Describe behaviour before labelling it
Start with observable behaviour: missed deadlines, little discussion or repeated rework. A description such as unmotivated staff is already an interpretation, not a neutral fact.
OpenStax discusses process theories including expectancy, goals and equity. Select a mechanism that fits the evidence and explain the connection rather than listing every theory.
Original case: effort without a clear standard
A fictional six-person project team receives weekly rework requests, but acceptance criteria appear only one day before deadlines. Members say extra hours do not tell them what counts as acceptable work.
Distinguish perceived effort-to-performance, performance-to-outcome and the value of an outcome. Unclear criteria make the first link worth investigating; they do not prove that rewards are unimportant.
Test competing explanations
Skill gaps, excessive workload and conflicting instructions could also explain the behaviour. A single interview statement cannot establish a complete causal explanation.
Ask whether members can describe an acceptable output and whether they would have enough time and tools if criteria were clear. Record answers separately from your initial hypothesis.
Match the intervention to the mechanism
For the case, propose publishing acceptance criteria before work starts and tracking rework and on-time completion. Consider extra communication time and whether work is merely shifted elsewhere.
Bring five lines to a tutorial: behaviour, mechanism, evidence, alternative and evaluation measure. Avoid diagnosing real classmates or employees; assessed reasoning, citations and conclusions must remain your own.
References
Your next step
Describe your university module, learning goal and attempted steps to discuss subject fit and availability for academic support.