| Course | GB545 Strategic Total Rewards and Financial Impact |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Rewards program audit |
| Length | About 870 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB545 Unit 2
Eleven Components, Five Budget Owners: A Unit 2 Rewards Program Audit for an Analyzer Maker
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB545: Strategic Total Rewards and Financial Impact
Unit 2 Rewards Program Audit
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The company, its programs and every cost are composite and illustrative; the frameworks, standards and sources cited are real.
Scope
The audit covers every cost Tellwater incurs because a person is on its payroll and receives something of value from the company, whichever budget pays it. That rule brings in employer payroll taxes, which employees rarely think of as a reward but which exist only because someone is employed; they are flagged as statutory so readers can separate them from costs the company could redesign. It also brings in the take-home service vans discussed in Unit 1. Figures are for the most recent fiscal year. Restricted stock is valued at grant-date fair value, the basis the company uses to record the expense (Financial Accounting Standards Board, 2004), not at what employees later realize.
The Inventory
Each row gives the component, who is eligible, annual cost, cost per employee across all 2,400, cost per eligible person, share of the total and the budget owner.
1. Base pay. All 2,400 employees. $196,180,000; $81,742 per employee and per eligible; 67.3 percent. Owner: HR.
2. Health coverage. 2,050 enrolled employees. $28,495,000; $11,873 per employee; $13,900 per enrolled employee; 9.8 percent. Owner: HR.
3. Employer payroll taxes (statutory). All employees. $15,680,000; $6,533 per employee and per eligible; 5.4 percent. Owner: finance.
4. Restricted stock grants. 640 recipients. $14,200,000 at grant value; $5,917 per employee; $22,188 per recipient; 4.9 percent. Owner: finance.
5. Annual bonus. 1,430 salaried employees outside sales, paid at 92 percent of target this year. $12,460,000; $5,192 per employee; $8,713 per eligible; 4.3 percent. Owner: HR.
6. Sales commissions. 190 quota-carrying sellers. $12,250,000; $5,104 per employee; $64,474 per seller; 4.2 percent. Owner: sales operations.
7. Retirement match. All employees eligible; 1,872 participate. $6,887,445; $2,870 per employee; $3,679 per participant; 2.4 percent. Owner: HR.
8. Take-home service vans. 310 field service engineers. $3,534,000; $1,473 per employee; $11,400 per engineer; 1.2 percent. Owner: field service operations.
9. Life and disability insurance. All employees. $1,465,800; $611 per employee and per eligible; 0.5 percent. Owner: HR.
10. Tuition assistance. All employees eligible; 96 used it. $460,800; $192 per employee; $4,800 per user; 0.2 percent. Owner: department budgets.
11. Employee assistance programs, two contracts. All employees. $99,000; $41 per employee and per eligible; under 0.1 percent. Owners: HR, $54,000, and field service operations, $45,000.
Total. $291,712,045, or $121,547 per employee.
*Note:* restricted stock is shown at grant-date fair value; payroll taxes are statutory and cannot be redesigned; health coverage includes medical, dental, vision and plan administration.
Pricing each component per eligible person shows what a reward is worth to the people who actually receive it, which a company-wide average hides.
Why Both Cost Columns Matter
The per-employee column is useful for comparing Tellwater with other employers, since most surveys report cost across all employees. But it understates the value of narrow programs to the people in them. The van costs $1,473 per employee across the company, a figure that makes it look trivial, yet it is worth $11,400 to each engineer who has one. Health coverage looks like $11,873 per employee, while the figure that matters for plan decisions is $13,900 per enrolled employee. Milkovich et al. (2020) note that employers often misjudge the value of benefits because they look at averages rather than at the groups who use them, and the second column corrects that.
Findings
Finding 1: the company pays twice for one service. Evidence: two invoices, one from the medical carrier's bundled employee assistance program, $54,000 a year, and one from a standalone provider field service operations hired after a vehicle accident three years ago, $45,000 a year. Both offer the same counseling sessions to the same employees. Recommendation: end the standalone contract at renewal and move its accident response protocol to the carrier's program, saving $45,000 a year.
Finding 2: $3.5 million of rewards appear on no statement. Evidence: the fleet ledger and the rewards statement template. The vans are a significant reward for 310 engineers, yet they are invisible to HR and to the engineers' own statements. Recommendation: add the van to service engineers' statements and require HR review of any change in the take-home policy.
Finding 3: tuition assistance reaches four percent of employees. Evidence: reimbursement records from department budgets, showing 96 users. Low use might reflect poor promotion, strict department approval or low interest, and the audit holds no data that would distinguish them. Recommendation: do not cut the program; survey eligible employees and centralize the records so the next audit can tell.
What the Audit Shows Overall
Base pay and health coverage make up 77 percent of the total, so most of Tellwater's reward spending is decided by merit budgets and health plan design, the subjects of Units 3 through 5. Gerhart and Rynes (2003) argue that a pay strategy is defined as much by the mix of rewards as by their level, and the audit is the first time Tellwater has seen its mix in one place.
References
Financial Accounting Standards Board. (2004). Share-based payment (Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123, revised 2004). FASB.
Gerhart, B., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Compensation: Theory, evidence, and strategic implications. Sage.
Milkovich, G. T., Newman, J. M., & Gerhart, B. (2020). Compensation (13th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Reading the GB 545 Unit 2 instructions
In GB545 Unit 2 you audit the reward programs of an organization. State the scope rule that decides what counts, and the valuation basis for anything not paid in cash. Build an inventory table with one row per component, giving eligibility, annual cost, cost per employee, cost per eligible person, share of the total and the budget that owns it. Explain why both cost columns matter. Report findings, each with the record that supports it, and limit any recommendation to what the evidence shows. Close with what the audit reveals about the organization's reward mix. Expect about six pages built around the table, citing compensation sources and any accounting standard you rely on in APA 7.
How the GB 545 Unit 2 example is put together
The scope rule counts every cost incurred because someone is on payroll, which brings in payroll taxes, flagged as statutory, and the vans. Restricted stock is valued at grant date under the share-based payment standard, noted beneath the table. Eleven rows follow: health coverage at $11,873 per employee but $13,900 per enrollee, the bonus paid at 92 percent of target, commissions at $64,474 per seller and tuition at $4,800 per user. The highlighted sentence explains the per-eligible column, with Milkovich and colleagues on misjudged averages. Findings cover two counseling contracts for one service, the uncounted vans and tuition use, and Gerhart and Rynes frame the reward mix.
Where the points sit in the GB545 Unit 2 rubric
A strong GB545 audit is graded on whether every row can be traced to a stated scope rule and a cost source. A scope paragraph that decides borderline items, such as payroll taxes and vans, earns points because it makes the total defensible. A stated valuation basis for equity shows technical care. Pricing each row per employee and per eligible person shows analytical depth. Shares that add to the total show accuracy. Findings printed beside their evidence show discipline. Declining to cut a program the data cannot judge shows restraint. Naming the budget owner for each row shows organizational insight. Sources include the compensation texts by Milkovich's team and by Gerhart and Rynes, plus the accounting standard for stock pay.
GB545 Unit 2 help from the desk
Many GB545 Unit 2 audits list programs and costs without a scope rule, so the reader cannot tell why some items are in and others are out. Others report only cost per employee, which makes narrow programs look trivial to the people who actually receive them. A frequent gap is valuation: equity can be counted at grant value or realized value, and the audit must say which. Some writers recommend cuts that their data cannot support. Write the scope rule first, state the valuation basis, build the table with both cost columns and owners, check that shares add up, print each finding beside its evidence and recommend only what the records prove. Unlabeled equity figures draw immediate questions.
Get a GB545 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Sources matter most for an audit: plan summaries, payroll totals or whatever numbers the Unit 2 packet contains, plus the rubric. Send them and a priced inventory comes back in 24-48h, both denominators shown, every finding tied to its evidence and every budget owner named. The first sample is free. 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 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
- GB545 Unit 10: Rewards Business Case
- GB542 Unit 2: Capability Gap Analysis
- GB541 Unit 2: Legal Issue Analysis
- GB534 Unit 2: Consumer Decision Map
GB545 Unit 2 questions, answered
Why value restricted stock at grant value rather than what employees realize?
Because the audit measures what the company commits in a given year, and grant-date value is how the company records that commitment. Realized value depends on the share price years later, which no budget controls. The example states its basis in a note under the table. If your case supplies a different valuation, use it and say which, since an unlabeled equity figure draws the first question in any review.
Should payroll taxes count as a reward?
Employees rarely think of them that way, but they are a cost the employer carries only because someone is on payroll, and the audit's scope rule includes them for that reason. The example flags them as statutory so a reader can separate them from anything the company could redesign. Some instructors prefer to exclude them, and either choice works when the scope paragraph says which.
Can an audit recommend cutting a program?
It can, when a finding supports it. The example recommends ending the duplicate assistance contract because the evidence is two invoices for one service. It does not recommend cutting tuition assistance, even at four percent use, because low use might reflect poor promotion rather than low value, and the audit holds no data on which. A recommendation in your audit deserves the same standard of proof.
Where can I find a free GB545 Unit 2 sample paper?
This page carries a full GB545 Unit 2 rewards program audit of eleven components at a composite analyzer maker, with an inventory table, three findings and APA 7 references.
What was the service paid for twice?
Employee counseling. HR buys it through the medical carrier for $54,000 a year, and field service operations hired a standalone provider for $45,000 after a vehicle accident. The audit recommends ending the second contract at renewal.