Week 12 — Same Pay, Different Effort: Diagnosing Motivation at a Neighborhood Bakery

Assignment 11 of the term — price a raise, compare two workers' pay per hour, diagnose motivation with this week's theories, and explain it to someone new to business.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, checkable analysis. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the work you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Business Case Workshop practise the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put Herzberg's two factors, equity theory, McGregor's assumptions, and the job-design tools together on one small case.

The task

The case is illustrative, built for this course and not real data. A neighborhood bakery has a counter clerk and two bakers. The pay is fair and the shop is clean and safe. The clerk does the same register work every shift, has never been asked for an idea, and recently told the owner the job feels the same every day. The owner wonders whether a raise would help. Like the coffee cart in this week's chapter, the case has no named people.

The bakery's figures, line by line:

• Counter clerk: 18 hours a week for 50 weeks a year.
• Raise the owner is weighing: 2 dollars an hour.
• First baker: 28 hours a week, paid 532 dollars a week.
• Second baker: 32 hours a week, paid 640 dollars a week.

Work these two problems, showing every step of the arithmetic:

1. How much would the raise add to the clerk's pay in a year, in dollars?
2. By how many dollars an hour is the first baker's pay per hour lower than the second baker's?

Beside each answer, add a brief interpretation:

• Problem 1: sort the clerk's situation into Herzberg's hygiene factors and motivators and say whether the case shows a motivator gap; then recommend one job-design tool, such as job enrichment or empowerment, say why it works on the motivators, and say how it connects to participative leadership or to decentralization.
• Problem 2: use equity theory to say what the first baker may feel, and name at least one outcome beyond pay, such as thanks or a schedule, that could change the comparison; then say which set of assumptions, Theory X or Theory Y, an owner who reaches for a raise and close supervision might hold, and why that describes the owner rather than the workers.

Explain it to a non-expert

A friend who works at a movie theater asks you, "My manager gave me a raise last month, but I still dread every shift. What's going on?" Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains, in everyday words, why a raise can stop complaints without making a job satisfying, suggests one change that could help, and names one limit, including that the bakery case is illustrative and that every motivation theory is a classroom model, not a law. More than one good answer is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a volunteer at a community garden who says, "They gave me a free T-shirt and a parking pass, but I'm bored." Model answer: "The shirt and the parking pass make volunteering easier, so they take away reasons to quit, but they do not make the work itself interesting. What usually helps is getting a real say, such as choosing what to plant in one bed or teaching a new volunteer. That idea comes from a classroom model of work, so it may not fit every person. Ask the garden for one small responsibility and see whether it changes how the shifts feel."

Use that pattern for your friend at the movie theater, with your own wording and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft both answers, both interpretations, and your message to the friend before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show each step of the arithmetic when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one number or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the work for you.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introduction-to-business course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about motivation: Herzberg's hygiene factors and motivators, equity theory, McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y, and the job-design tools. Do not write my assignment for me, do not invent work I did not show, never invent a statistic, a study, a survey, or a quotation, never quote any motivation theorist, never claim one theorist taught or influenced another, never name or describe a real company or a real manager, never type a person's personality, and never give me advice about a real workplace of my own.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The case: an illustrative neighborhood bakery, built for my course and not real data. In this course, motivation is the set of forces that start a person's effort at work, direct it toward a goal, and keep it going; a hygiene factor is a condition of a job, such as pay, supervision, working conditions, company policy, relations at work, or job security, that prevents dissatisfaction when it is met but does not by itself build satisfaction; a motivator is a part of the work itself, such as achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, or growth, that builds satisfaction when it is present; a motivator gap is hygiene factors met but motivators missing; equity theory says people compare their own ratio of outcomes to inputs with someone else's; Theory X and Theory Y are sets of assumptions a manager may hold about people, not types of workers; job enrichment adds responsibility and control to a job, job enlargement adds more tasks at the same level, and empowerment gives employees authority over decisions about their own work; and every motivation theory is a classroom model, not a law proven for every workplace.
PROBLEM P1: In the illustrative bakery, the counter clerk works 18 hours a week for 50 weeks a year, and the owner is weighing a raise of 2 dollars an hour. How much would the raise add to the clerk's pay in a year, in dollars?
PROBLEM P2: In the illustrative bakery, one baker works 28 hours a week for 532 dollars, and the other works 32 hours a week for 640 dollars. By how many dollars an hour is the first baker's pay per hour lower than the second baker's?
After the two answers, I must interpret each one: for P1, sort the clerk's situation into hygiene factors and motivators, say whether the case shows a motivator gap, and recommend one job-design tool with a reason tied to the motivators and to participative leadership or decentralization; for P2, use equity theory to say what the first baker may feel, name at least one outcome beyond pay that could change the comparison, and say which set of assumptions an owner who reaches for a raise and close supervision might hold, and why that describes the owner rather than the workers. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a friend at a movie theater who got a raise but still dreads every shift, explaining why a raise can stop complaints without making a job satisfying, suggesting one change, and naming one limit, including that the case is illustrative and that the theories are classroom models. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct numbers (20 points), motivation reasoning (48 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (20 points), and showing the work so it can be checked (12 points). For each of P1 and P2, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 number points, 12 reasoning points, 5 clarity points, or 3 showing-the-work points. Sum both problems within each criterion. Count my final message only with P2, not again with P1.
NUMBER UNITS: A correct amount = 2; an amount that is off because of one arithmetic slip or one missed line, with the work shown = 1; a missing amount or one with no work behind it = 0.
REASONING UNITS: For P1, BOTH pay sorted as a hygiene factor and the clerk's missing responsibility, recognition, or growth sorted as motivators with a diagnosis drawn from the case AND a job-design tool recommended with a reason tied to the motivators and to participative leadership or decentralization = 2; exactly one of those two parts = 1; neither = 0. For P2, BOTH equity theory applied to the two bakers with an outcome beyond pay named AND the owner's Theory X or Theory Y assumptions identified as assumptions, plus a friend's message that explains why a raise may not fix a dull job and names a limit = 2. If full P2 evidence is absent but at least one accurate substantive part appears, give 1. No accurate reasoning = 0; naming a term alone does not earn a unit, and filing pay as a motivator, treating a raise as the fix for missing responsibility, calling a worker a Theory X worker, or treating one theory as proven for every workplace is not accurate. An arithmetic slip alone is not a reasoning error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labelled evidence understandable to someone new to business, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the final message with P2 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-THE-WORK UNITS: For each problem, the multiplication, division, and subtraction that lead to the amount, written out with their numbers = 2; some steps shown but the amount cannot be fully rebuilt = 1; an amount alone or no work = 0. Visible work stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both answers and their interpretations AND written my message to the friend AND revised at least one number or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score and do not round it. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my numbers, work, and reasoning]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work with both answers, their interpretations, and your message to the friend — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled sketch of the clerk's hygiene factors and motivators with a short note; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 12 skills — pricing a raise, comparing two workers' pay per hour, sorting a job into hygiene factors and motivators, applying equity theory, reading a manager's Theory X or Theory Y assumptions, recommending a job-design tool, and explaining motivation to someone new to business — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same two problems, both interpretations, and the message to the friend. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one number or explanation you changed, the evidence that prompted the change, and one question you still have. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The numbers, the work, the reasoning, the revision, and the final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment or add evidence you did not produce, and do not let it invent facts about the bakery or any real company. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com