| Course | HR400 Talent Acquisition and Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Candidate evaluation memo |
| Length | About 790 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration (Human Resources) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HR400 Unit 7
Finalist B at 82 Points: A Unit 7 Candidate Evaluation Memo for a Warehouse Supervisor
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HR400: Talent Acquisition and Management
Unit 7 Candidate Evaluation Memo
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Calloway Building Supply, the finalists and every score are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
Recommendation
To: Operations Manager. From: Human Resources Generalist. Re: Second-shift supervisor, central warehouse.
Offer the position to Finalist B, whose weighted total is 82 of 100, against 78 for Finalist A and 64 for Finalist C. All three passed the shift availability hurdle.
Summary of Results
Finalist A, internal lead associate. Application 8 of 8. Work sample 40 of 44. Interview 22 of 38. Reference 8 of 10. Total 78.
Finalist B, external candidate, receiving supervisor at a lumber yard. Application 8. Work sample 34. Interview 32. Reference 8. Total 82.
Finalist C, external candidate from the job board. Application 6. Work sample 28. Interview 22. Reference 8. Total 64.
The totals were computed by formula from the Unit 5 weights, and no one adjusted them after seeing the result. Kuncel et al. (2013), in a meta-analysis of selection decisions, found that combining the same information by formula predicted performance better than combining it by judgment.
The Criteria in Weight Order
Re-sequencing a late load, 20 points. Finalist A scored 19, the best result on the in-basket. Her revised plan moved two pickers to receiving within minutes and pushed back the right route. Finalist B scored 15 and C 12.
Correcting unsafe practice, 16 points. Finalist B scored 13.8, with a past example of stopping a loader mid-lift and a strong answer to the shingles question. Finalist A scored 9.6; she described raising a concern with her supervisor rather than acting herself, which fits a lead's role but not the supervisor's. C scored 10.2.
Developing associates, 14 points. Finalist B scored 12.6, describing a plan she set for a slow receiver and the improvement she measured. Finalist A scored 8.4 and C 8.4.
Reassigning on absences, 12 points. A 11, B 10, C 8.
Remaining criteria. References were equal at 8 each. Relationships across the shift favored B, 5.6 against 4.0 for A and 3.2 for C. Load verification and handoff writing were close.
Finalist A is the stronger operator and Finalist B the stronger supervisor of people, and the weights, set from the job analysis before anyone applied, favor the second.
One Disagreement
On Question 2, the two interviewers first rated Finalist C at 2 and 4. Their recorded discussion found that one had missed C's statement that he would stop the lift, and the other had credited him with follow-up he never described. Against the anchors they agreed on 3. Campion et al. (1997) list independent rating followed by discussion as a component of interview structure, and the record shows how the rating was settled.
Finalist A
Finalist A is a strong internal candidate who lost on the interview criteria for correcting and developing people. Calloway should give her specific feedback on those criteria and offer a development path: the company's new-supervisor course, a mentor among the day-shift supervisors and responsibility for training two new associates over six months. Bidwell (2011) found that external hires were paid more yet received lower performance ratings in their first years than internal workers promoted into similar jobs, so developing internal candidates is worth the investment. She should be encouraged to apply for the new branch's supervisor positions next year.
Checks Before the Offer
Three checks remain before an offer is made. First, Finalist B's references confirmed her attendance record, but her current employer has not yet been contacted, at her request; the offer will be conditional on that conversation. Second, the pay offered must fall within the second-shift supervisor range, and her current pay, which she has not been asked, will not be used to set it. Third, pass rates at each stage of this search will be reviewed by sex and by race before the requisition closes, so that any step removing one group at a higher rate is visible.
What the Search Showed About the Process
The work sample separated the finalists more than any other method, with a spread of twelve points among the three. The interview separated them on the criteria the job analysis weighted most. The application screen and references did little, since all three scored near the maximum. If later searches show the same pattern, the reference check could be shortened.
Records
The application, work sample, rating sheets, discussion notes and this memo are kept in the requisition file for two years, longer than the one year federal recordkeeping rules require, and are available to any reviewer.
References
Bidwell, M. (2011). Paying more to get less: The effects of external hiring versus internal mobility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(3), 369-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839211433562
Campion, M. A., Palmer, D. K., & Campion, J. E. (1997). A review of structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 50(3), 655-702. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00709.x
Kuncel, N. R., Klieger, D. M., Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2013). Mechanical versus clinical data combination in selection and admissions decisions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 1060-1072. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034156
What the HR400 Unit 7 assignment asks for
Unit 7 in HR400 asks you to write a memo evaluating your finalists and recommending a hire. Lead with the recommendation and the weighted totals. Summarize each finalist's results by method. State how totals were combined and that they were not adjusted afterward, citing research on combining selection data. Discuss the criteria in weight order, explaining where finalists differed and why. Explain any disagreement between interviewers and how it was settled. Address internal finalists who were not chosen, including feedback and a development path. List checks that remain before an offer. Note what the search showed about the process. State where records are kept and for how long. Two pages to the hiring manager, plus a scoring appendix, is the usual shape. Keep every figure identical to the matrix so a reviewer can rebuild each total.
How this HR400 Unit 7 example is built
The sample memo recommends Finalist B and gives each finalist's scores by method. It explains that totals came from the Unit 5 formula, citing Kuncel and colleagues, with a margin note on traceability. Criteria are discussed in weight order, and the highlighted sentence contrasts the internal finalist's operating strength with B's people skills. A split rating on Finalist C is explained with Campion and colleagues, with a margin note on auditing. The internal finalist receives feedback and a development path supported by Bidwell's findings on internal mobility. Checks before the offer, observations on which methods separated candidates and records retention complete the memo.
Where the points sit in the HR400 Unit 7 rubric
HR400 instructors grade the evaluation memo on clarity, traceability and fairness. The recommendation should come first with totals. Results should be summarized by method for every finalist. Stating that totals were computed by formula and not adjusted shows discipline, and citing research on mechanical combination strengthens it. Discussing criteria in weight order keeps the memo aligned with the matrix. Explaining interviewer disagreements shows the process can be audited. Addressing internal finalists with feedback and development shows care for current employees. Remaining checks and process observations show judgment. Records retention should be stated. Sources should be cited, and figures must match the matrix and appendix.
HR400 Unit 7 help: mistakes that cost points
Many HR400 evaluation memos describe each finalist's personality and pick the one the writer liked. Others compute totals and then adjust them to fit an impression. Students often compare candidates with each other rather than with the criteria. Interviewer disagreements are hidden. Internal finalists who were not chosen receive a single line. Checks before the offer are forgotten. Lead with the decision, report scores by method, state the combination rule, discuss criteria by weight, explain disagreements, give internal finalists feedback and a path, list remaining checks and state retention. Send the score sheets, and our team will work through the evaluation memo with you.
Get an HR400 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Finalist scores or a plain description of the candidates will do, taken straight from the case; add the rubric and any matrix built earlier. The memo ranks against that key and explains its close calls, delivered in 24-48h with every finalist unnamed. A first sample costs nothing, and the employer stays composite. 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 HR400 papers and BS in Business Administration (Human Resources) samples
- HR400 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- HR400 Unit 2: Job Analysis
- HR400 Unit 3: Job Description Draft
- HR400 Unit 4: Recruitment Sourcing Plan
- HR400 Unit 5: Selection Criteria Matrix
- HR400 Unit 6: Structured Interview Guide
- HR400 Unit 8: Seminar Reflection
- HR400 Unit 9: Onboarding Plan
- HR400 Unit 10: Talent Acquisition Strategy
HR400 Unit 7 questions, answered
Why does the memo put the recommendation first?
Because a hiring manager reads for the decision, and a reviewer later reads for its basis. Opening with the choice and the three totals serves the first reader, while the evidence in weight order serves the second. Many sections expect memo format for this unit, and a conclusion held back until the last paragraph reads as an essay rather than a memo.
What if the case gives only interview notes, not scores?
Then the memo scores the notes against whatever criteria the case supplies and says so. The example's appendix shows each rating beside the note that supports it, which is the same move with less given. Where the case supplies no criteria at all, the memo states the ones it assumed and why.
Should the internal candidate be discussed at length?
In proportion. The example gives the internal finalist one closing section, covering feedback by criterion and a development path, because losing a strong internal applicant after a close result is a retention risk. More than that would pull the memo away from its decision, which remains the offer to Finalist B.
Where can I find a free HR400 Unit 7 sample paper?
This page carries a full HR400 Unit 7 candidate evaluation memo comparing three warehouse supervisor finalists against a weighted scoring key and recommending one.
Why combine selection scores by formula?
Research shows formula-based combination of the same information predicts performance better than overall judgment, and it leaves a record anyone can check.