| Course | MT140 Introduction to Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Motivation analysis |
| Length | About 1,120 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT140 Unit 7
Fewer Tickets Closed, Not Less Effort: A Unit 7 Motivation Analysis of Customer Service Representatives
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT140: Introduction to Management
Unit 7 Motivation Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Larkspur School Portraits, its representatives and every figure are composite and illustrative; bracketed figures stand where the company's system would supply the numbers; the sources cited are real.
The Problem
Between January and March, Larkspur's eight permanent customer service representatives handle reorders, damaged packages and reprints for families. Over the past three months, tickets closed per representative per day fell from about [32] to about [21]. The customer service manager told the owner that "the team has lost its drive after the fall rush" and proposed a bonus for closed tickets.
Before accepting that explanation, it helps to ask what the representatives actually do with a ticket. A reprint request requires the lab to approve a new print run. In January the lab moved to a new approval queue, and reprint approvals that once took a day now take four to seven. A representative cannot close a reprint ticket until the lab approves it.
The timing is the first clue. If the drop came from fatigue after the fall rush, it should have appeared in early January, when the rush ended, and eased as people rested. Instead, the first two weeks of January were normal, and the decline began in the third week, the week the lab's new approval queue went live. The second clue is the mix. Tickets for damaged packages and address changes, which representatives can close themselves, are being closed at almost the same rate as last winter. The drop sits almost entirely in reprints, the one ticket type that depends on someone outside the team.
Expectancy Theory
Vroom (1964) explained effort through three beliefs that must hold together: trying will produce a result, the result will bring some consequence, and that consequence is worth having. Vroom called these expectancy, instrumentality and valence, and because they multiply rather than add, a near-zero on one drags the whole product down.
Expectancy is broken. A representative can do everything right on a reprint ticket, verify the order, check the image, enter the request, and still not close it for a week. About [40] percent of open tickets are reprints waiting for the lab. Effort no longer leads to a closed ticket, so the link between trying harder and performing better has weakened.
Instrumentality is weak but was always weak. Closing more tickets has never earned anything different: no recognition, no schedule choice, no pay difference. That has not changed this winter, so it does not explain the drop, though it matters for the proposed bonus.
Valence is intact. In conversations, representatives say they care about families getting their photos, and several described calling parents back on their own time to explain delays. People who did not value the outcome would not do that.
The representatives' own words in the February meeting support this reading. One said she now spends the first hour of each shift calling families back to say their reprint is "still with the lab," which closes nothing and lengthens her day. Another said the worst part of the job is no longer angry callers but having nothing new to tell them. Neither comment describes someone who has stopped caring. Both describe someone whose effort is going into a process that does not let it finish.
Herzberg as a Check
Herzberg et al. (1959) split the sources of feeling at work into two groups: conditions such as company policy, supervision and the tools of the job, which can only remove discontent, and the content of the work itself, such as finishing something and being noticed for it, which can create real satisfaction. Sorting the representatives' complaints from a February team meeting gives a clear picture. Almost all were about hygiene: the new lab queue, the inability to see where a reprint stood, and having to tell families "I don't know" repeatedly. Only one complaint concerned recognition. The missing piece is achievement, a motivator: representatives cannot finish what they start.
Why the Bonus Would Miss
A bonus per closed ticket would strengthen instrumentality, but expectancy is the broken link. Representatives cannot close more reprint tickets by trying harder, so a bonus would reward luck, mainly which tickets a person happened to draw, and could push representatives to favor quick tickets over reprints. Van Eerde and Thierry (1996), in a meta-analysis of expectancy models, reported that each component did track effort and performance, but more modestly than Vroom's original model implied. The model's most useful lesson here is diagnostic: fix the link that broke.
It could also damage the one link that is still strong. Representatives now value getting families their photos. A bonus tied to closed tickets would tell them, in effect, that the company values speed more than resolution, and that reprints are a burden to avoid. Herzberg's distinction predicts that money added to a job whose core frustration is unfinished work would remove a little dissatisfaction without creating satisfaction, while the frustration itself remained.
There is also a fairness problem. Two representatives who work equally hard would earn different bonuses depending on how many reprints landed in their queues, and representatives notice that kind of unfairness quickly. A bonus that rewards the luck of the draw would teach the team that effort and reward are unrelated, the very belief the company needs to repair.
The representatives did not stop trying; the tickets stopped closing when they tried.
Recommendations
First, restore expectancy by fixing the lab queue: set a two-day target for reprint approvals and give representatives a view of each reprint's status. Second, separate reprint tickets from the closed-ticket count, measuring them by time from request to approval, which the lab controls. Third, address the motivator directly by letting representatives close the loop with families, sending the final shipping notice themselves. Fourth, if the owner still wants a bonus, base it on customer satisfaction scores, which representatives can affect, rather than on closed tickets.
The measure is closed non-reprint tickets per representative, which should return to about [30] once the reprint backlog is separated, and the average reprint approval time, which should fall to two days.
If the reprint queue is fixed and closed non-reprint tickets still do not recover, the manager's original explanation would deserve a second look. The analysis does not rule out fatigue; it shows that a more specific cause appeared at the same moment the numbers fell, and that cause should be removed first. A follow-up review in April, after one full month of the two-day target, would settle the question either way.
References
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. Wiley.
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 MT140 Unit 7 assignment asks for
In Unit 7 you are usually asked to explain a motivation problem in a real or case workplace using theories from the readings. The prompt typically names a group whose effort or performance has changed and wants you to identify the cause, test it against two theories, and recommend a response. Expectancy theory, two-factor theory, equity theory, goal setting and Maslow's hierarchy are the common choices in introductory management. Describe the problem with evidence, such as output figures, timing or what employees have said. Apply each theory carefully enough that it could point to a different cause, then explain which explanation fits best. Recommendations should follow from the diagnosis and include a measure of success. Expect about four pages, with the textbook and at least one research source cited in APA 7. Some sections allow self-analysis, but most prefer a team.
Inside the MT140 Unit 7 example
The paper begins with the drop in closed tickets and the manager's proposal, so the reader knows which belief is under test. A problem section adds two clues: the decline started in the third week of January, not after the fall rush, and only reprint tickets slowed. Expectancy theory is then taken one link at a time. Expectancy is broken because effort no longer closes reprint tickets, instrumentality was always weak, and valence is intact, shown by representatives calling families back on their own time. Herzberg works as a second check by sorting February meeting complaints into conditions and work content. A section on the bonus explains why paying for closed tickets would reward luck and could teach staff to avoid reprints. The highlighted line separates trying from closing, and the recommendations fix the lab queue first, with an April review.
MT140 Unit 7 rubric: what earns full points
Motivation papers here earn most of their marks for diagnosis. Applying a theory accurately is the minimum; the stronger papers use the theory to test an explanation, as this one does with the manager's claim about lost drive. Evidence should do the work, so the timing of the decline and the ticket mix count for more than general statements about morale. Graders look for two theories that are each applied to the same facts, with a clear reason why one explanation wins. The recommendations should change what the diagnosis found, so a paper that blames a broken expectancy link and then proposes a bonus would contradict itself. A measure of success and a condition for revisiting the conclusion show judgment. Citations for Vroom, Herzberg and colleagues, and Van Eerde and Thierry should support the reasoning, and APA 7 format applies throughout.
MT140 Unit 7 help: mistakes that cost points
Students often lose credit on this paper by walking through every level of Maslow's hierarchy without connecting any level to the team's behavior. Another weak pattern is accepting the manager's explanation and using theory to decorate it. Some papers apply two theories that point to the same cause, which leaves the comparison with nothing to compare. Others recommend money for a problem the analysis traced to process or tools. Watch for claims about feelings with no evidence, since quotations from a meeting or a change in output timing are much stronger. If the cause turns out to be outside the team, say so directly; that is a legitimate finding. Our writers can help you sort the evidence, pick theories that predict different causes and build recommendations that match what the analysis found, cited in the format your section requires.
Get an MT140 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Pick a team whose effort seems to have dropped and describe what changed around it, then include the Unit 7 prompt and rubric. The motivation theories named in your readings get applied to that team link by link, with changes a supervisor could make. Turnaround is 24-48h, and the first custom sample is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT140 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT140 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- MT140 Unit 2: Management Functions Analysis
- MT140 Unit 3: Planning Memo
- MT140 Unit 4: Organizational Structure Exercise
- MT140 Unit 5: Staffing Case Analysis
- MT140 Unit 6: Leadership Style Analysis
- MT140 Unit 8: Team Communication Brief
- MT140 Unit 9: Control Measures Report
- MT140 Unit 10: Management Report
- MT106 Unit 7: Academic Integrity Exercise
- MT102 Unit 7: Channel Comparison
- LI410 Unit 7: Change Leadership Analysis
MT140 Unit 7 questions, answered
Which motivation theories fit this assignment?
Use the ones your section covers. Expectancy theory, Herzberg's two factors, Maslow's hierarchy, equity theory and goal-setting theory all appear in introductory management texts, and two usually suffice. Choose theories that point to different causes, because the analysis grows stronger when one theory explains something the other misses, as expectancy and Herzberg do in the maintenance case.
Is Maslow's hierarchy still acceptable to use?
Most sections accept it, though some instructors note its limited research support. If you use it, apply it precisely to the team rather than walking through all five levels. Pairing it with a theory that has stronger evidence behind it, such as expectancy or goal-setting, tends to satisfy graders who question the hierarchy standing on its own.
Can the analysis be about my own motivation?
Check the prompt, since most Unit 7 assignments ask about a team or an employee you can observe. If self-analysis is allowed, treat yourself as a case: describe what changed in your effort, when it changed, and what surrounded the change. Keep the tone analytical, because the theories work the same way whoever the subject happens to be.
Where can I find a free MT140 Unit 7 sample paper?
A complete MT140 Unit 7 motivation analysis is printed on this page. It tests a manager's claim of lost drive against expectancy theory and Herzberg, finds a broken expectancy link and includes three real sources and margin notes.
Why would a bonus per closed ticket backfire in the sample?
Because representatives cannot close reprint tickets faster by trying harder. A bonus would pay for which tickets a person happened to draw and could push staff to avoid reprints, which harms the families they still care about serving.