| Course | WMBA 6201 Individual and Organizational Performance Management |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 8 |
| Paper type | Metric brief |
| Length | About 580 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Business Administration (MBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for WMBA 6201 Week 8
One Metric for the Service Drive, Fixed Right the First Time, With the Three Ways People Will Bend It and the Counterweight Attached to Each
Student Name
Walden University
WMBA 6201: Individual and Organizational Performance Management
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
One Metric for the Service Drive, Fixed Right the First Time, With the Three Ways People Will Bend It and the Counterweight Attached to Each
The Metric
The service department at Cascade Ridge Auto, a made-up dealership, will add one metric to the advisor and technician bonus plan: the fixed-right-first-time rate, the share of customer-pay repair orders with no return visit for the same concern during the following month or the next 1,000 miles. Whether a later visit is a return for the same concern is the shop foreman's call. The department's rate was about 95.9 percent in the first half of the year; the target is 97.5 percent by year end.
Why This Metric
The department's pay plan rewards hours billed and work sold. Neither rewards a repair that holds, which is what customers most want and what the dealership's stated values promise. Kerr (1975) argued that organizations get the behavior they reward, and Holmstrom and Milgrom (1991) showed that when only some tasks are rewarded, effort moves away from the others. A single metric for quality, with real money attached, is the most direct correction. A comeback also costs the department twice, in unpaid rework and in a customer's trust, so the metric aligns pay with profit as well as with values.
The Distortions It Invites
Campbell (1979) warned that a number used to make important decisions attracts pressure to manipulate it, and in time warps the very activity it was supposed to track. This metric will be no exception. Three distortions are predictable.
First, under-coding. Classifying each return is the shop foreman's job. If his crew's bonus depends on the rate, he will be tempted to code borderline returns as new concerns.
Second, avoidance of hard jobs. Intermittent electrical problems and drivability complaints are the jobs most likely to come back. Technicians will be tempted to decline them, or advisors to route them to the dealership across town.
Third, discouraged returns. An advisor who suspects a repair did not hold might tell a customer to "give it a few weeks," pushing a return past the 30-day window.
The Counterweights
Table 1
Each Distortion and Its Counterweight
| Distortion | Counterweight | Who runs it | |
|---|---|---|
| Under-coding returns | The service manager reviews every return within 30 days that was coded as a new concern, monthly, and recodes where needed | Service manager | |
| Avoiding hard jobs | The share of intermittent and drivability jobs declined or transferred is reported beside the rate; a rise above last year's 3 percent pauses the bonus for review | Service manager | |
| Discouraging returns | A text survey to every customer at 45 days asks whether the problem was fixed; "no" answers count as repeat repairs | Customer relations coordinator | |
Composite design; the 45-day survey uses the dealership's existing texting tool.
Each counterweight measures the behavior the metric might push people toward. None requires new software.
What the Metric Is Not
The metric is not objective, and the department should not describe it that way. It depends on the foreman's coding, on customers' willingness to return and on the mix of jobs the department accepts. Treating it as a fact rather than a judgment would invite exactly the distortions above. It is a useful signal of whether repairs hold, read alongside its counterweights.
Recommendation
Adopt the fixed-right-first-time rate as the single quality metric in the bonus plan from the next quarter, with the three counterweights running from the first month, and review all four figures together each month for the first two quarters.
References
Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(1), 67-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(79)90048-X
Holmstrom, B., & Milgrom, P. (1991). Multitask principal-agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 7(Special issue), 24-52. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/7.special_issue.24
Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 769-783. https://doi.org/10.2307/255378
The Walden WMBA 6201 Week 8 instructions
The closing metric assignment in a performance management course usually asks for a short brief that chooses one metric, defends it, names the distortion it invites and attaches a counterweight. Instructors award the least credit to briefs that claim a metric is objective, because the course's point is that any number tied to rewards changes behavior. Students should define the metric precisely, since predictable distortions follow from the definition, and should design counterweights that measure the specific behavior each distortion would produce. Citing research on incentives and indicators strengthens the argument, and a recommendation that reviews the metric and its counterweights together signals that the design will be watched in practice.
How the WMBA 6201 Week 8 example is put together
The brief defines the metric precisely, including who codes a repeat repair, and gives baseline and target. A section explains why a quality metric is the right addition, citing Kerr and Holmstrom and Milgrom, and notes that comebacks cost the department twice. A section draws on Campbell to predict three distortions: the foreman under-coding returns, technicians avoiding intermittent jobs and advisors discouraging returns inside the window. A table attaches a counterweight to each, monthly recoding review, a declined-job share that pauses the bonus and a 45-day customer text survey, with owners. A section states plainly that the metric is a judgment, not a fact. The recommendation adopts the metric with all three counterweights from the first month. Margin comments flag the definition, the distortions and the counterweights.
Reading the WMBA 6201 Week 8 rubric
Graders reward a metric defined precisely enough that its distortions can be predicted. Defending the choice against the organization's existing incentives shows integration with the course. Naming specific distortions, rather than a general warning about gaming, carries the most weight. Counterweights that measure the exact behavior each distortion would produce demonstrate design skill. Refusing to call the metric objective, and explaining why, aligns with the course's central lesson. A recommendation that reviews the metric and counterweights together shows practicality. Instructors also check that counterweights require no new systems where existing tools suffice. Concise writing and accurate citations to incentive research complete the grade.
WMBA 6201 Week 8 help from the desk
Choose a metric that corrects what your organization currently overrewards. Define it so precisely that you can see who controls each part of the count. Then ask how each of those people could move the number without improving the work, and write down each way. For every distortion, design a second measure that would reveal it. Students often lose marks by calling their metric objective, by naming gaming only in general terms or by proposing counterweights that require new software. Another common gap is a metric with no clear owner. Keep the brief short. Recommend reviewing the metric and its counterweights together. If you would like a custom sample metric brief for your organization, send us what it currently rewards.
Get a WMBA 6201 Week 8 example written to your instructions
Drop the Week 8 prompt and its rubric into a note here and a finished metrics brief lands within 24 to 48 hours, first one free. Naming the metric or function your section assigns keeps the definition, distortion and guardrail anchored to that one. Operational numbers are yours alone, and a sample marks every figure that has to be replaced before submission.
More WMBA 6201 papers and MBA samples
- WMBA 6201 Week 1: Stated Versus Paid Values Post
- WMBA 6201 Week 2: Goals That Settle Themselves
- WMBA 6201 Week 3: Service Advisor Job Analysis
- WMBA 6201 Week 4: Rating Form Critique
- WMBA 6201 Week 5: Measure Collection Replies
- WMBA 6201 Week 6: Service Advisor Appraisal
- WMBA 6201 Week 7: Difficult Conversation and Record
- WMBA 6201 Week 9: Advisor Development Plan
- WMBA 6201 Week 10: Pay Rules Memo
- WMBA 6201 Week 11: Performance Management Proposal
- WMBA 6401 Week 8: Final Workforce Plan Reflection
- WMBA 6070 Week 8: Final Plan and Reflection
- WMBA 6501 Week 8: Handling Disagreement Synthesis
- WMBA 6060 Week 8: Corrected Plan and Retrospective
WMBA 6201 Week 8 questions, answered
Where can I find a free WMBA 6201 Week 8 sample paper?
The single metric brief for a dealership service department is posted here in full.
Which metric is chosen?
The fixed-right-first-time rate, repair orders not followed by a coded repeat repair within 30 days or 1,000 miles.
What distortions does it invite?
Under-coding returns, avoiding hard intermittent jobs and discouraging customers from returning.
How is under-coding caught?
The service manager reviews every return coded as a new concern each month.
Is the metric objective?
No; it depends on the foreman's coding, customers' returns and the mix of jobs accepted.