| Course | GB700 Doctoral Studies in Business |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Synthesis matrix |
| 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 GB700 Unit 5
Positions, Not Authors: A Unit 5 Synthesis Matrix on Tuition Assistance and Voluntary Turnover
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB700: Doctoral Studies in Business
Unit 5 Synthesis Matrix
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The candidate and the study counts are composite and illustrative; the studies and theories cited are real.
How to Read the Matrix
Each row is a position in the literature, a claim some studies advance and others qualify. The seven columns are the same for every row: the position's core claim, the studies advancing it, the studies qualifying it, the outcome measured, the time horizon, the design and what evidence would settle the dispute. Citations sit in the cells with a phrase each. Webster and Watson (2002) recommend organizing a review around concepts rather than authors, so that the reader sees the conversation instead of a list of summaries.
Row 1: Participation Retains
Core claim. Employees taking courses paid for by their employer are less likely to leave while enrolled.
Advancing. Benson et al. (2004), turnover lower during enrollment; several studies of reimbursement programs with repayment clauses.
Qualifying. Manchester (2012), part of the effect reflects who enrolls.
Outcome. Recorded resignations.
Horizon. Months to a few years, mostly the enrollment period.
Design. Employer records, event history models.
What would settle it. A study in which program access varied for reasons employees did not choose, such as eligibility rules changing by hire date.
Row 2: Programs Sort Employees Who Plan to Stay
Core claim. Tuition programs attract and retain employees who intended to stay anyway, so participants' lower turnover partly reflects selection.
Advancing. Manchester (2012), sorting accounts for much of the retention benefit at one large employer.
Qualifying. Benson et al. (2004), enrollment effects remain after accounting for observed differences.
Outcome. Recorded resignations and participation decisions.
Horizon. Several years.
Design. Employer records comparing employees before and after program changes.
What would settle it. Data on employees' intentions measured before program access, linked to later behavior.
Row 3: General Skills Raise Mobility
Core claim. Degrees are general human capital, valuable to other employers, so graduates become more likely to leave unless the employer offers them something new.
Advancing. Becker (1964), theory of general training; Benson et al. (2004), graduates without promotion more likely to leave.
Qualifying. Cappelli (2004), employers fund college partly because it attracts better applicants, which may offset later departures.
Outcome. Recorded resignations after graduation.
Horizon. Years after degree completion.
Design. Employer records; theory.
What would settle it. Long-term follow-up of graduates with variation in internal opportunity they did not choose.
Row 4: Effects Depend on Internal Opportunity
Core claim. Development support retains employees only when they see a path to use their new skills inside the organization.
Advancing. Kraimer et al. (2011), support for development related to lower turnover only with perceived career opportunity; Benson et al. (2004), promotion moderates graduates' turnover.
Qualifying. Most studies measure perceived opportunity, not actual openings.
Outcome. Turnover intention and recorded resignations.
Horizon. One to several years.
Design. Surveys linked to later records; employer records.
What would settle it. A study measuring actual internal openings by unit and following graduates' turnover.
Arranged by position, the studies stop disagreeing: they measured different moments in the same employee's career.
Design Kept in View
Across all four rows, almost every study is observational, drawn from one employer's records or from surveys. Hom et al. (2017), reviewing a century of turnover research, note that the field has relied heavily on correlational designs and intention measures. The matrix therefore distinguishes recorded resignations from intentions in every row, so that a claim based on what employees said is never presented as a claim about what they did.
Two Further Columns Worth Adding
Working through the rows suggested two columns that the template does not include but that the review will need. The first records the type of employee studied, salaried or hourly, professional or frontline, since nearly every study in the first three rows sampled salaried staff. The second records whether the program reimbursed tuition after courses or paid it in advance, because prepayment removes the employee's financial stake and often the repayment clause that may explain part of the enrollment effect. Both columns are mostly filled with the same entry, which is itself a finding about the literature's reach.
The Empty Cell
One cell is empty in every row: no refereed study follows hourly, frontline employees through a program that pays tuition in advance, from enrollment through several years after graduation, with data on internal openings. The two working papers in Tier 3 come closest, but their follow-up ends before most participants graduate. That empty cell is where the candidate's problem statement in Unit 9 will begin, because it is exactly the situation the bank faces.
What the Matrix Changes
Before the matrix, the literature looked contradictory: some studies said tuition programs retain, others said they lead graduates to leave. Arranged by position and horizon, the studies describe one sequence. Employees enrolled in courses tend to stay, partly because of who enrolls. Graduates become more mobile. Whether they stay depends on what the employer offers them next. The bank's question is therefore not whether to fund degrees but whether it can offer its graduates a next step.
References
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Benson, G. S., Finegold, D., & Mohrman, S. A. (2004). You paid for the skills, now keep them: Tuition reimbursement and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 315-331. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159584
Cappelli, P. (2004). Why do employers pay for college? Journal of Econometrics, 121(1-2), 213-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2003.10.014
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
Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Bravo, J. (2011). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational support for development: The critical role of career opportunities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 485-500. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021452
Manchester, C. F. (2012). General human capital and employee mobility: How tuition reimbursement increases retention through sorting and participation. ILR Review, 65(4), 951-974. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979391206500408
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii-xxiii.
Reading the GB 700 Unit 5 instructions
The fifth GB700 assignment asks you to build a synthesis matrix that organizes your sources by argument rather than by author. Identify the main positions in your literature, drawing them from what authors say they are arguing for or against. Use the positions as rows and a fixed set of columns for every row, such as the core claim, the studies that advance it, the studies that qualify it, the outcome measured, the time horizon, the design and what evidence would settle the dispute. Place each citation in its cell with a short phrase. Keep design and measurement visible. Identify any empty cell. Close by explaining what the arrangement reveals. A matrix of a few pages with notes and APA 7 citations is typical.
How this GB700 Unit 5 example is built
The set explains how to read the matrix, citing Webster and Watson on concept-centered reviews. Four rows follow, each with the same seven columns: participation during enrollment, with Benson and colleagues; sorting, with Manchester; general skills, with Becker and Cappelli; and internal opportunity, with Kraimer and colleagues. The highlighted sentence says the studies measured different moments in one career. A section keeps design in view, citing Hom and colleagues on correlational turnover research. Two extra columns, employee type and payment timing, are proposed. The empty cell, frontline employees in prepaid programs after graduation, is named, and a closing section restates the literature as one sequence.
GB700 Unit 5 rubric: what earns full points
Points in this GB700 matrix go to organization by argument. Rows defined by positions drawn from the literature, not by the writer's categories, earn heavy weight because they show the writer read for claims. The same columns for every row allow direct comparison and show discipline. Citations placed with a phrase rather than a summary demonstrate synthesis. Keeping outcome, horizon and design visible shows the writer understands why studies differ. An identified empty cell links the matrix to a research question. A closing explanation of what the arrangement reveals completes the work, and readable tables with APA 7 citations take the last points.
Common GB700 Unit 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GB700 matrices are annotated bibliographies in table form, one row per author, which hides the conversation between studies. Others invent positions that no author holds. A common gap is leaving out design and time horizon, so studies that measured different things appear to contradict each other. Writers often fill cells with paragraphs of summary. The empty cell, the most useful output, is frequently not identified. Build rows from positions authors state, keep the same columns throughout, record outcome, horizon and design, write a phrase per citation, find the empty cell and explain what the arrangement shows. A free custom synthesis matrix can be prepared from your source list.
Get a GB700 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Send the studies you are working with, or your search results, plus whatever brief and matrix template came with this unit. The custom matrix, ready in 24-48h, arranges those studies by position, codes outcome and horizon, and ends with notes that relate the rows. Nothing is owed for a first sample. 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 GB700 papers and MBA samples
- GB700 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB700 Unit 2: Article Critique
- GB700 Unit 3: Literature Search Log
- GB700 Unit 4: Source Evaluation Memo
- GB700 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB700 Unit 7: Scholarly Voice Exercise
- GB700 Unit 8: Research Integrity Analysis
- GB700 Unit 9: Problem Statement Draft
- GB700 Unit 10: Doctoral Position Paper
- GB601 Unit 5: Financial Projections
- GB600 Unit 5: Decision Briefing
- GB590 Unit 5: Workplace Ethics Analysis
- GB580 Unit 5: Business-Level Strategy Paper
GB700 Unit 5 questions, answered
How many studies belong in a GB700 synthesis matrix?
Enough to show a conversation with more than one position in it, which for many sections means somewhere between fifteen and thirty. Fewer studies rarely reveal patterns; far more make the table unreadable at this stage. The instructions usually set a range, and quality of selection matters more than count, particularly the inclusion of studies that disagree.
What is the difference between a synthesis matrix and an annotated bibliography?
An annotated bibliography handles sources one at a time, entry after entry. A synthesis matrix places sources against shared arguments or questions so their relationships show: where they converge, where they conflict and why. The bibliography answers what each study says; the matrix answers what the studies say together, which is the question a literature review has to address.
Where do the positions in the matrix come from?
From the literature itself. Authors usually state what they are arguing against, and review articles often name the main camps in a debate. Building rows from those statements, and citing them, shows that the synthesis reflects the field's own divisions. Rows invented by a candidate can still work, but they need a clear justification in the notes.
Where can I find a free GB700 Unit 5 sample paper?
A full GB700 Unit 5 synthesis matrix is on this page, arranging twenty-two studies on tuition assistance by four positions with seven columns, an empty cell and an explanation of what the arrangement shows.
Why do studies on tuition programs seem to contradict each other?
Many measured turnover at different points: during enrollment, when participants tend to stay, or after graduation, when those not promoted tend to leave. Organized by horizon, the findings fit one sequence.