| Course | MHRM 6901 Capstone: Strategic Human Resource Management |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 7 |
| Paper type | Reconciliation memo |
| Length | About 560 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Human Resource Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MHRM 6901 Week 7
Memorandum
To: Director of Human Resources, Hartwell Baking Company
From: Capstone Author, HR Analyst
Date: April 6, 2026
Re: Reconciling the workforce and rewards sections of the capstone
The Conflict
Two sections of the capstone each reached a sound finding, and together they contradicted each other. The workforce section found that Hartwell cannot hire enough qualified maintenance technicians in year one to staff the second restaurant contract on the customer's schedule: demand of about 27 against supply of about eleven. The rewards section found that technician pay sits about 11 percent below the illustrative market median and that the night premium pays under half of what nearby plants pay, and it implied that raising pay would solve the staffing problem. Both facts are real. The pay gap is real, and qualified technicians arrive slowly from the local market regardless of pay. Read separately, the sections pointed to different recommendations: delay the contract, or raise pay and proceed.
The Conclusion Both Facts Support
The consistency table in the rewards section showed better pay narrowing the first-year gap by roughly five people, leaving about eleven still unfilled. That is the bridge. Raising pay is necessary, because without it turnover stays high and every new technician Hartwell trains or hires is more likely to leave. But it is not sufficient, because even a faster hiring rate cannot supply 27 technicians in a year from a thin local market.
The one conclusion both sections support is this: Hartwell should accept the contract only on a phased schedule, running the new line at about 60 percent volume in year one and full volume by month eighteen, while raising technician pay to 95 percent of market, doubling the night differential and starting a two-year technician apprenticeship of eight apprentices a year. Pay changes reduce losses; phasing reduces year-one demand; the apprenticeship supplies technicians from year two onward. Cappelli (2008) argues that talent strategy under uncertainty should combine buying and building, so that the firm is not dependent on either alone. Muehlemann and Wolter (2014) found that firms often recover apprenticeship costs through apprentices' productive work and savings on future hiring, and Lerman (2014) reviewed evidence that employers gain from apprenticeships partly through lower recruiting costs and better retention of the workers they train.
Revisions Required
Table 1
Revisions Resulting From the Reconciliation
| Section | Original wording or claim | Revision | |
|---|---|---|
| Workforce | Demand of 27 in year one | Demand shown as a range of 25 to 29, with retirements and pay effects stated; 21 under phasing | |
| Workforce | Options compared at current pay | Options recompared with pay changes in place | |
| Workforce | Apprenticeship listed as one option | Apprenticeship made part of the recommended combination | |
| Rewards | Implies pay changes close the gap | Says better pay leaves roughly eleven posts unfilled | |
| Rewards | Cost of pay changes not linked to staffing | Cost shown beside the reduction in agency and vendor costs it allows | |
| Profile | No fact for apprenticeship cost | New fact F21 added: apprenticeship cost estimate | |
Composite organization.
What Remains Uncertain
The phased schedule depends on the customer agreeing to it, which sales has not yet tested. If the customer refuses, the capstone's recommendation becomes whether to decline the contract, and the final paper must say so plainly rather than recommend a schedule Hartwell cannot staff. I will raise this with the sales director before the summary is drafted next week.
References
Cappelli, P. (2008). Talent on demand: Managing talent in an age of uncertainty. Harvard Business Press.
Lerman, R. I. (2014). Do firms benefit from apprenticeship investments? IZA World of Labor, Article 55. https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.55
Muehlemann, S., & Wolter, S. C. (2014). Return on investment of apprenticeship systems for enterprises: Evidence from cost-benefit analyses. IZA Journal of Labor Policy, 3, Article 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-9004-3-25
MHRM 6901 Week 7 instructions, in plain terms
Week 7 asks you to reconcile two capstone sections that conflict. State both findings fairly and show why they cannot stand as written. Look for a conclusion that both sets of facts support, rather than choosing one section over the other. Explain how each part of that conclusion answers a different finding. Support the reconciliation with research. List every revision each section now requires, with the original wording and the change. Name what remains uncertain and what would happen to the recommendation if it went the wrong way. Two pages and a single revision table usually suffice for this memo, and the reconciled conclusion should fit in a short paragraph a sponsor could read aloud.
Inside the MHRM 6901 Week 7 example
The memo opens by stating both findings and the two recommendations they implied. A section uses the consistency table's numbers to show pay reduces the shortfall without closing it, then states the reconciled conclusion: phase the contract, correct pay and start an apprenticeship. It cites Cappelli, Muehlemann and Wolter and Lerman. A table lists six revisions across the workforce section, rewards section and profile, including a new fact for apprenticeship cost. A final section names the customer's acceptance of phasing as the main uncertainty and what the paper must say if it is refused. The revision table records the original wording beside the change, so the instructor can confirm that each section was actually revised rather than merely promised.
MHRM 6901 Week 7 rubric: what earns full marks
Reconciliation memos are graded on synthesis. Stating both findings fairly earns credit. Finding a conclusion that both sets of facts support, rather than discarding one, is weighted heavily and is the memo's central task. Showing how each element of the conclusion answers a different finding demonstrates integration. A complete revision table makes the reconciliation traceable. Research should support the logic of the combined approach. Naming the decisive uncertainty, with its consequence, shows honesty. Memos that simply pick the more convenient section, or blur both findings into vague agreement, receive lower marks. Respect for both earlier sections, treating neither as simply wrong, is valued. Clear dates on each revision help.
Common MHRM 6901 Week 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Start by setting the two sections side by side and underlining each one's conclusion. Write each section's main finding in one sentence. Ask whether both can be true at once; usually they can. Then ask what conclusion would be consistent with both. Often it combines elements each section recommended separately. Check that each element answers a specific finding. Make a list of every sentence in each section that must change, with the new wording. Finally, name the assumption your reconciled conclusion depends on most. Many capstones resolve conflicts silently, leaving readers to find inconsistencies. If you have two sections that disagree, send us both findings. Keep the reconciled conclusion to one paragraph.
Get a MHRM 6901 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Send the reconciliation instructions and rubric along with the two sections that disagree, or describe the conflict if the prompt supplies one. The memo states the shared conclusion first, quotes both claims, names the deciding fact and logs every edit, returned within 24 to 48 hours with no fee for a first. Neither section, nor the bakery they analyze, comes from a real capstone.
More MHRM 6901 papers and MS in Human Resource Management samples
- MHRM 6901 Week 1: Capstone Scope Proposal
- MHRM 6901 Week 2: Capstone Organizational Profile
- MHRM 6901 Week 3: Stated Versus Actual Gap Analysis
- MHRM 6901 Week 4: Workforce Planning Section Draft
- MHRM 6901 Week 5: Capstone Peer Workshop
- MHRM 6901 Week 6: Rewards Section Draft
- MHRM 6901 Week 8: Capstone Executive Summary
- MHRM 6901 Week 9: Capstone Appendix Set
- MHRM 6901 Week 10: Capstone Revision Pass
- MHRM 6901 Week 11: Strategic HR Capstone Paper
- MHRM 6801 Week 7: Causal Argument Paper
- MHRM 6751 Week 7: Expatriate Selection Brief
- MHRM 6701 Week 7: Testable Social Change Claim
- MHRM 6101 Week 7: HRIS Question Inventory Brief
MHRM 6901 Week 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MHRM 6901 Week 7 sample paper?
The reconciliation memo is posted in full below, free.
What two findings does the MHRM 6901 Week 7 memo reconcile?
That the bakery cannot hire enough technicians in a year and that technician pay sits below market.
What conclusion do both support?
Phase the contract to 60 percent volume in year one behind a pay correction and an apprenticeship.
Why is pay necessary but not sufficient?
Higher pay reduces losses and speeds hiring but still leaves a year-one shortfall of about eleven.
What remains uncertain?
Whether the customer will accept a phased schedule.