| Course | WMBA 6401 Human Resource Analytics |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 8 |
| Paper type | Final plan and reflection |
| Length | About 1,040 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Business Administration (MBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for WMBA 6401 Week 8
The Workforce Plan Revised and a Position on Evidence in People Decisions: Final Recommendations for a Library System's Assistants, and Four Episodes From Eight Weeks That Shaped the Writer's View
Student Name
Walden University
WMBA 6401: Human Resource Analytics
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
The Workforce Plan Revised and a Position on Evidence in People Decisions: Final Recommendations for a Library System's Assistants, and Four Episodes From Eight Weeks That Shaped the Writer's View
Revisions to the Plan
The Week 7 workforce plan for Elk River, the fictional library system studied all term, set a hiring target of 34 library assistants for next year and joined four earlier analyses to show how it could be met. Feedback raised two points, and the plan has been revised for both.
First, reviewers questioned the assumed effect of the scheduling rule, which reduced expected resignations from 28 to 22 and raised offer acceptance. The revised plan keeps those estimates as the central case but adds a lower case in which the rule has half the assumed effect: 25 resignations and a hiring requirement of 37. Recruiting is planned for 40 hires either way, and the April review now has a clear trigger: if first-quarter resignations among first-year assistants exceed four, the library adds the evening float pool.
Second, reviewers asked how the plan would know whether the schedule rule was actually followed. The revised plan reports the schedule change rate monthly by branch, using the scheduling system's records, with a target below 12 percent at the late-closing branches.
Final Recommendations
Table 1
Final Recommendations for Next Year
| Action | Start | Measure | Owner | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Post schedules three weeks ahead; approve changes inside seven days | January | Schedule change rate by branch, monthly | Branch services manager | |
| No evening-heavy schedules for assistants in their first six months | January | Share of first-year assistants over 40% evening hours | Branch managers | |
| Same-day self-scheduling for phone screens | January | Phone-screen completion rate | HR recruiter | |
| Recruit through the community college and state the schedule commitment in postings | February | Applications per opening | HR recruiter | |
| Two staff at every late closing; lighting checks; escort arrangement | January | Safety item in the March pulse survey | Facilities and branch managers | |
| Pay adjustments for compressed assistants and inverted librarians | July | Range penetration by tenure band | HR director | |
| Hire 34 to 37 assistants | All year | Assistants in post at quarter ends | HR director | |
Composite plan for a composite library system.
How the Plan Will Be Reviewed During the Year
The HR director will present a one-page update to the library's leadership team each quarter, showing assistants in post, resignations by tenure band, the schedule change rate by branch, the phone-screen completion rate and offer acceptance. The April update carries the decision point for the evening float pool. The July update confirms that the pay adjustments were applied according to the rule. The October update begins planning for the following year, using the same four analyses refreshed with a full year of data. Each update compares results with both the central case and the lower case, so the leadership team can see which one the year is following.
Reflection: A Position on Evidence in People Decisions
My position after eight weeks is that evidence improves people decisions most when it is used to choose among explanations, and least when it is used to produce numbers for their own sake. Four episodes from the term shaped that view.
The headline rate that hid the problem
In Week 3 the board was satisfied with a 17 percent turnover rate. Taking the table apart showed assistants working mostly evenings leaving at 35 percent. The overall figure was accurate and misleading at once. I now distrust any workforce average presented without the groups inside it.
The measure I nearly chose
In Week 2 I was tempted to use the engagement survey's overall score because leaders already trusted it. Setting it aside for three narrower measures turned out to matter: the schedule change rate became the strongest single piece of evidence in the plan. The lesson is that the measure that is easiest to get is often not the one that answers the question.
The pay assumption the data did not support
Before this course I would have said assistants leave over pay. The survey ranked pay lowest in score but low in its link to intent to stay, and only 5 of 28 leavers named it. Allen et al. (2010) warned that managers commonly overestimate pay's role in turnover, and I was one of those managers. Evidence changed what I would have recommended.
The pipeline loss nobody had looked at
The Week 4 analysis found that more than a third of qualified, interested candidates vanished before a phone screen because scheduling took nine days. No one had counted it because no one owned that stage. Marler and Boudreau (2017) noted how often HR analytics remains at the level of reporting; this was a case where simple counting, done once, found a fixable loss.
The plan that only worked once the findings were joined
In Week 7, each earlier analysis on its own pointed to a separate project. Only when the findings were put against one headcount number did it become clear that the scheduling rule acted on three of them at once, and that recruiting improvements alone could not close the gap. I would not have seen that from four separate reports. The lesson for my own practice is to start any analysis by naming the decision it serves, so that findings arrive already pointed at the same question.
A number I almost reported without its group
Early in the term I drafted a summary for my own manager that cited the 17 percent turnover rate as good news. I deleted it after the Week 3 breakdown. I now include at least one breakdown whenever I report a workforce average, even in an informal email.
Where Evidence Falls Short
Evidence did not settle everything. The effect of the scheduling rule is an estimate, and the plan's lower case exists because I cannot be sure of it. Hom et al. (2017) showed how many factors combine in decisions to leave, and no dataset at the library captures child care, commutes or a better offer across town. My position is therefore not that people decisions should follow the numbers, but that numbers should be used to rule explanations in or out, with managers' judgment filling what remains, and with each judgment written down so it can be checked next year.
References
Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2), 48-64. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.24.2.48
Hom, P. W., Lee, T. W., Shaw, J. D., & Hausknecht, J. P. (2017). One hundred years of employee turnover theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 530-545. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000103
Marler, J. H., & Boudreau, J. W. (2017). An evidence-based review of HR analytics. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(1), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1244699
The Walden WMBA 6401 Week 8 instructions
Final assignments in an HR analytics course usually ask for the workforce report in polished form, revised where feedback landed, followed by a reflection that argues a position on evidence in people decisions. Instructors grade the reflection on whether it is supported by specific episodes from the student's own work during the term rather than by general endorsement of measurement. Revisions should answer feedback directly, often by adding a lower case or a measure of whether a change is being followed. Admitting where the numbers ran out, and how judgment should take over, scores better than treating data as the answer to every staffing question.
How this WMBA 6401 Week 8 example is built
The paper opens with two revisions: a lower case for the scheduling rule's effect, with a higher hiring need and a dated trigger, and a monthly measure of whether the rule is followed. A table lists seven final actions with start, measure and owner. The reflection states a position, that evidence is most useful for choosing among explanations, and supports it with four episodes, each in its own subsection: the headline turnover rate, the measure nearly chosen, the pay assumption overturned, with Allen and colleagues, and the pipeline loss found by simple counting, with Marler and Boudreau. A closing section says where evidence fell short at the library, citing Hom and colleagues, and how judgment should be written down so it can be checked. Margin comments flag the revisions, one episode and the limits.
Where the marks sit in the WMBA 6401 Week 8 rubric
Graders reward revisions that answer feedback specifically and change the plan where needed. A clear final action table with measures and owners shows the plan can be carried out. The reflection carries significant weight: a stated position supported by specific episodes from the student's work earns far more than general praise of data. Admitting a belief that evidence overturned demonstrates learning. Acknowledging where evidence falls short, and proposing how judgment should be recorded, shows maturity. Connecting episodes to research adds depth. Instructors also check consistency with earlier figures. Professional formatting and correct references complete the final assessment.
Common WMBA 6401 Week 8 mistakes, and how to avoid them
List the feedback you received and change the plan for each point, adding a lower case where an assumption is uncertain. Put the final actions in one table with dates, measures and owners. For the reflection, decide your position on evidence in people decisions first, then choose three or four moments from your own work that support or complicate it. Describe each moment specifically and say what it taught you. Students often lose marks by writing a general essay about the value of analytics, by omitting episodes or by claiming data settled questions it did not. Say where evidence stopped. Send us the term's analyses if you want a custom sample of the finished plan with its reflection.
Get a WMBA 6401 Week 8 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 8 brief with its criteria and the feedback returned on the Week 7 report, since the revisions have to answer something real. A finished document returns inside 24 to 48 hours, free on a first request. Note any required length split between the two parts, because the balance between them changes the shape.
More WMBA 6401 papers and MBA samples
- WMBA 6401 Week 1: Workforce Measure Boundary Post
- WMBA 6401 Week 2: Measurement Rationale
- WMBA 6401 Week 3: Turnover Table Breakdown
- WMBA 6401 Week 4: Recruiting Pipeline Memo
- WMBA 6401 Week 5: Engagement Survey Readout
- WMBA 6401 Week 6: Pay Compression Analysis
- WMBA 6401 Week 7: Assistant Workforce Plan
- WMBA 6201 Week 8: Single Metric Brief
- WMBA 6070 Week 8: Final Plan and Reflection
- WMBA 6060 Week 8: Corrected Plan and Retrospective
- WMBA 6050 Week 8: Corrected Analysis and Reflection
WMBA 6401 Week 8 questions, answered
Where can I find a free WMBA 6401 Week 8 sample paper?
The final workforce plan and its reflection are available in full on this page.
How was the plan revised?
A lower case raises the hiring need to 37, with an April trigger to add a float pool.
What position does the reflection take?
Evidence improves people decisions most when it is used to choose among explanations.
Which belief did the data overturn?
That assistants leave mainly over pay, when only 5 of 28 leavers named it.
Where did evidence fall short?
In predicting the scheduling rule's exact effect and in capturing reasons such as child care or commutes.