| Course | BU 525 Strategic Human Capital |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Retention case |
| Length | About 930 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 525 Unit 6
$58,860 Each Time One Leaves: A Retention Case for a Composite Transit Agency's High-Voltage Technicians, Priced Against a Two-Step Pathway and a Day-Shift Rotation
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 525: Strategic Human Capital
Instructor Name
April 6, 2026
$58,860 Each Time One Leaves: A Retention Case for a Composite Transit Agency's High-Voltage Technicians, Priced Against a Two-Step Pathway and a Day-Shift Rotation
The Role Group and Why Its Losses Matter
This case asks the agency's finance committee to fund a retention measure for one role group: technicians qualified for high-voltage work on battery-electric buses. Unit 4 ranked the role first on the critical list, and Unit 5 recommended building most of the group through internal training. That recommendation depends on trained technicians staying. Unit 5 showed that the build route becomes cheaper than hiring from outside once annual departures fall to about 10 percent, against the 15 percent assumed today. Retention is therefore not a morale question for this group. It decides whether the workforce plan is affordable.
The qualified group grows as buses arrive, from about 7 people at the end of 2027 to 21 at the end of 2031. At 15 percent a year, the agency should expect about 10 departures across 2027 to 2031.
What One Departure Costs
Each element is a labeled estimate for the composite agency, built up separately so the committee can challenge any line.
Two costs are real but not priced. A departing technician takes knowledge of this agency's buses and fault history that no course teaches, and the colleagues who cover the vacancy carry a heavier load that can itself prompt further departures. Cascio and Boudreau (2011) list both among the hidden costs of turnover that conventional estimates omit. Leaving them out makes the figure conservative.
Across 2027 to 2031, about 10.4 expected departures at $58,860 each come to about $609,000.
| Cost element | Estimate | How it arises |
|---|---|---|
| Training investment to replace the leaver | $25,960 | The one-time build cost from Unit 5 for the replacement |
| Overtime covering the vacancy | $17,400 | About 300 hours at $58 an hour over the roughly 12 months until a replacement qualifies |
| Buses waiting for high-voltage repair | $14,000 | About 40 bus-days a spare diesel bus must run instead, at $350 a day |
| Selecting and onboarding the replacement trainee | $1,500 | Posting, interviews, paperwork |
| Total per departure | $58,860 |
Why Qualified Technicians Leave
Reasons are reported separately from guesses about them. The evidence is thin, because the group is small, and the case says so. One qualified technician left in 2025, and in the exit conversation gave two reasons: a private fleet offered about $3.50 an hour more, and day shifts. Stay conversations in February 2026 with the three remaining qualified technicians, held by their supervisor, produced the same two themes plus a third. All three said that being the only qualified person on a shift, responsible for any high-voltage fault without a second person to check the work, was the part of the job they liked least.
Those are patterns in a very small composite group, not findings. They are consistent with broader research. Allen et al. (2010) caution that pay is often over-weighted as a cause of turnover but is rarely irrelevant, and that the nature of the job and relationships at work matter as much. Mitchell et al. (2001) showed that job embeddedness, made up of links with colleagues, fit with the work and the sacrifices that leaving would entail, predicted who stayed. The night-shift isolation the technicians describe is a weak link and poor fit; the pay gap is a small sacrifice for leaving.
The Intervention
The case proposes one intervention with three parts, each aimed at one of the reasons above.
A two-step pathway
After two years as a qualified technician, a person can qualify as a high-voltage lead, with an additional $1.50 an hour on top of the $2.00 qualification premium already in the Unit 5 plan, and responsibility for mentoring trainees. The step creates something to lose by leaving early, which is the sacrifice dimension in embeddedness, and narrows the pay gap with private fleets for the most experienced people.
A day-shift rotation
No qualified technician is assigned permanently to nights. Qualified technicians rotate between day and night shifts every four months, which requires a change to the shift-bidding rules and the union's agreement.
Paired coverage
Once the group reaches 14 people in 2029, every shift with high-voltage work has two qualified technicians on duty, so no one carries the responsibility alone.
Price of the Intervention
| Cost, 2027 to 2031 | Estimate |
|---|---|
| Lead premium, rising from 1 lead in 2027 to 8 in 2031 | $65,520 |
| Overtime and scheduling changes to support the rotation and paired coverage | $50,000 |
| Lead training in mentoring | $16,000 |
| Total | $131,520 |
What the Agency Gets for the Difference
If the intervention reduces annual departures from 15 percent to 10 percent, expected departures over the five years fall from about 10.4 to about 6.9. The 3.5 avoided departures are worth about $203,000 at $58,860 each, against an intervention cost of $131,520, a net saving of about $71,000 over five years before counting the unpriced costs.
The case does not depend on the full 5-point reduction. The intervention pays for itself if departures fall to about 11.8 percent, a reduction of about 3 points. If it fails to move departures at all, the agency has spent $131,520 on better shift conditions for its most critical technicians, and the build route from Unit 5 becomes the more expensive way to staff the fleet. The committee is therefore being asked to fund a measure that pays back at a modest effect and protects the cost basis of the whole workforce plan. Unit 7 defines how the agency will know, within a year, whether it is working.
What the Case Does Not Claim
The case does not claim that the intervention will hold every technician. Private fleets will keep recruiting, and some people will leave for reasons no employer controls, such as a spouse's job or a move closer to family. It also does not claim that the three themes from the stay conversations are the whole story; with four people speaking, a fourth reason could easily be missing. What it claims is narrower: that the cost of losing qualified technicians is large, that the reasons people have given are ones the agency can act on, and that the proposed measure pays back at an effect well within the range research on embeddedness would lead the committee to expect.
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
Cascio, W. F., & Boudreau, J. W. (2011). Investing in people: Financial impact of human resource initiatives (2nd ed.). FT Press.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1102-1121. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069391
The Herzing BU 525 Unit 6 instructions
The sixth BU 525 unit asks for a retention case aimed at a budget decision. Requirements usually include naming the role group and why its losses matter, building the cost of turnover element by element, reporting reasons for leaving separately from guesses, proposing and pricing one specific intervention, and comparing the annual cost of losses with the cost of the intervention. The case does not have to show a positive return, but it must be honest about what the money buys. Interventions should be specific enough to cost. Exit interview records from work are confidential personnel data, so reasons should come from the case or be presented as composite patterns.
Inside the BU 525 Unit 6 example
The case opens by linking the role group to the build route from Unit 5 and showing why retention decides its cost. A cost table builds one departure from replacement training, overtime, bus downtime and onboarding, and a paragraph names two costs left unpriced, citing Cascio and Boudreau. A reasons section reports what one leaver and three remaining technicians said, admits how thin that evidence is and interprets it with Allen and colleagues and job embeddedness research. The intervention is set out in three parts, each aimed at one reason. A price table totals it. The comparison computes the saving, the break-even rate and the outcome if nothing changes, and a final section limits the claims.
BU 525 Unit 6 rubric: what full points look like
Retention case rubrics generally reward a clearly justified role group, a complete turnover cost, evidence-based reasons, a specific and priced intervention and an honest comparison, plus writing aimed at a decision maker. Justification earns credit when the group's importance is drawn from earlier units. Turnover cost scores highest when built element by element with stated bases. Reasons for leaving earn points when evidence is separated from interpretation and its limits are admitted. The intervention criterion rewards specificity, since a vague promise to improve engagement cannot be priced. The comparison usually carries the most weight, rewarding break-even analysis and a frank account of the outcome if departures never fall.
Common BU 525 Unit 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Retention cases lose marks when they argue from morale rather than money, or present a turnover cost with no breakdown. Another frequent weakness is asserting why people leave without evidence. Writers often propose several vague initiatives instead of one specific, priced intervention. Some show only the best-case return and never state a break-even. A committee asked to fund a measure will want to know the smallest effect that still pays, and a case without that number invites a skeptical reading. Others forget hidden costs such as knowledge loss or the load on colleagues covering vacancies. Exit interview notes from work should not be used. If your case feels like an essay rather than a budget request, we can turn it into a costed argument for your own role group.
Get a BU 525 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Give us the Unit 6 instructions, the rubric your BU 525 classroom carries and any turnover figures the assignment supplies for the case. We write a custom example that narrows to one role group, prices loss element by element, proposes a single costed response and names the fragile assumptions. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 525 papers and MBA samples
- BU 525 Unit 1: Strategy to capability translation
- BU 525 Unit 2: Workforce supply projection
- BU 525 Unit 3: Gap analysis
- BU 525 Unit 4: Critical role identification
- BU 525 Unit 5: Build or buy analysis
- BU 525 Unit 7: Workforce metrics and reporting
- BU 525 Unit 8: Strategic workforce plan
- BU 502 Unit 6: Psychological safety analysis
- BU 506 Unit 6: Implementation plan
- BU 530 Unit 6: Ethics and influence paper
- BU 531 Unit 6: Mitigation and cost
BU 525 Unit 6 questions, answered
Does the case have to show a positive return?
No, and a case that fails honestly is often the stronger paper. If the intervention costs more than the loss it prevents, say so and explain what else would need to hold for the spend to be justified, such as a capability the strategy cannot buy elsewhere. An argument that always concludes in favor of spending is not an analysis.
How specific does the intervention have to be?
Specific enough to price. A proposal to improve culture cannot be costed and therefore cannot be compared with anything. A change to how work in that role group is scheduled, or a defined development route with a stated duration, can be. Describe what happens, who does it and what it consumes, then attach a figure from the case.
Our exit interviews would prove my point. Can I use them?
They cannot travel. Exit interviews, engagement results, performance files, 360 summaries and salary histories are confidential to your organization and often identify the people who gave them. Carry the insight as a practitioner and build the leaving pattern inside the composite case, labeled as constructed. Nothing in the paper should read as commentary on a real departure or a real employee.
Where can I find a free BU 525 Unit 6 sample paper?
Every part of the BU 525 Unit 6 retention case is free to read here, including the departure cost table, the three-part intervention, the break-even and margin notes. For your role group, forward the instructions and a case priced around it is drafted free, generally within 48 hours.
Does a BU 525 Unit 6 case have to show a positive return?
No, but it must show what the money buys. The sample shows a modest saving at a five-point fall in departures, gives the break-even rate and says plainly what happens if departures do not move.