| Course | BU 302 Leadership and Organizational Behavior |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Applied behavior case file |
| Length | About 1,200 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 8
Should Greenline Pay for Speed or for Finished Work? An Applied Behavior Case File Reading One Bonus Decision Through Three Theories, With a Development Plan
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 302: Leadership and Organizational Behavior
Instructor Name
April 29, 2026
Should Greenline Pay for Speed or for Finished Work? An Applied Behavior Case File Reading One Bonus Decision Through Three Theories, With a Development Plan
Contents
1. The question. 2. The organization, as far as the question needs. 3. Reading one: expectancy theory. 4. Reading two: goal-setting theory. 5. Reading three: organizational culture. 6. Where the readings agree and conflict. 7. Recommendation, with what it takes and what it costs. 8. Development plan for the writer.
1. The Question
Should Greenline Grounds replace its crew lead bonus, which pays only for properties completed per day, with a bonus that also accounts for quality, measured by client callbacks, before the peak of the 2026 season?
2. The Organization, as Far as the Question Needs
Greenline Grounds is the composite commercial landscaping company used throughout this course. Its maintenance division has 12 crews serving about 210 properties. In July 2025 the company began paying crew leads a monthly bonus worth $40 per tenth of a site above an average of 8.0 per day, up to $400. In the six months that followed, crews averaged 8.6 properties per day, up from 7.8, and client callbacks rose to 74, up from 31 in the previous six months. At 8.6 properties per day, the bonus pays about $240 per crew lead each month, or about $2,880 across the division.
3. Reading One: Expectancy Theory
Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), applied in Unit 3, explains effort as the product of three beliefs: that effort leads to performance, that performance leads to reward and that the reward is valued. Under the current bonus, crew leads can see that working faster raises properties per day the same day, that properties per day earns money and that the money matters. Quality has no such path; callbacks affect nothing a crew lead is paid or shown. The theory predicts effort will move toward speed and away from care, which matches the rise in callbacks and the skipped walk-throughs on the last property of the day. Kerr (1975) gave this trap its well-known name: paying for A while hoping for B. On this reading, the answer to the question is yes: the reward must include quality or quality will keep losing.
4. Reading Two: Goal-Setting Theory
Locke and Latham (2002), summarizing decades of research, concluded that a precise, challenging target produces more than an instruction to do one's best, as long as people are committed to them, receive feedback and have the ability to reach them. They also noted that when a goal covers only one aspect of a task, people tend to neglect the aspects not covered. Greenline's bonus sets a specific, difficult goal for speed and no goal at all for quality, with daily feedback on the whiteboard for one and none for the other. Goal-setting theory predicts exactly the pattern observed: strong improvement on the measured dimension and slippage on the unmeasured one. It adds a point expectancy theory does not stress. A quality goal needs its own specific target and its own visible feedback, not just a deduction hidden in the payroll calculation.
5. Reading Three: Organizational Culture
The culture read in Unit 7, using the levels described by Schein and Schein (2017), found that Greenline's stated value of quality conflicts with an operating assumption that speed is what counts. Everything the company displays or pays for, from the posted rankings to the monthly plaque, honors pace while callbacks stay hidden. This reading adds a warning the first two do not. Changing the bonus alone would run against the culture's assumption, and crew leads who earned recognition under the old system may see the change as unfair. On this reading, the answer is yes, but only if the visible symbols of the culture change with the pay.
6. Where the Readings Agree and Conflict
All three readings agree that the current bonus is producing the behavior it pays for and that quality is suffering because it is neither rewarded nor visible. They differ in what they emphasize. Expectancy theory points to the link between performance and reward; goal-setting theory points to the need for a specific quality target with feedback; the culture reading points to symbols and to how the change will be received.
There is one real conflict. Expectancy theory suggests that a strong enough financial penalty for callbacks would correct behavior on its own. The culture reading suggests that a penalty introduced without changing the whiteboard and plaque would be experienced as punishment and resisted. The evidence from the case supports the culture reading on this point: in the Unit 4 task force, the checklist gained acceptance only after crew leads helped write it and saw callback data they had not seen before. The recommendation therefore combines the three readings rather than choosing one.
7. Recommendation
Greenline should replace the current bonus on June 1, 2026 with a quality-adjusted bonus designed with crew leads. The recommended structure keeps the payment of $40 per tenth of a property above 8.0, deducts $30 for each callback in the month and sets a quality goal of no more than one callback per crew per month, with a $100 quarterly award for crews that meet it every month. Callbacks would be posted beside properties per day on the whiteboard, and the Crew of the Month plaque would go to the crew with the best combined result.
Carrying this out requires three steps. In May, the operations coordinator would present the callback data to the crew leads and ask them to test the structure against last season's numbers. Also in May, the office would add a callback field to the monthly bonus report, about six hours of work in the scheduling software. On June 1 the new bonus and whiteboard would begin. The cost is small. Last season's callback rate averaged about one per crew per month, so deductions would reduce payouts by roughly $360 a month across the division, and quarterly quality awards could add up to $1,200 per quarter if every crew qualified. Total bonus spending would stay close to its current level, while each callback, which the company estimates costs about $85 in crew time and fuel to fix, becomes something crew leads can see and reduce.
8. Development Plan for the Writer
Working through this case showed three gaps in my own skills as an operations coordinator. First, I could describe the callback problem but had to rebuild the data by hand; by September 2026 I will learn the reporting tools in our scheduling software well enough to produce the monthly callback and speed report myself, using the vendor's online training. Second, the Unit 4 task force showed that I can take notes but have not yet led a group through conflict; I will ask to facilitate the May bonus design sessions with the operations manager observing and giving feedback afterward. Third, morning radio traffic mixes English and Spanish, and I follow only part of it; I will complete a workplace Spanish course at the local technical college by December 2026. Each goal is specific, has a date and can be checked, following the same principle that goal-setting theory applies to crews.
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
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Wiley.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.
The Herzing BU 302 Unit 8 instructions
The final BU 302 assignment asks students to assemble earlier analyses into a case file that answers one question about one organization. Most versions want the question stated clearly, the organization reintroduced briefly, two or three theories applied to the same situation, a comparison of what they show, one recommendation with implementation details and costs, and a personal development plan. Instructors grade the assembly: how well the pieces fit together around the question. Earlier assignments may be reused if revised. Expect the longest paper of the course, with APA 7 citations and a contents page. Choose a question that earlier units have already prepared you to answer, so the file can use evidence you gathered along the way.
How the BU 302 Unit 8 example is put together
The sample begins with a contents page and a one-sentence question, then reintroduces the company only through the bonus rule and its effects. Three sections apply expectancy theory, goal-setting theory and the culture model to the bonus, each ending with what that reading implies. A comparison section lists where they agree, where they differ and one real conflict, resolved with evidence from the task force unit. The recommendation describes the new bonus structure, the whiteboard and plaque changes, three steps with dates and an estimate of cost. The development plan names three gaps in the writer's skills, each with an action and a date.
Reading the BU 302 Unit 8 rubric
The rubric for the case file typically weighs the clarity of the question, integration of theories, the comparison, the recommendation and the development plan, with organization and citations as a final criterion. The question earns full points when it is stated in one sentence and governs the file. Integration is judged by theories applied to the same situation rather than summarized separately. The comparison rewards papers that resolve a conflict with evidence, as the sample does. Recommendations score highest with steps, dates and costs. The development plan should be specific and about the writer. A contents page and consistent APA formatting support the organization score.
BU 302 Unit 8 help: mistakes that cost points
The most common Unit 8 mistake is pasting earlier assignments together without a question to connect them. Another is applying theories to different situations, so they cannot be compared. Students often summarize each theory and skip the comparison, and that comparison carries a large share of the grade. Recommendations frequently lack costs or dates. Development plans are sometimes written about the organization instead of the writer, or list vague goals like improve leadership skills. Finally, keep the reintroduction short; the instructor has read your earlier work, and the file should spend its length on analysis rather than repeating the company profile. Read the file once as a stranger would, checking that every section answers the same question.
Get a BU 302 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 8 instructions and the rubric from your BU 302 classroom, together with the earlier work the file has to draw on. We write a custom example that states one question, applies the theories in building order, keeps the conflicts and closes on a single costed recommendation. First custom sample free, returned 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 3: Motivation theory application
- 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 106 Unit 8: Company analysis with recommendation
- BU 217 Unit 8: Recommendation with defense
- BU 231 Unit 8: Market entry recommendation
- BU 242 Unit 8: Improvement recommendation
BU 302 Unit 8 questions, answered
Can I reuse my earlier assignments in the file?
Most sections expect some reuse and the instructions will say how much. Where earlier work comes forward, repair what was marked wrong the first time instead of pasting it in unchanged, and rewrite it to answer the file's question rather than its original prompt. Reused text still answering the old question is the commonest weakness here.
Does the development plan have to be about me?
Yes, and that is what separates it from the analysis above it. Keep it tied to the case: name the moments in your own reading where a habit of yours would have caused trouble, and say what you would do differently with a theory from the term attached. Vague self improvement promises earn little.
How do I handle theories that contradict each other?
Write the contradiction rather than resolving it quietly. Say what each theory predicts, where the case supports one over the other, and what evidence would settle it. Instructors in many sections read that passage first, because it is the only place in the file where synthesis can be seen rather than claimed.
Where can I find a free BU 302 Unit 8 sample paper?
Everything in the BU 302 Unit 8 case file, from contents page to development plan, is free to read above. If your organization or question differs, send the final prompt and a free custom case file will be written around it, usually within two days.
Does the BU 302 Unit 8 development plan have to be about me?
Yes, in most sections. The sample's plan names three gaps in the writer's own skills, each with an action and a date, such as learning the reporting software by September. Goals about the organization belong in the recommendation, not the development plan.