| Course | GB545 Strategic Total Rewards and Financial Impact |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Seminar reflection |
| Length | About 820 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB545 Unit 6
Twenty-One Engineers Below the Minimum: A Unit 6 Seminar Reflection on Publishing a Pay Range
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB545: Strategic Total Rewards and Financial Impact
Unit 6 Seminar Reflection
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The company, its engineers and every pay figure are composite and illustrative; the statute, the framework and the sources cited are real.
Where I Started
I arrived at the seminar treating range disclosure as paperwork. Several states now require employers to include a pay range in job postings, Colorado among the first (Colorado Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, 2024), and Tellwater recruits field service engineers in two states with such rules. The task, as I saw it, was to pick endpoints that were honest, wide enough for the market and narrow enough not to look evasive. For the Field Service Engineer II posting, the compensation team had proposed $78,000 to $102,000 with a midpoint of $90,000, and I planned to argue in the seminar that the range was defensible against survey data.
What the Seminar Showed Me
My argument held for about ten minutes. Then the instructor put up the distribution of the 118 engineers who already held that title. Ninety-three of them earned below the $90,000 midpoint. Twenty-one earned below the $78,000 minimum, and the lowest was paid $66,100. A classmate asked the question I had not considered: what would those 21 engineers do the morning the posting appeared? I had been thinking about candidates reading the range. I had not thought about the people already doing the job, who would read it more closely than anyone.
Why It Matters
Our readings on internal equity made the problem concrete. Adams (1965) argued that people judge fairness by comparing what they receive for their contribution with what others receive, and that people who feel shortchanged act to even the account, by easing off at work or by quitting. Milkovich et al. (2020) describe internal alignment as the relationship among pay for jobs inside one organization, and a published range makes that relationship visible to everyone. An engineer earning $66,100 who sees that new hires will start at no less than $78,000 learns, in public, that the company values a stranger more than a colleague with years of service. Cullen (2024) reviews evidence that pay transparency compresses pay within jobs and can reduce employers' willingness to pay high individual offers, which suggests the posting would change bargaining with new hires as well as morale among current staff.
A range published for candidates is read most closely by the people already in the job, and it tells each of them exactly where they stand.
A classmate with a finance background then added a point that changed the conversation from fairness to money. Lifting all 21 engineers to the minimum would cost $89,600 in base pay, an average of about $4,270 each. Tellwater's own estimate of the cost of replacing one field service engineer is about $61,000, once recruiting, overtime coverage, an idle van and the months a new engineer takes to reach full productivity are counted. If the posting caused even two of the 21 to leave, the departures would cost more than fixing their pay.
The Objection I Raised
I did push back. I argued that a range is a statement about the market for new hires, and that the 21 engineers' pay was a separate problem the company could fix on its own schedule. A classmate who manages a service team answered that employees do not experience those as separate problems. Once the posting is public, the low pay is no longer an internal matter that can wait for the next merit cycle; it becomes a comparison every engineer can make on the first morning. I found that answer persuasive, partly because it matched what I have seen when a new hire's offer leaked at a previous employer, and partly because the cost comparison left little room for delay.
Where I Ended Up
My view has moved. I no longer think the question is whether the range is honest; it is whether the company's pay beneath the range is defensible once the range is public. I would now recommend three steps before the posting goes live. First, raise the 21 engineers below the minimum to at least $78,000, at a cost of $89,600. Second, review the 93 below the midpoint to see whether experience and performance explain where they sit, and correct any who are low for no stated reason. Third, prepare managers to answer the questions the posting will raise, with an explanation of how pay moves through the range.
I still believe the range itself is reasonable. What changed is my sense of the order of work. Publishing a range is the last step in getting pay right, not the first, and I would rather spend $89,600 before the posting than explain afterward why the company did not.
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2
Colorado Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. ยง 8-5-201 (2024).
Cullen, Z. (2024). Is pay transparency good? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 38(1), 153-180. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.38.1.153
Milkovich, G. T., Newman, J. M., & Gerhart, B. (2020). Compensation (13th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
The Purdue Global GB545 Unit 6 instructions
In GB545 Unit 6 you reflect on how the seminar changed or tested your view of a rewards decision. State where you started and why. Describe the evidence or question in the seminar that challenged you, as specifically as you can. Apply concepts from the readings on internal equity or transparency to explain why the challenge matters. Record any objection you raised and how it was answered. Where possible, attach a cost or figure to the revised position, since a price makes a change of view read as a decision. End with what you would now recommend and in what order. Write in the first person, about a page and a half, with APA 7 citations.
Inside the GB545 Unit 6 example
The writer starts by treating range disclosure as paperwork, noting the Colorado law in one sentence. The instructor's distribution of 118 engineers changes the session, and the classmate's question shifts attention from candidates to incumbents. Adams on inequity, Milkovich and colleagues on internal alignment and Cullen on what transparency does to pay explain the risk, and the highlighted sentence says incumbents read a range most closely. A finance-minded classmate prices the fix at $89,600 against $61,000 per departure. The writer's objection that the two problems are separate is answered by a service manager. Three ordered steps close the reflection, with publishing placed last.
GB545 Unit 6 rubric: what earns full points
GB545 instructors reward a seminar reflection when the change in view is traced to specific evidence and supported with a figure. Stating the starting position honestly earns points because the movement can then be measured. Describing the exact distribution or question that challenged it shows engagement. Applying equity theory and transparency research to the case shows understanding. Recording an objection and the answer to it shows the writer argued rather than simply agreed. A cost comparison makes the revised view a decision. Ordered recommendations show the reflection leads to action. A single sentence on the state law keeps focus. Adams, Milkovich and colleagues, Cullen and the Colorado statute are cited.
Common GB545 Unit 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GB545 Unit 6 reflections summarize what classmates said without showing how any argument tested the writer's own position. Others turn into surveys of state pay transparency laws, which loses the first-person arc the assignment asks for. A frequent gap is the incumbent: writers think about candidates reading a range and forget the employees already in the job. Some reflections change their view without saying what the new view would cost. State where you began, describe the evidence that challenged you, apply the readings, record your objection and its answer, price the revised position and recommend steps in order. Keep legal references to a sentence unless the seminar centered on a statute.
Get a GB545 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
A rough account of how the Unit 6 seminar ran in your section is enough, or, for the written version, its posted questions, with the rubric attached. The reflection arrives in the first person within 24-48h, its employer made up and no classmate named. First requests are 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 2: Rewards Program Audit
- GB545 Unit 3: Market Position Memo
- GB545 Unit 4: Labor Cost Model
- GB545 Unit 5: Benefit Plan Comparison
- 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 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB541 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB534 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
GB545 Unit 6 questions, answered
Does the reflection need legal citations on pay transparency laws?
Rarely more than one sentence. The seminar concerns what disclosure changes inside an organization, and the example mentions state posting requirements only to establish why the range was being published. A reflection that turns into a survey of state laws loses its first-person arc. If your section discussed a specific statute, name it once and return to the argument.
Why include arithmetic in a reflection?
Because in this course a revision is more convincing when it carries a price. The example sets $89,600, the cost of lifting 21 engineers to the minimum, against the estimated cost of replacing one, and that comparison makes the new position sound like a decision rather than a feeling. A reflection without figures can still work, but one comparison usually strengthens it considerably.
What if my view did not change during the seminar?
In that case the piece records a position that survived its test, which is equally honest. Say what challenged it, why the challenge failed to persuade you, and what you understand better now. What graders tend to discount is a reflection that reports the discussion without engaging any argument against the writer's own position, whichever way that position ended up.
Where can I find a free GB545 Unit 6 sample paper?
This page carries a full GB545 Unit 6 seminar reflection on publishing a pay range when 21 engineers earn below its minimum, with a cost comparison and APA 7 references.
What does the writer recommend before posting the range?
Raise the 21 engineers below the minimum for $89,600, review the 93 below the midpoint for unexplained gaps and prepare managers to explain movement through the range, then publish it.