Candidate A | Candidate B | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical leadership of structural design | 30 percent | 5 | 3 | |
| Developing local engineers | 20 percent | 4 | 4 | |
| Cross-cultural adaptability: prior international experience, openness | 20 percent | 4 | 2 | |
| Relocation readiness, as discussed by the candidate | 15 percent | 4 | 3 | |
| Host language | 15 percent | 3 | 1 | |
| Weighted score out of 5 | | 4.15 | 2.70 | |
Composite organization. Scores 1 to 5 agreed by the engineering director and HR before the comparison was shared.
Matching Training to Novelty
Black and Mendenhall (1990) proposed that the rigor of cross-cultural training should rise with three things: how different the culture is, how much interaction with locals the job requires and how new the job itself is. Candidate A's posting is moderately novel culturally, requires constant interaction with local engineers and clients and adds an office director's duties to a familiar technical role. That calls for training more rigorous than a briefing: twenty hours of language instruction before departure, a two-day session with a consultant who has worked in the host country, and a week shadowing the design office's interim lead.
Support Calendar
Black and Mendenhall (1991) reviewed the U-curve hypothesis, which holds that expatriates move from an initial honeymoon through a period of culture shock to adjustment, and found the evidence for it mixed. The calendar uses the U-curve as a planning prompt rather than a prediction.
Table 2
Support Calendar for the Twenty-Four-Month Posting
| Months | Expected strain | Support | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 to 3 | Novelty; practical setup | Relocation help, a local buddy, weekly calls with the engineering director | |
| 4 to 9 | Frustration as differences accumulate | Monthly coaching, a mid-point visit from HR, language lessons continued | |
| 10 to 18 | Adjustment, growing confidence | Quarterly reviews; begin repatriation planning at month 12 | |
| 19 to 24 | Attention turning home | Return role confirmed by month 18; knowledge transfer plan | |
Composite organization.
References
Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P., Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., & Luk, D. M. (2005). Input-based and time-based models of international adjustment: Meta-analytic evidence and theoretical extensions. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 257-281. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.16928400
Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. (1990). Cross-cultural training effectiveness: A review and a theoretical framework for future research. Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 113-136. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.11591834
Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. (1991). The U-curve adjustment hypothesis revisited: A review and theoretical framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(2), 225-247. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490301
Caligiuri, P. M. (2000). The Big Five personality characteristics as predictors of expatriate's desire to terminate the assignment and supervisor-rated performance. Personnel Psychology, 53(1), 67-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00194.x
Reading the MHRM 6751 Week 7 instructions
Week 7 asks you to select an expatriate and plan their preparation. Set criteria and weights before scoring any candidate, and justify the weights with research and the posting's needs. Score each candidate consistently and explain the recommendation, including how to use the candidate not selected. Handle family and personal matters only as candidates choose to discuss them. Match the rigor of training to how unfamiliar the posting will be, using a recognized framework. Build a support calendar for the full assignment, and be accurate about the strength of evidence behind any adjustment model you use. Two tables usually carry the brief: one for scoring and one for the support calendar.
How this MHRM 6751 Week 7 example is built
The brief opens with the two candidates and the rule that criteria were fixed first. A table lists five weighted criteria with scores for each candidate. A paragraph justifies the weights with Bhaskar-Shrinivas and colleagues and Caligiuri, noting that relocation readiness rested on candidates' own accounts. Candidate A is recommended and Candidate B given the joint project role. A section applies Black and Mendenhall's framework to set twenty hours of language training, a consultant session and a shadowing week. A support calendar table covers four phases, with a note that the U-curve's evidence is mixed. The scoring note records who agreed the scores and when, which shows the weights were not adjusted after the comparison was seen.
MHRM 6751 Week 7 rubric: what earns full marks
Expatriate briefs are graded on fairness and preparation. Criteria and weights fixed before scoring show procedural integrity and are weighted heavily. Weights justified by research and the posting's needs earn credit. Consistent scoring and a clear recommendation are expected. Respectful, consent-based handling of family matters shows ethical awareness. Training matched to novelty through a recognized framework demonstrates applied knowledge. A support calendar covering the whole assignment, with honest treatment of the evidence behind adjustment models, shows care. Briefs that choose a candidate first and justify afterward, or treat the U-curve as established fact, receive lower marks. Accurate arithmetic in the weighted totals is checked. Using the second candidate well also counts.
Common MHRM 6751 Week 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Before looking at the candidates, list what the posting requires and assign each requirement a weight that adds to 100. Look up research on what predicts success abroad to check your weights. Score each candidate on each criterion and calculate the totals. Then ask how unfamiliar the posting will be, culturally and in the job itself, and plan training to match. Finally, map the assignment month by month and decide what support each stage needs. Many briefs choose the more senior candidate without testing whether seniority is what the posting needs. If you are weighing candidates, send us your criteria first. Two to three pages is enough.
Get a MHRM 6751 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Share the expatriate brief prompt and rubric, with the posting and candidate profiles your section provides; if none are given, the sample's two engineers can serve. Weighted criteria, a scoring table and matched training return in 24 to 48 hours, with no charge for the first brief. Candidate A and Candidate B were drawn up for this sample alone.
More MHRM 6751 papers and MS in Human Resource Management samples
- MHRM 6751 Week 1: Offer Letter Discussion Post
- MHRM 6751 Week 2: Host Country Labor Market Brief
- MHRM 6751 Week 3: Performance Appraisal Comparison
- MHRM 6751 Week 4: GLOBE and Trompenaars Analysis
- MHRM 6751 Week 5: Time-Off Policy Adaptation
- MHRM 6751 Week 6: Generalization Peer Replies
- MHRM 6751 Week 8: Repatriation Planning Memo
- MHRM 6751 Week 9: Virtual Team Norms Memo
- MHRM 6751 Week 10: Closed Overseas Office Case Study
- MHRM 6751 Week 11: Global HR Final Paper
- MHRM 6701 Week 7: Testable Social Change Claim
- MHRM 6601 Week 7: Team Incentive Design
- MHRM 6101 Week 7: HRIS Question Inventory Brief
MHRM 6751 Week 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MHRM 6751 Week 7 sample paper?
The expatriate selection brief appears in full on this page, free.
How are candidates compared in the MHRM 6751 Week 7 brief?
Against five criteria weighted before either candidate was scored.
Who is recommended and why?
Candidate A, who scored 4.15 against 2.70, mainly on technical leadership, adaptability and language.
How is training rigor decided?
By Black and Mendenhall's framework: cultural novelty, interaction with locals and job novelty.
How is the U-curve used?
As a planning prompt for the support calendar, since the evidence for it is mixed.