ORG 5091 Module 3 Capstone Alternatives and Decision Example

Five Options, One Decision: How a Columbus Distribution Center Will Keep Its New Evening Hires

Student Name

American College of Education

ORG5091: Organizational Leadership Capstone

Module 3 Assignment

Instructor Name

August 21, 2028

Introduction

My diagnosis traced the quick departures of new evening associates to three conditions: forced overtime announced too late to plan around, coaching that stops once the first week ends and supervisors responsible for so many people that newcomers cannot reach them. Wages and the recruiting channel did not explain the pattern. This paper generates alternative responses, sets criteria for comparing them, evaluates each and reaches a decision. It also examines how the decision process itself could go wrong.

Learning From How Decisions Fail

Nutt (1999) tracked 356 decisions made in organizations and reported that about half were never put to use or were abandoned, frequently because managers seized on the first idea, limited the search for alternatives or imposed solutions rather than involving those affected. Decisions that began with a clear objective, searched widely and involved stakeholders were more successful. To reflect those findings, the alternatives here were generated in a workshop with two supervisors, two experienced associates and an HR partner, and criteria were agreed before any option was scored.

The Alternatives

Five alternatives emerged. Option A sets overtime notice rules: mandatory overtime must be announced by the midpoint of the shift, new associates are exempt from mandatory overtime for their first 60 days and a voluntary overtime list is filled first. Option B creates a peer guide program in which experienced associates each support two new hires for 120 days, with time credited against their picking targets. Option C adds a sixth supervisor so that no supervisor leads more than 30 associates. Option D asks corporate for a larger second-shift pay differential. Option E combines A, B and a limited form of C, a new-hire coordinator who handles new associates' questions.

Setting the Criteria

Five criteria were agreed and weighted. Expected effect on early turnover carries 35 percent, because reducing turnover is the capstone's purpose. Cost carries 20 percent. Feasibility within my authority and the next six months carries 20 percent. Risk, including effects on productivity and other associates, carries 15 percent. Fairness carries 10 percent, reflecting whether the option treats current associates as well as new ones. Every option received a rating between 1 and 5 against each criterion using the diagnosis evidence and research, then the scores were weighted and summed.

Evaluating the Single Options

Option A addresses the most frequently cited cause, at low cost, and is within my authority, though limiting new-hire overtime shifts some hours to experienced associates; it scored 3.9 of 5. Option B addresses isolation and help seeking, costs about $62,000 a year in credited picking time and builds links research associates with staying; it scored 3.7. Option C reduces span but costs about $78,000 a year and requires corporate approval for headcount; it scored 2.9. Option D may help retention generally but does not address the causes found, costs about $340,000 a year and is outside my authority; it scored 2.1.

Evaluating the Combined Option

Option E combines the two strongest single options with a lower-cost response to wide spans. A new-hire coordinator, drawn from the trainer pool, would answer questions and check in with each new associate weekly for 120 days, giving the benefits of narrower spans for the group that needs them at about $52,000 a year, within the site's existing headcount budget. The option addresses all three causes, costs about $114,000 a year and can begin within two months. It scored 4.3, the highest, though its risk score was slightly lower because three changes at once are harder to manage than one.

Why the Evidence Supports Option E

Research supports each part. Schneider and Harknett (2019) linked short-notice scheduling to distress and poor sleep among service workers, which Option A addresses directly. Allen et al. (2010) concluded from the retention research that newcomer socialization and embedding new employees in relationships reduce early turnover, which the peer guides and coordinator provide. Expected savings are also substantial. If early departures fall from 64 to 40 a year, the shift avoids 24 replacements at about $4,800 each, roughly $115,000, before counting gains in accuracy and on-time departures, so the package would about pay for itself in its first year.

Checking for Decision Traps

Kahneman et al. (2011) suggested that leaders review a recommendation by asking questions such as whether the team fell in love with its proposal, whether credible alternatives were considered and whether the base case is overly optimistic. Applying these questions, the team considered whether the combined option was favored because it was the team's own creation. To test this, the HR partner, who had not been part of scoring, rescored the options independently and also ranked E first. The savings estimate was checked against a more cautious scenario in which early departures fall only to 50; the package would then recover about half its cost in the first year.

What the Decision Gives Up

Choosing Option E means not pursuing a sixth supervisor or a larger pay differential now. The first would address span for all associates, not only new ones, and remains a possibility if the coordinator role proves insufficient. The second may be justified for other reasons, and I will share the survey's pay findings with corporate, but the evidence did not show pay as the cause of the second shift's higher turnover. Stating these tradeoffs openly allows leaders to revisit them if results fall short.

What Would Change the Decision

The choice is not permanent. If the corporate compensation team announces a company-wide pay review, the second-shift differential could be reconsidered at no cost to the site budget. If the coordinator cannot reach every new associate weekly because hiring rises faster than expected, a sixth supervisor would move back into consideration. And if early results show that overtime rules alone produce most of the improvement, the peer guide credit could be reduced. Naming these conditions now makes it easier to revisit the decision on evidence rather than opinion.

Stakeholder Reactions

The decision was reviewed with the site director, supervisors and a group of associates. The director supported Option E because it stays within the site's budget. Supervisors welcomed the coordinator but worried that new-hire overtime exemptions would increase overtime for others; the team agreed to fill the voluntary list first and monitor overtime by tenure. Experienced associates were positive about peer guide credit but asked that guides be volunteers, which was accepted.

Conclusion

Five alternatives were compared on weighted criteria of impact, cost, feasibility, risk and fairness. The combined option, overtime notice rules, a peer guide program and a new-hire coordinator, addresses all three diagnosed causes, scores highest, is within the site's authority and budget and is supported by research and a cautious savings estimate. The decision process involved stakeholders, set criteria in advance and was tested for common traps. The next paper will plan implementation and evaluation.

References

Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2), 48-64. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.24.2.48

Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2011). Before you make that big decision. Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 50-60.

Nutt, P. C. (1999). Surprising but true: Half the decisions in organizations fail. Academy of Management Executive, 13(4), 75-90. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1999.2570556

Schneider, D., & Harknett, K. (2019). Consequences of routine work-schedule instability for worker health and well-being. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 82-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418823184