| Course | GB545 Strategic Total Rewards and Financial Impact |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 10 |
| Paper type | Rewards business case |
| Length | About 1,120 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB545 Unit 10
Raising 310 Service Engineers to Market: A Unit 10 Rewards Business Case With a Three-Year Net Cost of $159,393
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB545: Strategic Total Rewards and Financial Impact
Unit 10 Rewards Business Case
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The company, its engineers and every cost, saving and turnover figure are composite and illustrative; the frameworks and sources cited are real.
The Decision
Approve a market adjustment for all 310 field service engineers: $4,900 each in year one, bringing them to the regional median, and a further $2,000 each in year two, bringing them to the 55th percentile. Fund it by holding assembly technician increases at 2 percent for two cycles. The loaded cost is $1,707,356 in year one, and the committee looks at the case again after twelve months, using the turnover condition stated below.
The Problem
Field service engineers are paid at 0.945 of the regional market median, about $84,000 against a median of about $88,900. Their turnover is 19 percent a year, about 59 departures from a group of 310, well above the company's 11 percent average. Exit interviews name pay first, and two regional competitors have recruited Tellwater engineers directly. Each departure costs an estimated $61,000 (see the appendix), so turnover at current rates costs about $3.6 million a year.
Allen et al. (2010) caution that pay is rarely the only driver of turnover, and the case does not assume it is. It assumes that bringing pay to market removes the most common stated reason and that turnover will fall partway toward the company average, not all the way.
Options Considered
Retention bonus. A $10,000 payment to engineers who stay two years would cost about $3.1 million if all stayed, would reward people who were not going to leave and would leave pay below market once paid. It was set aside.
Hire more engineers to absorb turnover. Adding ten engineers would cover the gap in service capacity but not reduce departures or their costs. It was set aside.
Market adjustment. Brings pay to where the market already is and addresses the stated cause. Recommended.
Cost Table
Costs are loaded by the factor of 1.124 for payroll taxes, retirement match and insurance. Each year's adjustment grows with the 3.5 percent the market is assumed to move.
Year one: $4,900 for each of 310 engineers, $1,519,000 in base, $1,707,356 loaded.
Year two: the first step carried forward with a 3.5 percent increase, $5,071.50, plus the second step of $2,000, for $7,071.50 each, $2,192,165 in base, $2,463,993 loaded.
Year three: the combined adjustment carried forward with a 3.5 percent increase, $2,268,890 in base, $2,550,233 loaded.
Funding
The assembly hold. Giving 780 assembly technicians 2 percent a year during a 3.5 percent market saves $608,400 of base in year one, $683,842 loaded, and $1,405,294 loaded in year two as the difference compounds. In year three, assembly increases return to the operating plan's 3.0 percent under either path, so the saving carried forward is $1,447,453. As the Unit 3 memo showed, the hold leaves assembly pay above market throughout.
Lower turnover. The case assumes engineer turnover falls from 19 percent to 16 percent in year one, 13 percent in year two and 12 percent in year three. At $61,000 a departure, the avoided departures are worth $567,300, $1,134,600 and $1,323,700.
The raise is funded mostly by money the company is already losing, the cost of engineers who leave, and partly by slowing increases for a group that is paid above its own market.
Net Cost
Year one: $1,707,356 less $683,842 and $567,300, a net cost of $456,214.
Year two: $2,463,993 less $1,405,294 and $1,134,600, a net saving of $75,901.
Year three: $2,550,233 less $1,447,453 and $1,323,700, a net saving of $220,920.
Three years: a net cost of $159,393.
Sensitivity
The result depends most on turnover. If turnover falls to 16 percent and stays there, the avoided departures are worth $567,300 every year, and the three-year net cost rises to $1,483,093. If turnover does not fall at all, the full cost of the adjustment less the assembly hold, about $3.2 million over three years, is spent without the main benefit. The departure cost is also an estimate; at $45,000 instead of $61,000, the base case's three-year net cost rises by about $790,000. Cascio et al. (2019) recommend testing the assumptions that drive a human capital investment's return before approving it, and these three tests show the case is sound only if turnover responds.
Measurement Plan
HR will report four figures to the committee each quarter. Engineer turnover, voluntary and total, is the measure the case depends on. Assembly turnover is the measure that would end the hold. Engineer offer acceptance rates show whether the adjustment helps hiring as well as retention. Customer service-level penalties, which have averaged about $413,000 a year, show whether fewer vacancies are reaching customers. Each figure has a baseline from the past twelve months, so the year-one review compares like with like.
Why Now
Delaying the adjustment a year would not save its cost; it would add a year of departures at current rates, about 59 engineers and $3.6 million, while the market median continues to move away. Two of the company's largest service contracts renew next year, and both include response-time guarantees that vacancies put at risk. The case is strongest if the first step reaches engineers' paychecks on the first day of the coming fiscal year, before either renewal is negotiated, so that the company enters both negotiations with its service teams fully staffed and its engineers paid at market.
Risks
Assembly turnover rises. The hold could push assembly technicians to leave. Their turnover is 9 percent; if it exceeds 14 percent on an annualized basis, the hold ends early and the funding gap is reported.
Engineers compare the raise with the posted range. The Unit 6 reflection showed that a public range makes pay visible. The adjustment should precede any posting of the engineer range.
Market movement differs from 3.5 percent. A faster market would erode the adjustment and require a further step; a slower one would reduce later costs.
Reversal Condition
If engineer turnover is above 17 percent, annualized, at the end of year one, the second step does not proceed, and the case is returned to the committee with the year's data. Milkovich et al. (2020) emphasize that a pay decision should state in advance what result would show it was wrong, and this condition does that.
Appendix: Cost of One Departure
Recruiting and hiring: $9,500. Overtime coverage while the position is vacant: $14,200. Van idle for several weeks: $2,900. Ramp-up time to full productivity: $27,400. Service-level penalties paid to customers: $7,000. Total: $61,000.
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
Cascio, W. F., Boudreau, J. W., & Fink, A. A. (2019). Investing in people: Financial impact of human resource initiatives (3rd ed.). Society for Human Resource Management.
Milkovich, G. T., Newman, J. M., & Gerhart, B. (2020). Compensation (13th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
GB545 Unit 10 instructions, in plain terms
In GB545 Unit 10 you write a business case for one rewards decision. Put the decision, its cost and any condition on the first page. Define the problem with figures. Describe the options you considered and why you set aside all but one. Build a cost table across the horizon, stating how costs are loaded and how they grow. Show each funding source and how it is calculated. Report net cost by year and in total. Test the assumptions the case depends on in a sensitivity section, and name the risks. Say beforehand which result would make you undo the decision. Expect about eight pages, with any cost estimates detailed in an appendix, citing sources in APA 7.
How the GB 545 Unit 10 example is put together
The decision opens the case: $4,900 per engineer in year one and $2,000 more in year two, funded by an assembly hold. The problem section cites 19 percent turnover and exit interviews, with Allen and colleagues on pay's limited role. A retention bonus and extra hiring are set aside. Costs grow from $1,707,356 to $2,550,233 loaded, and the highlighted sentence explains the funding. Net cost runs $456,214 in year one, then savings of $75,901 and $220,920. Cascio and colleagues guide the sensitivity test, which shows $1,483,093 if turnover stalls at 16 percent. Quarterly measures, a reversal at 17 percent turnover and an appendix pricing a departure follow.
Reading the GB545 Unit 10 grading rubric
A strong GB545 business case is graded on whether an approver could decide from the first page and check every later figure. A decision stated with its cost and condition earns points. A problem defined by turnover and its cost shows the case starts from evidence. Options considered and set aside show the recommendation was chosen. A cost table with loading and growth explained shows accuracy. Funding sources calculated year by year show financial discipline. A sensitivity section that isolates the decisive assumption shows judgment. Named risks with responses show foresight. A reversal condition stated in advance shows accountability. Allen and colleagues, Cascio and colleagues, and Milkovich and colleagues are cited.
Common GB545 Unit 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GB545 Unit 10 business cases present a recommendation with its cost but no funding, or claim savings without showing how each was calculated. Others recommend several changes at once, which makes each harder to measure. A frequent gap is the decisive assumption: turnover reduction often carries most of the return, and the case should show what happens if it falls short. Some writers never say what result would prove the decision wrong. State the decision first, define the problem, show options set aside, build costs and funding by year, report net cost, test the assumption that matters, name risks and set a reversal condition. Detailing estimates such as departure cost in an appendix helps.
Get a GB545 Unit 10 example written to your instructions
This final unit leans on the whole term's output, so a cost model, a market memo or loose figures from the case all help; send what exists alongside the Unit 10 brief and the rubric. The case returns inside 24-48h with the ask on page one, funding shown and a reversal condition. First requests are free of charge. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GB545 papers and MBA samples
- GB545 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB545 Unit 2: Rewards Program Audit
- GB545 Unit 3: Market Position Memo
- GB545 Unit 4: Labor Cost Model
- GB545 Unit 5: Benefit Plan Comparison
- GB545 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB545 Unit 7: Incentive Plan Proposal
- GB545 Unit 8: Pay Equity Analysis
- GB545 Unit 9: Executive Compensation Review
- GB542 Unit 10: Talent Strategy Report
- GB541 Unit 10: Executive Risk Briefing
- GB534 Unit 10: Consumer Behavior Report
GB545 Unit 10 questions, answered
Why recommend only one action?
Because the person approving it needs a decision, not a menu. The example considered three options and states why two were set aside, but asks for money for one. A case recommending several changes at once makes each harder to evaluate and impossible to measure separately. If your prompt asks for a broader strategy, one lead recommendation with supporting actions beneath it keeps the same discipline.
Where does the $61,000 departure cost come from?
In the example it carries forward from an earlier estimate built from recruiting, overtime coverage, a van idle for weeks, ramp-up time and service penalties. It is labeled as an estimate and tested indirectly through the turnover sensitivity. Your case may supply its own figure; use it, list its components in an appendix, and show what happens to net cost if it runs lower.
Is an assembly pay hold a fair way to fund the increase?
It is a choice with consequences, and the example treats it that way. Assembly technicians are paid above their market, so a hold erodes a premium rather than cutting pay, but it could still raise assembly turnover. The case names that risk and the figure that would reverse the hold. Any funding source in your case deserves the same scrutiny.
Where can I find a free GB545 Unit 10 sample paper?
This page carries a full GB545 Unit 10 rewards business case for a market adjustment for 310 service engineers, with costs, funding, sensitivity, a reversal condition and APA 7 references.
What would reverse the decision?
Engineer turnover above 17 percent, annualized, at the end of year one. In that case the second step to the 55th percentile does not proceed and the case returns to the committee with the year's data.