| Course | IOP-7100 The Psychology of Leadership, Motivation, and Teamwork |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | Written assignment: workplace motivation |
| Length | About 524 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Graduate Certificate in Industrial-Organizational Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for IOP 7100 Module 1
Bonuses Are Not Enough: Motivation, Fairness and Work Design for Junior Accountants
Student Name
Graduate Certificate in Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Thomas Edison State University
IOP-7100: The Psychology of Leadership, Motivation, and Teamwork
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Bonuses Are Not Enough: Motivation, Fairness and Work Design for Junior Accountants
The Problem
Our firm employs 46 associates in their first two years. From February through April they work 55 to 65 hours a week preparing individual and small business returns. Last year we introduced a bonus of $40 for each hour over 50. Billable hours rose slightly, but review notes per return, a measure of errors caught by managers, increased 18 percent, and five associates resigned in May. Exit interviews mentioned "grunt work," "always getting the worst clients" and "never knowing if I did a good job."
Incentives and Intrinsic Motivation
Cerasoli et al. (2014) pooled forty years of studies and found that inner drive and outside rewards both predict how well people work, with inner drive linked more to the quality of work and rewards linked more to how much gets done. That pattern matches ours: the bonus raised hours, a quantity, while quality fell. Paying for hours rewards staying late, not careful work.
Fairness
Colquitt et al. (2001) looked across a quarter century of fairness research and found that people respond to three kinds of fairness at work, in what they receive, in how decisions are reached and in how respectfully and openly they are treated, and that each shapes satisfaction, commitment and effort. Associates told us that returns are assigned by whichever manager grabs them first, so some associates repeatedly receive the most complex, least organized clients while others get simple ones. They see both the outcome and the process as unfair.
Work Design
Humphrey et al. (2007) pooled decades of studies on how jobs are built and found that freedom in the work, variety, meaning and feedback, along with social features such as support and contact beyond the firm, went with more satisfied, motivated and effective workers. Our associates rarely speak with clients, never learn whether their work saved a client money and receive feedback only as review notes weeks later.
Recommendations
| Problem | Research basis | Change |
|---|---|---|
| Bonus rewards hours, not quality | Incentives and intrinsic motivation | Replace the hourly bonus with a busy-season bonus tied to returns completed with few review notes |
| Unfair assignment | Organizational justice | Rotate complex clients through a posted schedule; explain assignments |
| Thin job design | Work design | Each associate owns ten clients from intake to delivery, including one client call |
| Late feedback | Work design | Managers give a five-minute review conversation within two days of each return |
Checking the Results
The firm already tracks review notes per return and resignations by month, so the changes can be judged without new systems. If review notes fall and fewer associates leave after next busy season, while billable hours stay about the same, the redesign will have worked where the hourly bonus did not. If hours fall sharply, the firm will need to check whether rotation has slowed experienced associates.
Conclusion
The bonus addressed effort in the narrowest sense and missed what research shows sustains good work: fair treatment, meaningful work and timely feedback. Changing how returns are assigned and designed should improve both quality and retention, and next busy season's review notes and resignations will show whether it did.
References
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980-1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035661
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
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
Reading the IOP 7100 Module 1 assignment instructions
Robbins and Judge's Organizational Behavior anchors IOP-7100, where five written assignments and the final project each carry 35 percent, forums a fifth and eight quizzes a tenth. The course has five modules and five written assignments on topics tied to them, so this page pairs one with Workplace Motivation. You will explain a motivation problem in a real organization with research, not opinion, and recommend changes that follow from the evidence. Choose theories that fit the problem's pattern, report what meta-analyses found and tie each recommendation to a finding. A table linking problems, research and changes helps the reader check your logic. Name a figure the organization already keeps that will show whether the changes helped.
How this IOP 7100 Module 1 example is built
The paper opens with a puzzle in figures: a bonus raised hours while errors rose and associates quit. Cerasoli, Nicklin and Ford's meta-analysis explains why incentives lift quantity while intrinsic motivation drives quality. Colquitt and colleagues' justice review explains the anger about how clients are assigned. Humphrey, Nahrgang and Morgeson's work design findings explain why thin, feedback-poor jobs drain motivation. A margin note points out that three research streams converge. A table pairs every problem with its research and its fix, and the closing names the figures that will show success. The changes are chosen to raise quality without lowering hours, the balance the bonus missed.
Where the marks sit in the IOP 7100 Module 1 rubric
Mentors grade IOP-7100 written assignments on accurate use of organizational behavior research, application to a real situation, analysis, practical recommendations and APA writing. Credit goes to papers that match theories to the pattern in the data rather than listing motivation theories. Reporting what meta-analyses found, including distinctions such as quantity versus quality, shows careful reading. Recommendations tied to findings, with a way to check results, show applied judgment. Concise writing and a summary table make a short assignment stronger. Mentors also credit papers that notice unintended effects of incentives and explain them with research rather than blaming employees. Measures already kept by the organization make the evaluation credible and cheap.
IOP 7100 Module 1 help from the desk
Students lose marks by reciting Maslow and Herzberg without data, by recommending more pay for every motivation problem or by ignoring fairness. Others propose changes with no link to research. Put numbers on the problem, pick the two or three bodies of research that explain its pattern, state what they found and propose changes that follow, each with a measure. Describe the motivation problem where you work and a free IOP-7100 Module 1 draft can follow. Look for the pattern in your data, such as hours rising while errors rise too, and let it point you to the right theory. Name the measures you will watch next season.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More IOP 7100 and Graduate Certificate in Industrial-Organizational Psychology sample papers
- IOP 7100 Module 2: Written Assignment: Why Two Audit Managers Get Such Different Results
- IOP 7100 Module 3: Written Assignment: Turning a Tax Engagement Group Into a Team
- IOP 7100 Module 4: Written Assignment: Moods, Engagement and Performance in an Accounting Firm
- IOP 7100 Module 5: Final Paper: An Evidence-Based Intervention for Busy-Season Stress at an Accounting Firm
- IOP 6100 Module 2: Written Assignment: A Job Analysis of the Bus Operator Role
- IOP 6200 Module 5: Final Project: A Training Intervention for Fair, Calm Handling of Self-Checkout Problems
IOP 7100 Module 1 questions, answered
Where can I find a free IOP 7100 Module 1 sample paper?
The written assignment above explains busy-season disengagement among junior accountants with motivation, justice and work design research.
Do incentives undermine intrinsic motivation?
Cerasoli and colleagues found both predict performance, with incentives tied more to quantity and intrinsic motivation more to quality.
What are the types of organizational justice?
Distributive justice concerns outcomes, procedural justice concerns decision processes and interactional justice concerns respect and information.
Which job features motivate employees?
Work design research points to autonomy, variety, significance, feedback and social support.
How is IOP-7100 graded?
Discussions 20 percent, written assignments 35 percent, quizzes 10 percent and a final project 35 percent.