Week 12 Business Case Workshop: Diagnosing Motivation at a Pet-Grooming Salon

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you diagnosed the coffee cart's helper with Herzberg's two factors: the helper earns 16,000 dollars a year in decent conditions, so the hygiene factors are met, but the job offers no responsibility or recognition, so the cart has a motivator gap that a raise would not close. In this workshop you do the same for a different business, an illustrative pet-grooming salon with four groomers. You find each groomer's pay per hour and the yearly cost of a raise, sort a short staff check-in into hygiene factors and motivators, compare two groomers with equity theory, and then make a real decision: should the owner give everyone a raise, or spend the money on targeted changes? Finally, you check a chatbot's analysis of the same case and correct it by hand.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: What does each groomer earn per hour and what would a raise for all four cost in a year, which groomers show a motivator gap and which show a hygiene problem, and should the owner give everyone the raise or spend the money on targeted changes once you weigh the people the choice touches and the strongest case against your choice?

Workshop data: An illustrative pet-grooming salon's pay, hours, and staff check-in

Source: The weekly hours, weekly pay, working weeks, a staff check-in of six yes-or-no job features, and the monthly bookings and price for an illustrative pet-grooming salon with four groomers, written for this workshop and printed in full in Part 4; it is not real data and describes no real business, place, or person.

• Rows: four groomers' pay, hours, and check-in answers; the pay-and-hours table in Part 4 has 5 rows (four groomers and a total), the check-in table has 4 rows, and the options table has 4 rows
• Columns: the groomer, weekly hours, weekly pay, pay per hour, and the raise's yearly cost in the pay table; the groomer, six yes-or-no job features, two counts, and your diagnosis in the check-in table; the option, its yearly cost, the factor it works on, and who gains and who gives something up in the options table
• Decision: whether the owner should give every groomer a raise of 1 dollar an hour or spend the money on targeted changes such as fixing one groomer's pay and enriching another's job

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

• A free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for every computation; the SBA's free planning pages and SCORE's free templates for the plan; the SEC's EDGAR full-text search and investor.gov for what a real filing and a real security are; Census, BEA, and BLS data tables for real figures; and one approved chatbot used as a pair consultant whose numbers the student recomputes before trusting them

Ways of working

• analyze-the-case
• run-the-numbers
• recommend-and-defend

Procedure

1. Open a blank sheet in a free spreadsheet. Type Groomer, Weekly hours, and Weekly pay in A1 to C1. In A2 to A5 type A, B, C, and D; in B2 to B5 type 30, 30, 20, and 25; and in C2 to C5 type 540, 600, 380, and 500. In A7 type Weeks a year and in B7 type 48; in A8 type Raise per hour and in B8 type 1. Tool: A free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for every computation; the SBA's free planning pages and SCORE's free templates for the plan; the SEC's EDGAR full-text search and investor.gov for what a real filing and a real security are; Census, BEA, and BLS data tables for real figures; and one approved chatbot used as a pair consultant whose numbers the student recomputes before trusting them. Check: Rows 2 to 5 hold the four groomers' hours and pay, and rows 7 and 8 hold the weeks and the raise.
2. In D1 type Pay per hour and in D2 type =C2/B2, then fill it down to D5. In E1 type Raise cost a year and in E2 type =B2*48*1 (hours a week times 48 weeks times the 1-dollar raise), then fill it down to E5. In A6 type Total, in B6 type =SUM(B2:B5), and in E6 type =SUM(E2:E5). Copy every amount into the pay-and-hours table in Part 4. Tool: A free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for every computation; the SBA's free planning pages and SCORE's free templates for the plan; the SEC's EDGAR full-text search and investor.gov for what a real filing and a real security are; Census, BEA, and BLS data tables for real figures; and one approved chatbot used as a pair consultant whose numbers the student recomputes before trusting them. Check: Column D shows each groomer's pay per hour, and E6 shows what the raise would cost the salon in a year.
3. Complete the check-in table in Part 4: for each groomer, count how many of the three hygiene factors (fair pay, fair supervision, clean and safe conditions) are met and how many of the three motivators (responsibility, recognition, growth) are present, then write a one-line diagnosis: motivator gap, hygiene problem, or engaged. Check: Each row has two counts out of 3 and a diagnosis drawn from those counts.
4. Complete the options table in Part 4: for each option, write its yearly cost from your sheet (or no extra pay), whether it works on a hygiene factor or a motivator, who gains, and who gives something up. Check: Each option names the factor it works on, and at least one option costs no extra pay.
5. Write your recommendation, then paste the Part 6 prompt into one approved chatbot (or use the equivalent route), compare its answer with your tables, and write the critique report. Tool: A free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for every computation; the SBA's free planning pages and SCORE's free templates for the plan; the SEC's EDGAR full-text search and investor.gov for what a real filing and a real security are; Census, BEA, and BLS data tables for real figures; and one approved chatbot used as a pair consultant whose numbers the student recomputes before trusting them. Check: You have a recommendation that names who gains and who gives something up, the strongest case for the other choice, and what would change your mind, plus a critique that quotes and corrects specific sentences.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if a spreadsheet will not open or a formula will not run.

Work every step by hand from the figures printed in Part 4: divide each groomer's weekly pay by weekly hours, add the four groomers' weekly hours, multiply each groomer's hours by 48 weeks and by the 1-dollar raise, and add the four costs. Count the yes answers in the check-in table, fill in the options table, complete every analysis question and the critique step, and submit the same items for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

Find each groomer's pay per hour and the raise's yearly cost, because every later step builds on these amounts.

Student scaffold table 1

Groomer	Weekly hours	Weekly pay (dollars)	Pay per hour (dollars)	Raise cost a year (dollars)
A	30	540
B	30	600
C	20	380
D	25	500
Total

Sort each groomer's check-in answers into hygiene factors and motivators, so you can tell a motivator gap from a hygiene problem.

Student scaffold table 2

Groomer	Fair pay	Fair supervision	Clean and safe	Responsibility	Recognition	Growth	Hygiene met (of 3)	Motivators present (of 3)	Diagnosis
A	yes	yes	yes	no	yes	no
B	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	no
C	no	yes	yes	no	yes	no
D	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes

Weigh each option by what it costs and which factor it works on, because the owner can afford only some of them.

Student scaffold table 3

Option	Yearly cost (dollars)	Factor it works on	Who gains	Who gives something up
A raise of 1 dollar an hour for all four groomers
A raise of 1 dollar an hour for Groomer C only
Groomer A plans the appointment book and trains on a new cut
A monthly thank-you for each groomer's best groom

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Write the arithmetic that finds each groomer's pay per hour, the groomers' total weekly hours, the raise's yearly cost for each groomer and for all four, and the yearly cost of a raise for Groomer C only, and say in a full sentence what the total raise cost means for the salon.
2. Using your check-in table, say which groomer shows a motivator gap, which shows a hygiene problem, and which looks engaged, and explain why a raise for everyone works on a different factor from the one Groomer A is missing.
3. Groomers A and B both work 30 hours a week. Use equity theory to explain how Groomer A may feel about the pay gap between them, name one outcome beyond pay that could change the comparison, and then say whether an owner who reaches for a raise for everyone and closer watching seems to hold Theory X or Theory Y assumptions, and why that describes the owner rather than the groomers.
4. Choose one: (a) recommend whether the owner should give the raise to all four groomers or spend the money on targeted changes in 5–8 sentences, using your tables, naming one person who gives something up, the strongest case for the other choice, and the fact that would change your mind, and say how letting a groomer plan the appointment book connects to participative leadership or decentralization; or (b) argue the choice you would least make as strongly as you can in 5–8 sentences, then say in two sentences why you still hold your view or why you changed it.
5. Your diagnosis rests on one short check-in of six yes-or-no answers from four people, and every motivation theory this week is a classroom model. Name one way this evidence could mislead the owner, such as a groomer answering on a bad day, and say what the owner could check before spending money.

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I've pasted my completed Week 12 Business Case Workshop tables above. They describe an illustrative pet-grooming salon, invented for a class activity, not a real business. The salon has four groomers. Groomer A works 30 hours a week for 540 dollars, Groomer B 30 hours for 600 dollars, Groomer C 20 hours for 380 dollars, and Groomer D 25 hours for 500 dollars, for 48 weeks a year. A short staff check-in shows that Groomer C says the pay is not fair, Groomer A has never planned an appointment book or learned a new skill, and Groomer D plans appointments, is thanked often, and is learning a new cut. Each groom is priced at 60 dollars, and the salon books 480 grooms a month. The owner is thinking about a raise of 1 dollar an hour for all four groomers. Please do eight things. First, tell me each groomer's pay per hour and what the raise would cost the salon in a year. Second, tell me what share of pet groomers quit because of low pay. Third, compare the salon with how a well-known national pet-store chain treats its groomers. Fourth, sort these into a SWOT: the salon's two groomers who are learning new cuts, and a large apartment complex that allows pets opening next door. Fifth, tell me exactly what the law requires the owner to pay Groomer C and whether the owner can be sued. Sixth, recommend whether the owner should give the raise to everyone or spend the money another way, and write the owner a short plan for keeping the groomers engaged. Seventh, tell me how much profit the salon makes in a month. Eighth, as a stretch question for later in the course, draw up the salon's balance sheet.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often price the raise over 52 weeks instead of the 48 weeks the groomers work, reporting 105 × 52 = 5,460 dollars, or they divide hours by pay and report a groomer's pay per hour upside down.
• Asked what share of pet groomers quit because of low pay, chatbots often give a confident percentage with no source and no year.
• Asked to compare with a well-known national pet-store chain, chatbots often describe how that company pays or trains its groomers, with no source.
• Chatbots often list the pet-friendly apartment complex among the salon's strengths, because it sounds like good news for the salon.
• Chatbots often state exactly what the law requires the owner to pay Groomer C and whether a lawsuit would succeed, as if they knew the salon's state, its workers, and its facts.
• Chatbots often recommend the raise for everyone because pay always motivates, or recommend no raise at all to save money, and never mention Groomer C's fairness complaint, Groomer A's missing responsibility, or the strongest case for the other choice.
• Asked for an engagement plan, chatbots often write general advice such as foster a culture of recognition, empower your people, and celebrate wins, with nothing about Groomer A's missing responsibility and growth or Groomer C's pay complaint.
• Asked for the salon's monthly profit, chatbots often multiply 480 grooms by the 60-dollar price and call the 28,800 dollars profit.
• Asked for a balance sheet, chatbots often invent asset and debt figures whose two sides do not add up to the same total.

Write 3–5 sentences naming one thing the chatbot got right and at least two places it went wrong or overreached, quoting its words and correcting each with evidence from your own tables or this week's chapter.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. Instead of the chatbot, critique this flawed analysis, printed here in full: "The four groomers work 105 hours a week, so a raise of 1 dollar an hour costs 105 × 52 = 5,460 dollars a year. Groomer A earns 30 ÷ 540 dollars an hour, which is far too low, so A must be the most motivated by money. Pay is the biggest motivator, so a raise for everyone will make every groomer love the job. Groomer C and Groomer A are both Theory X workers who only care about money. About 65 percent of pet groomers quit over pay, so this matters. A well-known national pet-store chain gives its groomers bonuses, so the salon should copy it. The salon's biggest strength is the new pet-friendly apartment complex next door. The law requires the owner to raise Groomer C's pay this month, and the owner will be sued without it. To succeed, the owner should foster a culture of recognition, empower the team, and celebrate wins. The salon books 480 grooms at 60 dollars, so it earns 28,800 dollars of profit a month. The salon's balance sheet shows assets of 40,000 dollars, debts of 15,000 dollars, and equity of 20,000 dollars." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (a raise priced over the wrong number of weeks, a pay rate computed upside down, pay filed as a motivator, groomers called Theory X workers, a figure with no source, an unsourced claim about a real firm, an outside opportunity filed as a strength, confident legal advice for one salon, boilerplate that ignores the case, revenue treated as profit, or a balance sheet that does not balance), cite the evidence from your tables or the chapter, and write a corrected sentence beneath it; for the balance sheet, say which later week of the course takes it up and that it cannot come from this case. This route assesses the same objectives (Objective 6 and Objective 5) as the chatbot critique, takes comparable effort (about 30 minutes and 200–300 words), is scored by the same scoring criteria for the same credit, and its own submission artifact is the marked-up flawed analysis, posted in place of the chatbot share link and report.

Part 7 — What to Submit

• All three completed scaffold tables
• Written answers to all five analysis questions, including your recommendation
• The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis

Deliverable:

A short Business Case Workshop report on an illustrative pet-grooming salon with four groomers: three completed tables (pay and hours, the staff check-in, and the options), written answers to five analysis questions including a weighed recommendation, and a critique of a chatbot's analysis of the same case, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed analysis. 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. Choose a written, recorded, or visual form for your answers; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Running the pay and raise numbers	Each groomer's pay per hour, the total weekly hours, each groomer's raise cost, the raise's total yearly cost, and the cost of a raise for one groomer are all found with the arithmetic shown, pay per hour dividing pay by hours and the raise priced over 48 weeks.	The tables are shown, but one or two amounts are off, a rate is computed upside down, or the raise is priced over the wrong number of weeks.	No tables are shown, or amounts are given with no arithmetic behind them.
Diagnosing with the motivation theories	Each groomer's check-in is sorted into hygiene factors and motivators with counts and a diagnosis, the equity comparison between Groomers A and B names an outcome beyond pay, and Theory X or Theory Y is read as the owner's assumptions.	Most of these are present, but a row is blank, pay is sorted as a motivator, the equity comparison looks only at pay, or a groomer is called a Theory X worker.	No diagnosis, equity comparison, or reading of the owner's assumptions is submitted.
A weighed recommendation	The recommendation or the argued other side rests on the pay table and the check-in, names a person who gives something up, states the strongest case for the other choice, says what would change the decision, and connects a job-design change to participative leadership or decentralization.	A position is taken and tied to some case facts, but the case for the other choice, the person who gives something up, or what would change the decision is missing.	No recommendation is given, or it repeats general advice with no case facts.
Critiquing the AI analysis or the printed flawed analysis	The chatbot's analysis, or on the equivalent route the printed flawed analysis, is quoted and at least two errors are corrected with evidence from the tables or the chapter, including any invented figure, real-company claim, or legal rule flagged as outside this case.	The critique names errors but corrects only one, or corrects without evidence, on either route.	No critique is submitted on either route, or the AI output or flawed analysis is accepted without checking.
Naming the limitation of a short check-in	The response names a specific way the four-person check-in or a classroom model could mislead the owner and says what the owner could check before spending money.	A limitation is named but not connected to what the owner should check.	No limitation is named.

Quality Gate

• Every pay per hour, total, and raise cost comes from your own arithmetic on the printed figures, never from a chatbot.
• Pay per hour divides weekly pay by weekly hours, and the raise is priced over the 48 weeks the groomers work.
• Pay, supervision, and working conditions are sorted as hygiene factors and responsibility, recognition, and growth as motivators, and no raise is offered as the fix for a missing motivator.
• Theory X and Theory Y are described as the owner's assumptions, never as types of groomers, and no theory is called proven for every workplace.
• The recommendation names at least one person who gives something up, the strongest case for the other choice, and what would change the answer; no statistic, real-company fact, or legal rule is invented.
• The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least two errors with evidence from your tables or the chapter.