| Course | D434 Future Focused Total Rewards |
|---|---|
| Task | Task 1 |
| Paper type | Total rewards evaluation and strategy |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 3 pages |
| Format | APA 7 |
| School | Western Governors University (WGU) |
| Program | MS Human Resource Management |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for D434 Task 1
Losing Engineers for More Than Money: Evaluating a Composite Denver Software Company's Total Rewards and Building a Competitive Strategy Across Pay, Flexibility, Growth and Recognition
Student Name
School of Business, Western Governors University
D434: Future Focused Total Rewards, Task 1
Course Instructor
Month Day, Year
Losing Engineers for More Than Money: Evaluating a Composite Denver Software Company's Total Rewards and Building a Competitive Strategy Across Pay, Flexibility, Growth and Recognition
The Organization and Its Problem
Ridgeline Software, a composite company in Denver, makes scheduling software for veterinary clinics and employs 240 people, including 95 engineers. Revenue has grown 22% a year, but engineering turnover reached 24% last year, and eight of the 23 engineers who left were senior engineers with more than five years at the company. Replacing a senior engineer takes about four months and costs roughly $60,000 in recruiting fees, interviewing time and lost productivity. Leadership assumed the problem was salary and asked HR to evaluate whether a raise would fix it.
Evaluating the Current Total Rewards
Total rewards include everything an employee values in the employment relationship: compensation, benefits, well-being and flexibility, recognition, and development and career opportunities (WorldatWork, n.d.). Ridgeline's current offer was evaluated against three standards: the market, what employees value and the company's goals.
Compensation: market data from two salary surveys show that Ridgeline pays engineers at about the 50th percentile for early-career roles but only the 35th percentile for senior roles, because raises have not kept pace with the market for experienced engineers. Equity grants were given only at hiring, so long-tenured engineers hold few unvested shares, leaving little financial reason to stay.
Benefits: health, dental and retirement benefits are competitive with the market, and employees rate them favorably.
Flexibility: since 2023, Ridgeline has required four office days a week. In the exit interviews of senior engineers, rigid office requirements were cited as often as pay.
Development and careers: engineers can advance only by becoming managers; there is no senior technical path. Five of the eight senior engineers who left moved to roles titled staff or principal engineer at other companies.
Recognition: recognition is informal and inconsistent, depending on each manager.
The evaluation shows that raising pay alone would address one of several problems. Senior pay is below market, but flexibility and career growth are equally strong reasons for leaving, and they are areas where Ridgeline can compete with larger rivals at lower cost.
What Research Suggests
Two lines of research inform the strategy. First, pay matters. A review of research on pay and motivation concluded that concerns that financial incentives crowd out intrinsic motivation have been overstated, and that pay, including pay tied to performance, generally has positive effects on performance and attracts and retains higher performers (Gerhart & Fang, 2015). Second, flexibility matters for retention. In a randomized trial at a large company, employees allowed to work from home two days a week quit at a rate one-third lower than those required to be in the office every day, with no negative effect on performance reviews or promotions (Bloom et al., 2024).
The Total Rewards Strategy
Compensation: raise senior engineering pay to the 60th percentile of the market over the next year, with an estimated cost of $540,000 a year. Introduce annual equity refresh grants for engineers rated as meeting or exceeding expectations, vesting over four years, so that staying is rewarded.
Flexibility: move to a hybrid schedule with two required team days a week, chosen by each team, and allow fully remote work for senior engineers with manager approval. This costs little and addresses one of the two main reasons senior engineers leave.
Development and careers: create a technical career ladder with senior, staff and principal engineer levels, each with defined expectations and pay ranges comparable to management levels. Fund $3,000 a year per engineer for conferences, courses and certifications.
Recognition: introduce peer recognition through the company's messaging platform, quarterly awards for technical contributions chosen by engineers, and recognition of mentoring in performance reviews.
Well-being: keep the current benefits and add a monthly home office stipend for hybrid and remote employees.
Legal and Fairness Considerations
Colorado's Equal Pay for Equal Work Act shapes the strategy. It prohibits pay discrimination based on sex, including sex combined with other protected statuses, and requires employers to include the pay range and a general description of benefits and other compensation in job postings for work that will or could be performed in Colorado (Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, 2024). Ridgeline will therefore publish ranges for every level on the new technical ladder, conduct a pay equity analysis before adjusting salaries to confirm that differences are explained by job-related factors such as experience and performance, and document the reasons for pay decisions. Equity refresh grants will follow published criteria so that they are applied consistently.
Costs and Expected Return
The strategy's annual cost is about $1.05 million: $540,000 for pay adjustments, $280,000 in equity refresh grants at current valuation, $285,000 for development funds, and smaller amounts for stipends and recognition, partly offset by lower office space needs. If engineering turnover falls from 24% to 14%, Ridgeline would avoid about ten departures a year. At roughly $60,000 per senior departure and about $35,000 for other engineers, the savings would cover much of the cost, and the value of retaining knowledge about the product and customers, although harder to measure, is likely greater.
Measuring Success
Ridgeline will track engineering turnover by level, the share of offers accepted, time to fill, results of the pay equity analysis, internal promotions on the technical ladder and employee survey scores on pay fairness, flexibility and career growth, reviewing them each quarter. The strategy will also be communicated as a whole, not piece by piece: each engineer will receive a one-page total rewards statement showing the full value of pay, equity, benefits, development funds and flexibility, because employees often underestimate the value of rewards they cannot see in a paycheck. Managers will be trained to explain the technical ladder and pay ranges so that conversations about pay and growth become routine rather than something employees must raise when they are already thinking of leaving.
Conclusion
Ridgeline's engineers are leaving for more than money. The evaluation shows below-market senior pay, but also rigid office requirements and a career path that forces engineers into management. A total rewards strategy that raises senior pay, rewards tenure with equity, restores flexibility, creates a technical ladder and formalizes recognition, all within Colorado's pay transparency requirements, gives Ridgeline a competitive offer at a cost justified by the turnover it prevents.
References
Bloom, N., Han, R., & Liang, J. (2024). Hybrid working from home improves retention without damaging performance. Nature, 630(8018), 920-925. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07500-2
Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. (2024). INFO #9A: Transparency in pay and job opportunities (Colorado Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, Part 2). https://cdle.colorado.gov/sites/cdle/files/INFO%20%239A%20Transparency%20in%20Pay%20and%20Job%20Opportunities%20The%20Colorado%20EPEWA%20Part%202%205.29.24%20%5Baccessible%5D.pdf
Gerhart, B., & Fang, M. (2015). Pay, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, performance, and creativity in the workplace: Revisiting long-held beliefs. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 489-521. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111418
WorldatWork. (n.d.). The WorldatWork total rewards model. https://worldatwork.org/total-rewards-model
What the D434 Task 1 instructions ask
The first D434 task asks you to evaluate an organization's current total rewards and recommend a strategy for the future. Versions usually ask for the organization and its problem, an evaluation of the current offer across all rewards elements, relevant research, the strategy itself, legal and fairness considerations, costs with the expected return and measures of success. Evaluators look for an evaluation that uses a recognized model and covers more than pay, since people often leave for reasons such as flexibility or career growth. Research should inform the choices, including what is known about pay and motivation. Legal considerations should be specific to the organization's location, such as state pay transparency laws. Costs need a breakdown and a return argument. Measures should show whether the strategy reduces the problem you identified.
How this D434 Task 1 example is built
The paper opens with the software company, its growth and the engineers it is losing, with exit data showing where they go. The evaluation section rates each rewards element against the model and reports findings in a table. A research section covers two lines of evidence: studies showing that pay motivates without crowding out interest, and research on hybrid work and retention. The strategy follows, element by element, with costs such as $540,000 for pay adjustments. The legal section applies Colorado's Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, including its pay range posting rule and pay equity audits. Costs are totaled and compared with the expense of replacing engineers. The measures section lists turnover by level and survey scores. Notes explain each section's role in the rubric.
Where the D434 Task 1 rubric puts the marks
Evaluators give each D434 Task 1 aspect a rating of competent, approaching competence or not evident. The opening aspect wants the business and the rewards problem it faces. The evaluation aspect rewards an assessment of every total rewards element using a recognized framework. A research aspect looks for evidence applied to the strategy. Strategy aspects want recommendations for each element that answer the evaluation's findings. The legal aspect checks for laws that apply to this organization, applied accurately. Leaders need the price, so another aspect checks the itemized cost and the return argued for it. The measures aspect looks for metrics tied to the original problem. Evaluators expect graduate-level analysis, so a strategy that addresses why people leave, not only how much they earn, reads as stronger. Clear writing and APA citation complete the scoring.
D434 Task 1 help: what sends it back
Total rewards papers lose marks when they evaluate pay and ignore the other elements. Assess flexibility, recognition and careers too, since they often explain turnover. Evaluations sometimes use no framework, so cite a recognized model and apply it. Research may be summarized without affecting the strategy; show how each finding shapes a recommendation. Legal sections are often generic, when evaluators want the laws of the organization's state and country. Costs can appear without a return argument, which leaves leaders unable to decide. Measures sometimes track activity, such as programs launched, rather than results like turnover. Keep the strategy focused on the workforce the organization needs next, since the course asks you to think about future rewards, not only current gaps.
Get a D434 Task 1 example written to your instructions
Send the task instructions and rubric aspects from your D434 course of study. We write a custom total rewards evaluation and strategy to those exact aspects, returned in 24-48h. The first custom sample is free.
Other MBA sample papers
- D376 Task 1 Customer Experience Analysis
- C205 Task 2 Team Performance Improvement Proposal
- C206 Task 2 Ethics Audit Report
- E200 Task 1 Inclusion-focused HR Approach
D434 Task 1 questions, answered
Does D434 need pay ranges?
Where pay transparency laws apply, ranges matter. The sample's Colorado location requires pay ranges in job postings, so the strategy builds posted ranges into its compensation recommendations.
Why Denver in the D434 sample?
Because Colorado's Equal Pay for Equal Work Act sets pay transparency and equity rules. Placing the company there shows how state law shapes a rewards strategy, and your own paper should apply your organization's laws.
Is the D434 company real?
No. Ridgeline Software is a composite created for this sample, and its figures are illustrative. The total rewards model, research and Colorado law cited are real.
What rewards elements does D434 Task 1 evaluate?
Compensation, benefits, well-being and flexibility, recognition, and development and career opportunities. The sample rates each one and finds problems beyond pay, including rigid office rules and a missing technical career path.
Where can I find a free D434 Task 1 sample paper?
The software company rewards evaluation and strategy appear above with notes. Describe your organization and its rewards problem, and your first custom D434 paper costs nothing.