| Course | EDP 812 Foundations of Industrial and Organizational Psychology |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Doctoral theory comparison |
| Length | About 1,066 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for EDP 812 Module 3
Three Theories, One Call Queue: Comparing Explanations of Work Motivation
Student Name
Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University
EDP 812: Foundations of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Three Theories, One Call Queue: Comparing Explanations of Work Motivation
At the composite Boise credit union, contact center representatives are measured on average handle time, calls per hour and a quality score. Most meet their handle-time targets. Yet in exit interviews they describe the work as "draining" and "like being a machine," and a third leave within a year. Gabriel, the organizational development specialist, wants to understand what motivates representatives and what undermines them. The people and the employer here are imaginary, built for EDP 812. This paper compares three theories of work motivation as explanations.
Goal-Setting Theory
Locke and Latham (2002) drew together their own and others' goal studies spanning three and a half decades. Across hundreds of studies, specific, difficult goals led to higher performance than easy goals or vague exhortations to "do your best." A goal works by pointing attention at what matters, mobilizing effort, keeping people at the task longer and prompting them to find or apply better strategies. The effect depends on moderators: commitment to the goal, feedback on progress, the complexity of the task and the person's ability. For complex tasks, learning goals may work better than performance goals until people have mastered the needed strategies.
Self-Determination Theory
Deci and Ryan (2000) argued that everyone needs to experience their actions as self-chosen (autonomy), to feel capable at what they do (competence) and to feel close to other people (relatedness). When these are supported, people develop autonomous motivation, acting because they value or enjoy an activity. When they are thwarted, motivation becomes controlled, driven by pressure or reward, and tends to produce poorer persistence, lower-quality performance on complex tasks and lower well-being. The theory distinguishes not only how much motivation people have but what kind.
Expectancy Theory
In Vroom's expectancy account, effort follows from three judgments: expectancy, that effort will lead to performance; instrumentality, that performance will lead to outcomes; and valence, how much those outcomes are valued. Van Eerde and Thierry (1996) meta-analyzed studies testing the theory. Its components and their combinations were related to performance, effort, intentions, preferences and choices, but relationships were stronger for intentions and preferences than for performance. The multiplicative model the theory proposes did not outperform simpler combinations, and studies that compared choices within the same person produced stronger results than those comparing people.
| Theory | Core claim | Prediction for handle-time targets | Strength of evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goal-setting | Specific, difficult goals raise performance | Targets raise speed if accepted and fed back | Strong across many tasks |
| Self-determination | Supported needs produce autonomous motivation | Tight, imposed targets may undermine autonomy and quality | Strong for well-being and complex tasks |
| Expectancy | Effort follows beliefs about outcomes and their value | Effort depends on whether meeting targets leads to valued outcomes | Moderate; stronger for intentions than performance |
| Combined reading | How goals are set and framed matters | Participative, competence-focused targets may satisfy both | Supported by research on goal commitment and SDT |
Where the Theories Conflict
The theories conflict on the center's targets. Goal-setting theory predicts that specific, difficult handle-time targets will raise speed, and the center's data show they have. Self-determination theory predicts that imposed, closely monitored targets will be experienced as controlling, undermining autonomy and producing the sense of being "a machine," which may explain why representatives meet targets but leave. Expectancy theory adds a third view: if meeting targets leads to nothing representatives value, such as more interesting work or advancement, effort may hold up only under pressure.
Reconciling the Theories
The conflict is partly resolvable. Locke and Latham (2002) emphasized goal commitment and noted that participation in setting goals can increase commitment when goals are complex. Deci and Ryan (2000) argued that structure and goals are not inherently controlling; what matters is whether they are introduced with a rationale, acknowledgment of feelings and choice. A target that representatives help set, that focuses on resolving members' problems rather than only speed and that comes with feedback framed around competence could satisfy both theories. Expectancy theory suggests linking performance to outcomes representatives value, such as access to specialized queues.
Evaluating the Evidence
Each theory has a different evidence base. Goal-setting has the deepest base, with laboratory and workplace studies agreeing on its performance effects. Self-determination theory has strong evidence for well-being and for performance on complex or interesting tasks, with growing workplace research. Expectancy theory's evidence is more mixed, and Van Eerde and Thierry (1996) found its full model added little beyond its parts. These differences suggest weighting goal-setting and self-determination theory most heavily in explaining the center's problem.
What Representatives Said
The exit interviews give the theories something to explain. Representatives rarely complained that targets were too hard; most met them. They complained that the targets left no room to help members with complicated problems, that they were "timed on every call" and that no one noticed when they solved something difficult. These remarks fit self-determination theory most closely: they describe thwarted autonomy and competence rather than a lack of motivation. They also fit expectancy theory, since solving a difficult problem earned nothing representatives valued. Goal-setting theory explains why the targets were met, but not why people left.
Individual Differences
The theories also suggest that representatives will differ. Some new hires come from retail and value the predictability of clear targets; others come from roles where they had more discretion. Locke and Latham (2002) noted that ability and task complexity moderate goal effects, and Deci and Ryan (2000) noted that people differ in how they experience structure. A redesign should allow some flexibility rather than assuming one motivational profile fits everyone.
A Note on Measurement
The center's metrics shape what the theories can see. Handle time and calls per hour measure speed; the quality score measures adherence to scripts more than problem-solving. If motivation is redirected toward resolving members' problems, existing metrics may show a decline even as service improves. Any test of the theories' predictions at the center will need a measure of problem resolution as well.
Conclusion
Locke and Latham show that specific goals raise performance, Deci and Ryan show that the quality of motivation depends on whether needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness are met and Van Eerde and Thierry show that expectancy theory predicts intentions better than performance. For the credit union, the theories together suggest that the center's targets work for speed but cost representatives' autonomy, and that how targets are set and framed is the place to intervene.
References
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
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
Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom's expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 575-586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.575
What the EDP 812 Module 3 instructions ask for
The third module of EDP 812 typically asks for a paper comparing motivation theories. Rely on your Aspen course's Module 3 instructions for scope; the workplace here is a composite. Describe at least three theories, their core claims and their evidence. Compare what each predicts for a specific workplace and where predictions conflict. Evaluate the strength of evidence for each, noting where findings are strong or mixed. Argue for how the theories fit together or which best explains the situation. Write in APA 7, and avoid treating the theories as interchangeable, since they make different and sometimes opposing predictions. Note whether each theory's support comes mostly from lab tasks or from workplaces, since that shapes how far each applies to your workplace.
Inside the EDP 812 Module 3 example
Gabriel, the composite specialist at a Boise credit union, finds that contact center representatives meet their handle-time targets but describe the work as draining and leave within months. Locke and Latham's American Psychologist review summarizes goal-setting research and its moderators. Deci and Ryan's Psychological Inquiry article sets out self-determination theory and the difference between autonomous and controlled motivation. Van Eerde and Thierry's meta-analysis finds expectancy theory's components predict effort and intentions better than performance. A five-row table compares what each theory predicts for the center's targets, and the paper argues that the theories conflict on the effect of tight metrics. A closing section weighs the evidence base behind each theory.
EDP 812 Module 3 rubric: what earns full marks
A strong theory comparison describes each theory accurately with its evidence and shows where predictions differ. This example applies three theories to the same targets and finds a real conflict: goal-setting predicts that specific targets raise performance, while self-determination theory warns that controlling targets can undermine autonomous motivation. The paper resolves the conflict by attending to how goals are set and framed. The evidence for expectancy theory is reported with its meta-analytic limits. The integrated reading leads naturally to the next module's application. It also weighs the kind of evidence behind each theory, noting where findings come from laboratory tasks and where from workplaces, which affects how confidently each can be applied to a contact center. The paper ends with a position, not a summary. The table makes the comparison easy to check.
EDP 812 Module 3 help from the desk
A frequent weakness is a paper that walks through the theories one by one and never sets them against each other. Apply all theories to the same situation and note where predictions conflict. Report evidence carefully: goal-setting has strong support for performance on many tasks, while expectancy theory predicts intentions better than performance. Address how goals are set and framed, since that can reconcile goal-setting with self-determination theory. End with an argued position. Notice where evidence comes from, such as laboratory tasks or field settings, and how close those settings are to your workplace. Explain any individual differences that might change the predictions, such as experience or growth needs. Make your final position clear.
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 Aspen 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 EDP 812 and Doctor of Education sample papers
- EDP 812 Module 1: The History of I/O Psychology
- EDP 812 Module 2: Research Methods in I/O Psychology
- EDP 812 Module 4: Applying Motivation at Work
- EDP 812 Module 5: Workplace Stress and Strain
- EDP 812 Module 6: Reducing Stress at Work
- EDP 812 Module 7: Work-Family Conflict and Balance
- EDP 812 Module 8: An Applied I/O Consulting Report
- EDN 816 Module 1: Why Health Care Finance Is Different
- EDP 816 Module 6: Culture and Emotion
- EDO 818 Module 5: Managing Across National Contexts
- EDN 820 Module 4: Reading Patient Outcome Data
EDP 812 Module 3 questions, answered
What does EDP 812 Module 3 usually ask for?
Aspen's EDP 812 covers motivation theories in this module, so a paper comparing several theories and applying them to one workplace is typical. Your Module 3 prompt sets the scope.
What does goal-setting theory say?
Locke and Latham's research shows specific, difficult goals produce higher performance than vague "do your best" goals, when people are committed, receive feedback and have the ability and strategies to reach them.
What is self-determination theory?
Deci and Ryan's theory that motivation and well-being depend on meeting needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness, and that autonomous motivation differs in quality from controlled motivation.
Where can I find a free EDP 812 Module 3 sample paper?
Here, in full: three motivation theories with their evidence, a comparison of their predictions for one contact center and an integrated argument.
Does expectancy theory predict performance?
Van Eerde and Thierry's meta-analysis found its components predicted intentions and preferences better than performance, though relationships with effort and performance were present.