| Course | HR435 Total Rewards and Compensation Strategy |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Market pricing analysis |
| Length | About 850 words, 6 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 HR435 Unit 3
Aged to July and Weighted by Market: A Unit 3 Market Pricing Analysis for a Pest Control Company
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HR435: Total Rewards and Compensation Strategy
Unit 3 Market Pricing Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Ironweed Pest Services, both surveys and every figure are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
The Surveys
Regional survey. A survey of service and trades employers in the company's three-state region, effective January of the current year. Used as the primary source for field and office jobs, since Ironweed recruits those roles locally.
National survey. A pest control industry survey, effective April of the current year. Used as a secondary source for field jobs and the primary source for the technical director, whom the company recruits nationally.
Matching Jobs
Each benchmark job is paired with a survey job and the match rated close, adjusted or poor. Seven matches are close. One is adjusted.
Commercial accounts technician. The survey's commercial technician includes selling new accounts, which Ironweed's technicians do not do. The match carries a five percent downward adjustment, so both survey figures are multiplied by 0.95.
Rynes and Milkovich (1986) caution that a market wage is not a single fact waiting to be found, because survey results depend on which employers and jobs are included and how jobs are matched. Recording each match and adjustment lets a reader see those choices.
Aging the Data
The company's pay policy targets market rates at the midpoint of the plan year, which runs January to December, so every figure is aged to July of next year. At an assumed 3.5 percent annual market movement:
National survey, effective April this year. Fifteen months to next July. Factor: 1 plus 0.035 times 15/12, or 1.04375.
Regional survey, effective January this year. Eighteen months to next July. Factor: 1 plus 0.035 times 18/12, or 1.0525.
Aging to the plan year's midpoint is a lead-lag policy: Ironweed's rates sit ahead of competitors from January to June and behind them from July to December.
Weighting
For the seven field and office jobs, the regional survey carries 60 percent and the national 40 percent, because those employees are hired locally and leave for local employers. For the technical director, the national survey carries 70 percent, because candidates come from across the country.
The Market Summary
Each row gives the regional and national medians as surveyed, the composite after aging, adjustment and weighting, current average pay and the ratio of pay to market.
Customer service representative. Regional $38,800, national $40,000. Composite $41,202. Pay $38,400. Ratio 0.932.
Residential pest technician. Regional $47,800, national $49,700. Composite $50,935. Pay $46,800. Ratio 0.919.
Commercial accounts technician. Regional $55,200, national $58,000, both adjusted by 0.95. Composite $56,120. Pay $52,600. Ratio 0.937.
Inside sales representative. Regional $59,100, national $60,300. Composite $62,497. Pay $61,900. Ratio 0.990.
Route scheduler. Regional $60,100, national $61,900. Composite $63,796. Pay $59,300. Ratio 0.930.
Termite and fumigation specialist. Regional $62,400, national $66,100. Composite $67,002. Pay $57,200. Ratio 0.854.
Branch service manager. Regional $71,400, national $75,000. Composite $76,402. Pay $71,500. Ratio 0.936.
Technical director. Regional $75,000, national $81,000, weighted 30 and 70. Composite $82,862. Pay $84,000. Ratio 1.014.
Most jobs sit five to eight percent below market, which a structure can absorb, but the termite specialist sits fifteen percent below, which no general increase will close.
Reading the Results
The pattern answers the question the job evaluation raised. The termite specialist's low pay is not a sign that the point plan overvalued physical demands; the market agrees the job is worth more than Ironweed pays. The inside sales representative is at market, which explains why that job outranks the specialist in pay despite fewer points.
Most other jobs sit about 6 to 8 percent below market. Gerhart and Rynes (2003) treat market position as a decision each employer makes, ideally role by role, according to which jobs drive its results. A general lag of this size may be a deliberate policy. A fifteen percent gap for licensed specialists, whom Ironweed cannot hire quickly, is unlikely to be one.
Limits
The aging rate is an assumption; a 3.0 or 4.0 percent rate would move every composite by about half a percent. The regional survey's sample of pest control employers is small, so field jobs rest partly on trades employers. Milkovich et al. (2020) recommend checking survey results against recent hiring experience, and the specialist finding matches the two failed recruiting searches of the past year.
What the Analysis Recommends
The finding supports two separate actions rather than one. The first is a structure built on these composite rates, so that every job's range starts from the same market evidence and the general five to eight percent lag becomes a stated choice that leadership can accept or change. The second is a targeted adjustment for the termite and fumigation specialists, priced and phased, because their gap is too large to close through merit increases without starving every other job of budget. Both actions depend on the matching notes above, so the file of matches, adjustments and weights should travel with the structure into the next unit.
References
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.
Rynes, S. L., & Milkovich, G. T. (1986). Wage surveys: Dispelling some myths about the "market wage." Personnel Psychology, 39(1), 71-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00575.x
HR435 Unit 3 instructions, in plain terms
For Unit 3 you price a set of benchmark jobs against external survey data and report how current pay compares. The work has four stages, and the prompt expects each to be visible. Matching pairs every company job with a survey job and rates the fit, adjusting where duties differ. Aging carries every survey number forward to the single date the pay policy targets, and you need to state that policy. Weighting combines the surveys, with a reason for any job that is weighted differently. The comparison then sets the composite rate beside current pay and computes a ratio. Show enough arithmetic that a reader could rebuild one row. Finish with what the results mean for the earlier job evaluation and with the limits of the data, including any assumption, such as the market movement rate, that would shift every figure if it changed.
How the HR 435 Unit 3 example is put together
Ironweed's two sources are a regional service and trades survey dated January and a pest control industry survey dated April. The matching section rates seven jobs close and adjusts one: the survey's commercial technician sells new accounts, so its figures are cut five percent. Rynes and Milkovich (1986) are cited on why matching is a judgment to disclose. The aging section shows both factors, 1.04375 for fifteen months and 1.0525 for eighteen, and names the lead-lag choice. Weights are 60 and 40 for local hires and 30 and 70 for the technical director. Each job then gets one row of medians, composite, pay and ratio, from 0.854 for the specialist to 1.014 for the technical director. The highlighted sentence separates a general lag from the specialist's gap. A recommendation section and a limits paragraph, which tie the finding to two failed searches, complete the analysis.
Reading the HR435 Unit 3 grading rubric
Credit in a Unit 3 pricing analysis goes mostly to method. The marks reward matches that are rated and explained rather than assumed, an aging policy that is named and applied with the correct number of months, and weights that follow from where the company actually recruits. Arithmetic errors in the aging factors are costly because every later figure inherits them, so each factor should be shown. The comparison earns its points when the ratios are interpreted, not merely listed, and when the result is connected back to the job evaluation. A limits section that states what the survey data cannot capture shows professional caution. Sources such as the compensation text and research on wage surveys belong in APA 7 citations. Tables are welcome, but every figure in a table should be explained somewhere in the prose so the reader knows where it came from.
Common HR435 Unit 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Market pricing papers often treat a survey median as the answer without matching duties, which hides the adjustments that a reviewer would challenge. Another common error is aging every survey to the same number of months even though their effective dates differ, or using the plan year's start without saying the policy is a lag. Some students average the surveys equally for every job when the company recruits some roles locally and others nationally. A few report ratios to many decimals and never say what a ratio of 0.854 means for the people in the job. Be careful with the adjustment for a poor match; apply it to both surveys before weighting, and say so. Finally, keep the assumed movement rate visible and test what a different rate would do. Send the survey extracts and your matches, and we can check the aging and weighting with you.
Get an HR435 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Supply the survey extracts, effective dates and job list from the Unit 3 case, and the rubric. The sample matches by duties, ages each figure to a stated target, weights the sources with reasons and shows arithmetic that reproduces from the factors given. Expect it in 24-48h; the first 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 HR435 papers and BS in Business Administration (Human Resources) samples
- HR435 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- HR435 Unit 2: Job Evaluation Exercise
- HR435 Unit 4: Pay Structure Design
- HR435 Unit 5: Compa-ratio Calculation Set
- HR435 Unit 6: Merit Increase Matrix
- HR435 Unit 7: Incentive Plan Proposal
- HR435 Unit 8: Seminar Reflection
- HR435 Unit 9: Benefits Cost Analysis
- HR435 Unit 10: Total Rewards Strategy
- HR420 Unit 3: Discrimination Claim Analysis
- HR410 Unit 3: Performance Gap Analysis
- HR400 Unit 3: Job Description Draft
HR435 Unit 3 questions, answered
What does lead-lag mean for aging?
It is a policy of aging survey data to the midpoint of the plan year, so pay leads the market in the first half and trails it in the second, averaging out near market over the year. Other employers age to the start of the plan year, a lag policy, or to its end, a lead policy. The example states its choice and why.
Why simple aging rather than compounding?
Over fifteen or eighteen months the difference is small, and simple aging is the convention many compensation texts use. The example states the method so a reader can reproduce each factor: one plus 0.035 multiplied by the months over twelve. If your instructor prefers compounding, apply it consistently and say so in the method paragraph.
Where can I find a free HR435 Unit 3 sample paper?
You can read a full HR435 Unit 3 market pricing analysis here, covering two surveys aged to the plan year's midpoint and eight Ironweed roles, with margin notes beside the key steps.
Why is the commercial technician match adjusted down five percent?
Because the survey's commercial technician also sells new accounts, a duty Ironweed's technicians do not have. Selling roles usually pay more, so both survey figures are multiplied by 0.95 before weighting, and the adjustment is recorded so a reviewer can disagree with it.
Why does the technical director use different weights?
Ironweed recruits that role from across the country, so the national survey describes its real labor market better than the regional one. The director is weighted 70 percent national, while the seven locally recruited jobs are weighted 60 percent regional.