| Course | HR435 Total Rewards and Compensation Strategy |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Merit increase matrix |
| Length | About 1,090 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 6
Over by $28,842, Then Under by $695: A Unit 6 Merit Increase Matrix for a Pest Control Company
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HR435: Total Rewards and Compensation Strategy
Unit 6 Merit Increase Matrix
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Ironweed Pest Services, its payroll distribution, ratings and every figure are composite and illustrative, carried from the Unit 4 structure and Unit 5 compa-ratios; the sources cited are real.
The Budget and the Grid
The merit budget is fixed: 3.5 percent of $13.9 million in eligible base pay, or $486,500. Eligible payroll excludes employees hired after October 1. The January adjustments to the new minimum, priced in Unit 5, are funded separately and do not draw on this budget.
The grid crosses four performance ratings, exceptional, strong, solid and below standard, with four compa-ratio bands under the new structure: below 0.90, 0.90 to 0.99, 1.00 to 1.09, and 1.10 or higher. Each of the sixteen cells gets one increase percentage. Milkovich et al. (2020) describe this design as a way to make increases depend on both performance and position in range, so that a strong performer low in the range moves toward the market target faster than an equally strong performer who is already above it.
Where the Payroll Sits
A grid cannot be costed until the payroll in each cell is known, so this step comes before any percentage. The shares below come from last year's ratings applied to this year's compa-ratios, and they total one hundred percent.
Exceptional, 10 percent of payroll. Below 0.90: 4 percent. From 0.90 to 0.99: 4. From 1.00 to 1.09: 1.5. At 1.10 or above: 0.5.
Strong, 35 percent. In the same band order: 10, 14, 8 and 3 percent.
Solid, 45 percent. In order: 13, 18, 10 and 4 percent.
Below standard, 10 percent. In order: 3, 4, 2.5 and 0.5 percent.
By band, 30 percent of payroll sits below 0.90, 40 percent between 0.90 and 0.99, 22 percent between 1.00 and 1.09 and 8 percent at 1.10 or above. That shape follows from Unit 3, which found most Ironweed jobs paid five to eight percent below market.
The Draft Matrix
Exceptional. 6.0, 5.5, 4.5 and 3.5 percent across the four bands.
Strong. 5.25, 4.5, 3.75 and 2.75 percent.
Solid. 4.25, 3.5, 2.75 and 1.75 percent.
Below standard. 1.5, 1.0, 0.5 and 0 percent.
Multiplying each cell's payroll share by its increase and adding the sixteen results gives a weighted average increase of 3.7075 percent. On $13.9 million that is $515,342, or $28,842 more than leadership approved.
Where the Overrun Came From
The draft looks modest in every single cell, so the overrun is not visible from the grid itself. It comes from where the money sits. The strong and solid rows hold eighty percent of eligible payroll, and their two middle bands alone hold half of it. A quarter point in one of those cells moves several thousand dollars, while a full point in the exceptional row at 1.10 or above moves under a thousand. The draft was generous exactly where most people are.
A matrix overspends through its most crowded cells, so the cut that protects top performers is a quarter point for the many rather than a full point for the few.
The Revision, Cell by Cell
Every change and its dollar effect on the $13.9 million payroll:
Strong, below 0.90: 5.25 to 5.0 percent, saving $3,475.
Strong, 0.90 to 0.99: 4.5 to 4.25, saving $4,865.
Strong, 1.10 or above: 2.75 to 2.5, saving $1,042.
Solid, below 0.90: 4.25 to 4.0, saving $4,518.
Solid, 0.90 to 0.99: 3.5 to 3.25, saving $6,255.
Solid, 1.00 to 1.09: 2.75 to 2.5, saving $3,475.
Solid, 1.10 or above: 1.75 to 1.5, saving $1,390.
Below standard, 0.90 to 0.99: 1.0 to 0.5, saving $2,780.
Below standard, 1.00 to 1.09: 0.5 to zero, saving $1,738.
The exceptional row is untouched, and so is the strong cell between 1.00 and 1.09. The nine changes save $29,538. The revised weighted average is 3.495 percent, and the grid now spends $485,805, which is $695 under budget.
What the Revised Grid Rewards
Averaged across each row, the revised increases are 5.45 percent for exceptional performers, 4.20 for strong, 3.14 for solid and 0.65 for below standard. The spread between the top and the middle rows is wide enough to mean something. Gerhart and Fang (2014) describe a sorting effect, in which performance pay draws and holds employees who expect their results to be rewarded, and a top-row increase that clearly exceeds the middle supports that effect. Within each row, increases fall as compa-ratio rises, so a solid performer below 0.90 receives 4.0 percent while one at 1.10 or above receives 1.5. That is how the grid moves Ironweed's underpaid employees toward the new midpoints over several cycles without a separate adjustment budget for everyone.
The below-standard row keeps an increase only below midpoint: 1.5 percent under 0.90 and 0.5 percent from 0.90 to 0.99. The reasoning is that a person paid well under the market target may be struggling partly because the pay is not competitive, and a zero there invites a resignation that costs more than the increase.
The Tenure Inversion From Unit 5
The specialist with six years at $56,800 earns $100 less than a colleague hired a year ago. Both sit under the new minimum and move to $57,083 in January, which erases the gap but does not reward the longer service, and the grid cannot do that either, since both then enter it below 0.90. The answer belongs to the targeted specialist adjustment from Unit 5, which HR proposes to weight by years in the licensed role, so the six-year specialist ends the second cycle ahead of the newer one.
Risks the Budget Depends On
Rating inflation. The grid was costed on last year's rating distribution. If managers rate more people strong or exceptional this year, payroll shifts into higher-percentage rows and the cost rises without any cell changing. Bol (2011) found that supervisors' ratings show both leniency and compression, and that these biases are linked to the supervisor's own information and incentives. A calibration meeting before increases are entered is the control.
Distribution drift. If actual ratings differ from the assumption in either direction, the cost moves with them. Each point of payroll that moves from the solid to the strong row, at the middle band, adds about $1,390. HR will cost the grid against actual ratings before it is released and hold a contingency of the $695 margin plus any approved reserve.
References
Bol, J. C. (2011). The determinants and performance effects of managers' performance evaluation biases. The Accounting Review, 86(5), 1549-1575. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-10099
Gerhart, B., & Fang, M. (2014). Pay for (individual) performance: Issues, claims, evidence and the role of sorting effects. Human Resource Management Review, 24(1), 41-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.08.010
Milkovich, G. T., Newman, J. M., & Gerhart, B. (2020). Compensation (13th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
What the HR435 Unit 6 assignment asks for
The sixth unit asks you to build a merit increase matrix that rewards performance, moves people toward the market target, and stays within a fixed budget. The budget comes first: state the percentage, the eligible payroll and the dollars available. Before choosing any increases, estimate how much payroll sits in each combination of performance rating and compa-ratio band, because the matrix cannot be costed without that distribution. Draft the grid, cost it by multiplying each cell's payroll share by its increase, and compare the result with the budget. If it overspends, revise it and show the dollar effect of each change. The prompt also asks you to explain the design logic, especially why increases fall as compa-ratio rises within a performance level, and to name the risks that could push actual spending above the estimate. Keep the narrative focused on decisions, since the grids themselves carry the numbers.
How the HR 435 Unit 6 example is put together
Ironweed's matrix opens with the $486,500 budget and the four bands, citing Milkovich and colleagues for the design. Payroll shares come next, row by row, showing 30 percent of payroll below 0.90 compa-ratio, consistent with Unit 3's finding that most jobs lag the market. The draft grid follows with its weighted average of 3.7075 percent. A section explains that the strong and solid rows hold eighty percent of payroll, and the highlighted line states the lesson about crowded cells. Nine revisions are listed with their savings, from $6,255 in the solid row's second band to $1,042 at the top of the strong row. Row averages of 5.45, 4.20, 3.14 and 0.65 percent are defended with Gerhart and Fang on sorting effects. The tenure inversion from Unit 5 is addressed, and risks of rating leniency, supported by Bol (2011), close the matrix.
Where the points sit in the HR435 Unit 6 rubric
The Unit 6 matrix carries points for three things: a correct cost, a defensible design and an awareness of risk. Correct cost means the payroll distribution sums to one hundred percent, every cell is weighted by payroll rather than headcount, and the final figure is at or under the budget. A draft that overspends is not a weakness if it is shown and fixed; that is the method the unit teaches. Design credit comes from explaining why the top row is protected and why increases shrink as compa-ratio rises. The risk section matters more than its length suggests, because instructors know that ratings drift and want to see the student does too. Each change should show its dollar effect, and the summary should reconcile with the grid. Gerhart and Fang on sorting and Bol on rating bias, cited in APA 7, back the design choices.
HR435 Unit 6 help: mistakes that cost points
The most common failure in merit matrices is costing the grid as if every cell held the same payroll, which can understate the cost by thousands of dollars. Another is cutting the exceptional row to fix an overrun, when the money actually sits in the middle rows where most employees are rated. Some matrices give the same increase at every compa-ratio for a performance level, which removes the tool the structure needs to close market gaps. Others give zero to all below-standard performers without considering those far below market, or give them generous increases without saying why. Check that your weighted average multiplies each payroll share by its percentage and sums the products. Keep a small margin under the budget and say what it covers. If your payroll distribution comes from a case file and the totals do not reconcile, we can help you rebuild the grid cell by cell.
Get an HR435 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Where the Unit 6 case gives a budget, a rating distribution and range data, send all three with the rubric. The returned matrix is costed cell by cell, revised until it totals, and explained in terms a manager could repeat to a team. Allow 24-48h. Nothing is charged the first time. 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 3: Market Pricing Analysis
- HR435 Unit 4: Pay Structure Design
- HR435 Unit 5: Compa-Ratio Calculation Set
- 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 6: Workplace Investigation Report
- HR410 Unit 6: Delivery Method Comparison
- HR400 Unit 6: Structured Interview Guide
HR435 Unit 6 questions, answered
Why weight the matrix by payroll rather than headcount?
Because merit increases are percentages of pay, so their cost depends on how much salary sits in each cell, not on how many people. A cell with ten senior employees can cost more than one with fifteen new hires. The example distributes payroll dollars across the grid for that reason and states the assumption in its first table.
Where can I find a free HR435 Unit 6 sample paper?
The full HR435 Unit 6 merit increase matrix on this page takes a composite pest control company's grid from a $515,342 draft to $485,805, with every cell change costed and margin notes.
Why does the revision leave the exceptional row unchanged?
Because the exceptional row holds only ten percent of payroll, so cuts there save little money while weakening the reward for top performance. The overrun came from the strong and solid rows, which hold eighty percent of payroll.
What happens if more people are rated strong than expected?
The cost rises without any cell changing. In the sample, each point of payroll moving from the solid row to the strong row in the 0.90 to 0.99 band adds about $1,390, so HR recosts the grid against actual ratings before increases are released.
Why do below-standard performers below 0.90 still receive 1.5 percent?
An employee paid well under the market target may be struggling partly because the pay is uncompetitive, and a zero there invites a resignation that would cost more than the increase. Above midpoint the row receives nothing.