| Course | WMBA 6615 Building Organizational Culture: Leaders as Architects |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 10 |
| Paper type | Leadership brief |
| Length | About 560 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Business Administration (MBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for WMBA 6615 Week 10
Memorandum
To: Executive Committee, Cedar Fork Engineering
From: Project Manager, Transportation Group
Date: October 5, 2026
Re: Funding mentoring and onboarding for early-career engineers
Recommendation
I recommend that the committee fund two changes starting January 1: a structured first week for every new engineer, and a mentoring time code excluded from utilization calculations, capped at 40 hours per mentor per new engineer in the first year. Together they cost about $250,000 a year in forgone billing. They are aimed at reducing attrition among engineers with fewer than five years of experience from 18 percent to 12 percent, which would save about $300,000 a year in replacement costs and protect the firm's future leadership.
Cost
The costs are mostly hours that would otherwise be billed. The first-week design takes about 17 hours of others' time and 24 more nonbillable hours from each newcomer, about $2,900 per hire or $90,000 a year at 31 hires. Mentoring at 40 hours per new engineer, at an average billing rate of $130, costs about $161,000 a year. Total: about $251,000, or roughly 0.4 percent of the firm's annual fee revenue.
Return
Cedar Fork already measures the return: regretted attrition among early-career engineers, which human resources reports quarterly. The firm employs about 120 early-career engineers, those under five years in the profession; at 18 percent, about 22 leave each year. Human resources estimates each departure costs about $40,000 in recruiting, lost productivity and supervisor time. Reducing attrition to 12 percent would mean about seven fewer departures, saving roughly $290,000 to $300,000 a year.
The evidence supports the target. Bauer et al. (2007) found that newcomers with clear roles and social acceptance were more satisfied, more committed and less likely to intend to leave. Allen et al. (2004) pooled mentoring studies and found that protégés reported more career satisfaction and commitment than peers without mentors. In exit interviews, "no one to learn from" is the reason departing engineers give most often.
A second return is measured as well: time to professional engineer licensure. Engineers with mentors are likely to pass sooner, which allows them to stamp drawings and bill at higher rates earlier. Human resources tracks licensure dates already, so no new reporting is needed to see whether the median time shortens for engineers hired under the new program.
Why the Time Code Matters
The mentoring program already exists on paper and fails because mentoring lowers the mentor's utilization, which counts against promotion. Gibbons (1998) explained that people move effort toward what is measured; the time code removes the penalty without removing the measure.
Risks
The main risk is that utilization falls. The mentoring code is capped at 40 hours per new engineer, which keeps total development time under 1 percent of the firm's billable hours. A second risk is that the program runs on paper only. To prevent that, human resources will report mentor assignment rates to the committee each quarter, and any group below 90 percent will be named. If attrition has not fallen after two years, the committee should end the program and look for other causes, such as pay or workload, which this proposal does not address.
Decision Requested
Approve the first-week design and the mentoring time code for 2027, with a report to the committee after two quarters on mentor assignment rates, 90-day newcomer survey results and early-career attrition.
References
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 127-136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.127
Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 707-721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.707
Gibbons, R. (1998). Incentives in organizations. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(4), 115-132. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.12.4.115
The Walden WMBA 6615 Week 10 instructions
The leadership brief is short by design, usually four hundred to seven hundred words, and formatted like a memorandum reaching a leadership team. Instructors expect a subject line and a recommendation within the first three sentences, followed by support. Cost should appear early and in figures, such as headcount, manager hours priced at a loaded rate or a budget amount. Return should be stated in something the organization already measures, such as regretted attrition, time to productivity or a quality metric. Research may support the expected effect. The brief closes with a clear decision request and a plan for reporting results. Risks belong in the brief as well, stated in a sentence or two with the safeguard that addresses each.
How the WMBA 6615 Week 10 example is put together
The memo states the two changes, their combined cost and their target in its opening paragraph. A cost section adds the first-week design and mentoring hours to about $251,000. A return section estimates early-career departures and replacement costs, projecting savings of about $300,000, and cites Bauer and colleagues and Allen and colleagues. A paragraph adds time to licensure as a second measured return. A section explains why the time code is essential, citing Gibbons. A risks section addresses utilization and paper-only compliance. The decision request asks for approval and a two-quarter report. Margin comments flag the opening recommendation and the risks. The memo stays under seven hundred words, short enough for a single reading at a committee meeting.
Where the marks sit in the WMBA 6615 Week 10 rubric
Graders reward a brief that leads with its recommendation and cost and states its return in a measure the organization already uses. Accurate, traceable figures carry significant weight. Research support for the expected effect strengthens the case. Addressing risks briefly shows judgment. A specific decision request with a reporting plan makes the brief usable. Concise memo formatting, plain language and correct citations complete the expectations. Briefs that bury the recommendation or omit cost typically score low. A brief that a busy executive could act on after reading only its first paragraph meets the standard of the week.
WMBA 6615 Week 10 help: mistakes that cost marks
Write the recommendation, its cost and its expected return in your first three sentences. Then show how you calculated the cost, using hours and rates or budget lines. Choose a return measure the leadership team already watches, and estimate the change. Add one or two research findings that support the expected effect. Students often lose marks by building up to the recommendation, by stating benefits without figures or by choosing a return measure nobody tracks. Another common gap is omitting risks. Hold it to a page. If you would like a custom sample leadership brief for a proposal in your organization, send us its costs and the measure you expect to change.
Get a WMBA 6615 Week 10 example written to your instructions
Send the memorandum prompt, the rubric, and any page limit or required header block the section publishes. A brief with the recommendation up front, costed and tied to a tracked measure, comes back in 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. Figures in a shelf version are illustrative and get rebuilt around your own organization.
More WMBA 6615 papers and MBA samples
- WMBA 6615 Week 1: Culture First Impression Post
- WMBA 6615 Week 2: Culture Artifact Inventory
- WMBA 6615 Week 3: Espoused Values Comparison
- WMBA 6615 Week 4: Competing Values Culture Audit
- WMBA 6615 Week 5: Culture Interview Writeup
- WMBA 6615 Week 6: Culture Analysis Peer Replies
- WMBA 6615 Week 7: Field Crew Subculture Analysis
- WMBA 6615 Week 8: New Engineer Onboarding Design
- WMBA 6615 Week 9: Promotion Rule Reward Brief
- WMBA 6615 Week 11: Organizational Culture Change Plan
- WMBA 6608 Week 1: Third-Party Payment Post
- WMBA 6605 Week 10: Leader Case Analysis
- WMBA 6604 Week 1: Law Versus Ethics Post
- WMBA 6602 Week 1: Who Pays Whom Post
WMBA 6615 Week 10 questions, answered
Where can I find a free WMBA 6615 Week 10 sample paper?
The culture investment leadership brief is reproduced in full on this page.
What does the brief recommend?
Funding a structured first week and a mentoring time code for new engineers.
What does it cost?
About $250,000 a year, mostly in forgone billing.
What return does it promise?
Early-career attrition falling from 18 to 12 percent, saving about $300,000 a year.
What are the risks?
Falling utilization and a program that runs only on paper.