PSY 270 Module 5 Work Motivation Discussion example

Reviewed by Portia Lambrick, MBA Introduction to Industrial Organizational Psychology Southern New Hampshire University Full sample paper Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This complete PSY 270 Module 5 discussion post applies a single motivation theory in depth rather than surveying several. Using the job characteristics model, it rates the technician role at Brightleaf Growers, an invented vertical farm, on each of the model's five core dimensions, shows why the job's motivating potential is lower than it could be, and proposes three changes to the work itself. It closes with a question for classmates. The farm is invented; the theory and meta-analysis are real.

What this page holds

A PSY 270 Module 5 discussion post of about 400 words applying the job characteristics model to a technician role, with ratings on the five core characteristics, a motivating potential score and three job redesign proposals. Searches like "psy 270 module 5 assignment", "psy270 module 5 work motivation discussion" and "psy 270 module 5 example" land here.

The PSY 270 Module 5 example, in full

1

Module Five Discussion: Applying a Theory of Work Motivation

Re: The technicians who never see the lettuce leave

I am applying one theory, the job characteristics model, to grow technicians at a composite indoor farm called Brightleaf Growers, where more than a third of technicians left last year. I chose it because exit interviews describe the work as "checking numbers all night," which sounds like a problem with the job's design rather than with pay or goals.

Hackman and Oldham (1976) proposed that five core characteristics make work motivating: skill variety, task identity (completing a whole, identifiable piece of work), task significance, autonomy and feedback from the job itself. Rating the technician job from my observation notes on a 1-to-7 scale: skill variety is moderate (4), since technicians measure, inspect, seed and harvest. Task identity is low (2): technicians work one shift of a 35-day crop cycle and rarely see a crop through from seed to harvest. Task significance is actually high (6), since the farm supplies fresh produce to local grocers and hospitals, but no one tells them so. Autonomy is low (2), because every dosing change follows a fixed chart and needs supervisor sign-off. Feedback is low (2): results of their adjustments show up days later, on another shift.

The motivating potential score is ((4 + 2 + 6) / 3) x 2 x 2 = 16, out of a possible 343. Because autonomy and feedback are multiplied, the two lowest ratings are doing most of the damage. Pooling hundreds of studies, Humphrey et al. (2007) showed that these motivational characteristics were related to satisfaction, internal motivation and performance, and that social features of work, such as support from colleagues, added to that explanation.

Three changes would target the weak links. First, assign each technician a set of towers to follow through a full crop cycle across their shifts, raising task identity. Second, let certified technicians make dosing changes within defined ranges without sign-off, raising autonomy. Third, add a dashboard that shows each technician the yield and quality of their towers weekly, raising feedback. None of these costs much, and together they could raise the score several times over. Oldham and Hackman (2010) noted that work today is increasingly interdependent and team-based, so the dashboard could show team results as well.

Question for classmates: if you rated your own job on these five characteristics, which one is lowest, and could anything be changed without changing your pay?

What this page is doingThe post commits to one theory and applies every part of it, including the calculation, to the job. That depth is what distinguishes application from description.
2

References

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332-1356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332

Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2-3), 463-479. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.678

How this PSY 270 Module 5 example is structured

The post names its theory in the first lines and explains why it fits the problem. It rates the job on the five characteristics with brief evidence for each, calculates the motivating potential score and identifies the weakest links. The redesign proposals each target one characteristic, and the post ends by inviting classmates to rate a job of their own.

Get PSY 270 Module 5 written to your instructions

Share your PSY 270 Module 5 discussion prompt and rubric, and a post applying one motivation theory to your example comes back within 24 to 48 hours; the first is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Southern New Hampshire University document.

Request this module free All PSY 270 modules Finished samples

PSY 270 Module 5 questions, answered

What is PSY 270 Module 5 about?

The fifth module usually covers work motivation, with theories such as need theories, goal setting, expectancy, equity and job design. Discussions often ask students to apply a theory to a real or described job.

What are the five core job characteristics?

Skill variety, task identity and task significance, plus autonomy and feedback from the job. The model proposes that these create experienced meaningfulness, responsibility and knowledge of results, which in turn increase internal motivation, satisfaction and performance.

How is the motivating potential score calculated?

The average of skill variety, task identity and task significance is multiplied by autonomy and by feedback. Because autonomy and feedback are multiplied, a very low score on either one pulls the whole score down.