PSY 365 Module 8 Final Project Motivation Plan example

Starting Monday: A Motivation and Leadership Plan for the Depot

[Student Name]

Southern New Hampshire University

PSY 365: Leadership and Motivation in the Workplace

Module Eight Final Project

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The organization, setting and figures below are a composite written as a model document. No real employer, client, colleague or patient is described.

Starting Monday: A Motivation and Leadership Plan for the Depot

Where the Depot Stands

Marcus Hale has managed the composite central Pennsylvania parcel depot for about ten months. The work this term found a manager strong in structure and expertise and weak in consideration and visible presence; an exchange quality survey in which his former peers, the most experienced drivers, felt furthest from him; a Saturday delivery launch that threatened drivers' sense of choice and fairness; recognition that was rare and impersonal; and regional targets that created pressure to improve numbers rather than service. Turnover among drivers is the depot's most costly problem. This plan addresses those findings with actions Marcus can take himself, most of them within his current authority and budget.

The Leadership Approach

Marcus will lead primarily as a servant leader, asking what drivers need to do their routes well and removing obstacles, while matching his behavior to the situation: direction on new routes, support in heavy weeks and consultation on familiar work. Eva et al. (2019) describe servant leadership as centered on followers' growth and needs, and it suits a reserved, practical manager because it is expressed through acts rather than speeches. It also speaks directly to the former peers, who want evidence that their old colleague still works for them.

The Weekly Routine

Table 1 sets out what Marcus will do each week. It is designed to take about four hours beyond his current schedule, most of it at times drivers are already at the depot.

Table 1

Marcus Hale's Weekly Leadership Routine

Note. Composite plan.

Fairness in the Saturday Rotation

The driver committee already designing the Saturday rotation will continue as a standing group, with membership rotating every six months. Saturdays fall to each driver roughly once a month, swaps follow published rules and any exception Marcus grants is explained to the committee. Colquitt et al. (2001) found that fair procedures were strongly related to satisfaction, commitment and trust, which matters here because drivers cannot avoid Saturdays but can be treated fairly in how they are assigned. The committee also meets the self-determination need for autonomy, since drivers shape how an unwelcome requirement is carried out (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Recognition That Drivers Notice

Recognition will move from email to the dock. Each Monday, Marcus will read one customer compliment by the driver's name and describe the specific action behind it, such as finding a side entrance or leaving a package with a neighbor the customer had named. Recognition that names the behavior tells drivers what good work looks like and acknowledges competence, another basic need in self-determination theory. Once a month, drivers will nominate a colleague who helped them, and Marcus will recognize that driver at load-out.

A Team Goal

The depot's shared goal is to raise first-attempt delivery from 91.5 to 94 percent within 90 days, posted weekly by route group. Specific and challenging goals raise performance when people accept them and get feedback (Locke & Latham, 2002), so drivers will choose the tactics, and the reward will be collective: a paid half day for everyone after four consecutive weeks at target. A team reward avoids pitting drivers against each other and reduces the temptation to misrecord difficult deliveries.

Roles for Experienced Drivers

The former peers are the depot's most valuable and least connected drivers. The plan creates two roles open to drivers with at least three years' service: route mentor, who leads ride-alongs for new drivers and for anyone learning a Saturday route, and route advisor, who works with Marcus on stop sequencing when routes are rebalanced. Both roles use their expertise, give them influence over decisions that affect them and build the kind of high-quality exchange that Gerstner and Day (1997) found associated with satisfaction, commitment and lower turnover intentions. The drivers who feel left behind by Marcus's promotion are the ones best placed to carry the depot through its next change.

An Honest Reporting Line

Marcus will report Saturday performance to the region as it is, without exception scans on unattempted packages, and will send each month a short note explaining where misses occur and what the depot is doing about them. He will tell drivers he is doing this. The commitment protects customers and the depot's records, and it tells drivers that problems are to be raised and solved. If the region reviews the depot, the notes provide the evidence of a credible improvement plan.

The 90-Day Scorecard

Table 2 lists the measures Marcus and his HR business partner will review at 90 days.

Table 2

Measures and Targets for the First 90 Days

Note. Composite baselines from earlier surveys and depot records.

Why This Plan Should Work

Each element answers a specific finding, and together they shift how drivers experience the depot: from a place run by posted numbers to a place where the manager is present, decisions are fair, good work is seen and experienced people have a role. Harter et al. (2002) found that business units with more engaged employees tended to show better customer satisfaction, productivity and retention, and the plan's measures are chosen to show whether that pattern appears here. If the scorecard shows little change at 90 days, the routine completion rate will show whether the plan failed or was never fully carried out, which is the first question to answer before changing it.

References

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425

Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268

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

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68