| Course | BU 302 Leadership and Organizational Behavior |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Motivation theory application |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Business Management |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 302 Unit 3
More Properties, More Callbacks: Applying Expectancy Theory to a Landscaping Division After a Speed Bonus, Including Where the Theory Does Not Fit
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 302: Leadership and Organizational Behavior
Instructor Name
February 18, 2026
More Properties, More Callbacks: Applying Expectancy Theory to a Landscaping Division After a Speed Bonus, Including Where the Theory Does Not Fit
In July 2025, the landscaping firm profiled in Unit 1, Greenline Grounds, began paying its maintenance crew leads a monthly bonus based on properties completed per crew per day. Output rose, and so did client callbacks, requests to redo work that was missed or done poorly. This paper applies one motivation theory, Vroom's expectancy theory, to the maintenance division to explain what happened. It states the theory's components in full, describes the team and four observed behaviors, pairs each component with a behavior to show what the theory predicts and whether the team matches it, lists what the case cannot test and closes with two recommendations traced to specific components.
The Theory
Vroom (1964) proposed that the effort a person puts into a task depends on three beliefs, which Robbins and Judge (2019) summarize in three linked relationships. The components are:
1. Expectancy: the belief that effort will lead to performance, that trying harder will actually produce the result being measured.
2. Instrumentality: the belief that performance will lead to a reward, that achieving the result will be noticed and paid for.
3. Valence: the value the person places on that reward.
The theory predicts that motivation is strong only when all three are high, and that people direct their effort toward whatever behavior they believe is rewarded. A meta-analysis by Van Eerde and Thierry (1996) found that the components are related to work outcomes, with stronger relationships to effort and intentions than to measured performance, which suggests the theory is best at explaining where people choose to put their effort.
The Team and What Changed
Twelve maintenance crews, each run by one lead with a handful of helpers, look after roughly 210 commercial sites. In the first half of 2025, before the bonus, crews averaged 7.8 properties per day and the division received 31 callbacks. In the second half, after the bonus began on July 1, crews averaged 8.6 properties per day and callbacks rose to 74. The bonus pays crew leads $40 for every tenth of a property per day by which their monthly average exceeds 8.0, capped at $400. Crew members are paid hourly and receive no bonus. The division's whiteboard lists each crew's properties per day, and quality, measured by callbacks, is tracked in the office but not posted.
Four behaviors were observed after July. First, several crews skipped the final walk-through on the last property of the day, which is where most callbacks occurred. Second, some crew leads began reordering their property lists to finish the fastest sites first. Third, crew members, though not paid the bonus, watched the whiteboard and pushed their crew leads to move faster. Fourth, when asked about the change, crew leads said that properties per day was the only number anyone checked.
Expectancy and the Skipped Walk-Through
Expectancy theory predicts that people will put effort where they believe effort produces the measured result. For crew leads, the link between effort and properties per day is direct and visible: working faster produces a higher number on the whiteboard the same day. The link between effort and quality is weaker in their eyes, because a thorough final walk-through does not change any number they see. The skipped walk-throughs match this prediction. Crew leads had high expectancy for the speed measure and low expectancy that extra care would register anywhere, so effort moved toward speed.
Instrumentality and the Reordered Lists
Instrumentality is the belief that performance leads to reward. The bonus made the path from properties per day to money explicit and immediate. Nothing made the path from quality to reward explicit; callbacks did not reduce the bonus, and they were not posted. Kerr (1975) described this pattern as rewarding one behavior while hoping for another, and argued that organizations often get exactly the behavior their reward systems pay for. The reordered property lists fit this prediction closely: crew leads optimized the behavior that was instrumental for the bonus, even though finishing the fastest properties first left the most demanding sites for the end of the day, when crews were tired.
Valence and the Crew Leads' Comments
Valence is the value placed on the reward. A monthly bonus of up to $400 is meaningful for crew leads in an occupation where the median wage for landscaping and groundskeeping workers was $18.82 an hour in May 2025 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026), so the valence of the bonus was likely high. The crew leads' comment that properties per day was the only number anyone checked also suggests a second valued outcome: recognition from managers, who discussed the whiteboard in the Monday huddle. Both rewards pointed in the same direction, so the theory's prediction of strong effort toward speed fits the case.
Where the Theory Does Not Fit
The third behavior does not fit expectancy theory well. Crew members received no bonus, so for them instrumentality between faster work and a monetary reward was close to zero, yet they pushed their crew leads to go faster. Expectancy theory, focused on each person's own beliefs about effort and reward, does not explain this directly. A more likely explanation is social: the posted whiteboard created comparison between crews and a sense of team standing, which other theories in the course reading, such as equity comparisons and group norms, address better. The case therefore shows the limits of an individual calculation model for work done in small, visible teams.
Two components cannot be tested with this case at all. The case has no information on differences in valence among individual crew leads, so it cannot show whether a crew lead who valued the bonus less behaved differently. It also cannot separate expectancy from ability; a crew lead may believe care would matter but lack a clear standard for what a complete property looks like.
Recommendations
Two recommendations follow from the analysis, each traced to a component. First, to repair instrumentality, the bonus should be adjusted for quality: each callback in a month would reduce the crew lead's bonus by a set amount, and the callback count would be posted on the whiteboard beside properties per day. This makes quality performance lead to reward as clearly as speed does. Second, to raise expectancy for quality, the division should introduce a short end-of-property checklist marked in the scheduling app, so that careful work produces a visible, measured result the same day. Neither recommendation relies on general appeals to try harder; each changes one of the beliefs the theory says drives effort.
References
Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 769-783. https://doi.org/10.5465/255378
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2026). Occupational outlook handbook: Grounds maintenance workers. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/building-and-grounds-cleaning/grounds-maintenance-workers.htm
Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom's expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 575-586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.575
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.
What the BU 302 Unit 3 instructions ask for
In the motivation unit, students choose one theory from the course reading and apply it to a team or workplace, usually one where performance or effort has changed. Most rubrics expect the theory stated in full, a case described through observed behaviors, a component-by-component application, honest discussion of where the theory does not explain the case and recommendations tied to the theory. Common choices include expectancy theory, goal setting, equity theory and self-determination theory. Keep the case consistent with earlier units if your course builds on one setting. A short applied paper in APA 7 is typical, with the textbook and at least one research source. Before-and-after numbers, even rough ones, give the application something concrete to explain.
How the BU 302 Unit 3 example is put together
The sample sets out the three components as a numbered list and adds a meta-analysis on how well the theory predicts effort. The case section gives before-and-after numbers for output and callbacks, explains the bonus rule and lists four behaviors. Three paragraphs then pair each component with one behavior and state the theory's prediction before judging the fit. A misfit section explains why crew members without a bonus still sped up and suggests social comparison as a better explanation, then lists two components the case cannot test. The paper ends with two recommendations, each labeled with the component it changes. Each paragraph in the body follows the same order, prediction first and verdict second, which keeps the argument easy to follow.
Reading the BU 302 Unit 3 rubric
Herzing's criteria for this application commonly include accurate presentation of the theory, quality of the application, critical evaluation and useful recommendations. Accuracy earns full points when each component is defined in the source's terms and cited. Application is judged by clear pairings between components and specific behaviors, rather than a general claim that the theory fits. Critical evaluation, often a heavily weighted criterion, rewards papers that identify where the theory fails and suggest why, as the sample does with the crew members' behavior. Recommendations score highest when they change a component the analysis identified. APA citations and clear organization complete the rubric.
BU 302 Unit 3 help: mistakes that cost points
The most common problem in Unit 3 is describing the theory at length and then asserting that it fits the case in one paragraph. Another is choosing a theory and forcing every behavior into it, even behaviors it cannot explain. Students often skip the misfit, although many rubrics grade it directly. Some papers recommend general improvements, such as better communication or team building, that have nothing to do with the theory used. Others describe the team vaguely, without numbers or behaviors to argue about. Finally, remember that a theory predicts; state what it predicts for each behavior before saying whether the team matches.
Get a BU 302 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 3 instructions and the rubric from your BU 302 classroom, and name the theory the assignment assigns or lets you choose. We write a custom example that fixes the components first, describes a composite team plainly and pairs the two with the misfits named. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 302 papers and business management samples
- BU 302 Unit 1: Organizational setting profile
- BU 302 Unit 2: Individual differences memo
- BU 302 Unit 4: Team dynamics write-up
- BU 302 Unit 5: Communication breakdown analysis
- BU 302 Unit 6: Influence tactic comparison
- BU 302 Unit 7: Organizational culture read
- BU 302 Unit 8: Applied behavior case file
- BU 106 Unit 3: Management and organization paper
- BU 217 Unit 3: Contracts case
- BU 231 Unit 3: Cultural analysis
- BU 242 Unit 3: Purchase-path map
BU 302 Unit 3 questions, answered
Does the theory have to fit the team?
No, and a paper insisting that it does is usually the weaker one. Sections reward a writer who says which components the case supports, which it contradicts and what evidence would settle the rest. A partial fit argued from behavior earns more than a complete fit argued from adjectives, because the second cannot be checked against anything.
Can I use my own team as the case?
Often yes, with the usual limits. Keep the work and the routine, drop the names, and leave out anything your employer holds: appraisal outcomes, survey results, disciplinary matters and what a manager said about somebody. Say in a line that identifying detail was altered, and the paper stays inside what a classroom assignment can carry.
How many components should the paper cover?
Follow the count the instructions set, and where none is given, cover the theory rather than a convenient part of it. Skipping a component because the case is silent on it is fine when you say so; skipping it without comment looks like the writer read half. Depth on each pairing usually beats coverage of a longer list.
Where can I find a free BU 302 Unit 3 sample paper?
The finished BU 302 Unit 3 application is posted above for free, with the misfit section and recommendations. When your theory or team is different, pass along your instructions and a matching example will be written at no cost, generally within two days.
Does the theory have to fit perfectly in BU 302 Unit 3?
No, and saying where it does not fit usually earns credit. The sample shows expectancy theory explaining crew leads' behavior but not that of crew members who had no bonus. Naming that gap and suggesting a better explanation shows critical thinking.