| Course | MGMT 4400 Organizational Behavior and Management |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 11 |
| Paper type | Final synthesis |
| Length | About 1,010 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGMT 4400 Week 11
A Monthly Staff Council With Real Authority: What Ten Weeks of Organizational Behavior Concepts Recommend for a Family Restaurant Group's Newest Bistro
Student Name
Walden University
MGMT 4400: Organizational Behavior and Management
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
A Monthly Staff Council With Real Authority: What Ten Weeks of Organizational Behavior Concepts Recommend for a Family Restaurant Group's Newest Bistro
The Recommendation
The newest restaurant of Brennan Family Kitchens, the Overland Park bistro that opened in March, should create a monthly staff council of six elected members, two cooks, two servers, one busser or host and one bartender, with real authority over two decisions: the weekly specials board and the percentage of tips pooled with support staff. The council would meet with the general manager for an hour each month, and its decisions on those two matters would stand unless the owners gave a written reason for overruling them. This synthesis argues that three concepts from the course point independently to this recommendation, and it notes which concepts explain other problems the council would not solve.
The Situation in Brief
The bistro has had a difficult first seven months. Servers stopped picking up open shifts. A prep cook who used to invent specials at the group's original diner stopped suggesting them. A new tip pool provoked objections even from servers whose pay rose. Servers and the kitchen clash over sold-out dishes. Ordering tablets were ignored for a month after the owners ordered their use. And the cooks objected in several ways at once to the planned central prep kitchen.
Three Concepts That Agree
Procedural justice was the concept that best explained the tip pool dispute. The tip pool drew complaints from winners and losers alike, because the decision was made without them and announced by text; as Colquitt (2001) found, people judge the fairness of how decisions are made separately from their outcomes. A council with authority over the tip pool percentage would give staff the voice whose absence caused the dispute.
Self-determination theory explained the prep cook's silence. At the diner, the weekly special was his to design; at the bistro, a consulting chef had locked the menu, removing the autonomy that made the work intrinsically motivating (Deci & Ryan, 2000). A council with authority over the specials board would restore a space for staff ideas within limits, which is what the theory calls autonomy support.
The multidimensional view of resistance from Piderit (2000) explained the cooks' objections to the central kitchen: some were practical questions, some reflected a sense of loss and one signaled an intention to leave. Treating resistance as information requires a forum where it can be heard before decisions are final. The council would be that forum for future changes, beginning with the central kitchen.
All three concepts, drawn from weeks focused on very different problems, trace the bistro's difficulties partly to the same source: decisions that affect staff made without their voice. Their agreement is the synthesis's main evidence.
Concepts That Explain Something Else
Not every problem points to the council. The open-shift problem was best explained at the organizational level, by an app that let managers claim the best shifts first; changing the app's settings is the fix, not a council. The kitchen-server conflict over sold-out dishes was a problem of reciprocal interdependence, as Thompson (1967) defined it, solved by a mechanism that sends availability to servers in real time. The line cook wrongly judged careless was a case of attribution error, which a council would not prevent; better habits of checking the situation before judging people would. And the launch group was never a real team because its members had separate goals; a shared goal for ticket times would address that. A synthesis that claimed one remedy for everything would be less credible than one that matches remedies to causes.
The First Three Months
The council's first meeting would set its rules: how members are elected each six months, how decisions are recorded and how staff who are not members can raise an issue. Its first decision would be the specials board, a low-stakes start. Cooks would propose one special a week, the council would choose among proposals at its monthly meeting and the chosen cook's name would go on the board. Its second meeting would take up the tip pool, beginning with an explanation from the general manager of how the current 15 percent was chosen and inviting proposals from servers, bussers and hosts. Its third meeting would review the central prep kitchen trial and pass the cooks' findings to the owners before rollout. By the end of three months, staff would have seen the council decide two real matters and influence a third.
How Success Would Be Measured
Three signs would show whether the council works. First, staff would propose specials again, at least one a week within two months. Second, a short staff survey before the council starts and after six months would show whether staff feel decisions about pay are made fairly, measured separately from whether they like the outcomes, following the distinction Colquitt (2001) validated. Third, turnover among cooks and servers, which has run high since opening, should fall. If none of these moves within six months, the council is not providing real voice and its authority or membership should be reconsidered.
Risks of the Council
A council could become a place for complaints without decisions, or could be dominated by the most senior staff. Two design choices reduce these risks: limiting its authority to two specific decisions, so its role is clear, and electing members by role, so cooks, servers and support staff are all represented. The owners must also accept that the council will sometimes decide differently than they would have. That acceptance is the price of voice that is real rather than ceremonial, and staff will notice quickly which kind they have been given.
Conclusion
The bistro's problems have several causes, and the concepts of this course separate them. But three concepts agree on one remedy for the problems that share a cause: give staff a real voice in decisions that shape their work and pay. A monthly council with authority over the specials and the tip pool is a modest, testable way to do that (Robbins & Judge, 2019).
References
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
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
Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783-794. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707722
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. McGraw-Hill.
The Walden MGMT 4400 Week 11 instructions
The final synthesis asks you to bring the course's concepts together around one recommendation for the organization you have studied. State the recommendation first. Recap the situation briefly. Show which concepts, from different weeks, support the recommendation, since agreement across concepts is your strongest evidence. Be honest about problems the recommendation would not solve and what each would need instead. Describe how the recommendation would be implemented and how success would be measured. Name the risks and how the design reduces them. Keep the recap short, because the reader already knows the organization from earlier work. Spend the space on the reasoning that links concepts to the recommendation, and make sure each cited theory is described accurately rather than stretched to fit.
How the MGMT 4400 Week 11 example is put together
The synthesis opens with the council's membership, authority and meeting pattern. A recap lists six problems from the term. A section shows procedural justice, self-determination theory and Piderit's view of resistance pointing to the same remedy, citing Colquitt, Deci and Ryan and Piderit. A section matches four other problems to different remedies, citing Thompson. Sections describe the first three months and three success measures. A risks section explains the council's limited authority and role-based membership, and a conclusion returns to the recommendation, citing Robbins and Judge. The supporting concepts are presented in the order they appeared in the course, but each one is tied back to the council, not merely summarized. The section on problems left unsolved is kept almost as long as the supporting section, which makes the argument more credible.
MGMT 4400 Week 11 rubric: what earns full marks
Final syntheses are graded on whether the concepts genuinely support the recommendation. Stating the recommendation first lets readers judge the evidence. Agreement among concepts from different weeks is the most persuasive evidence and is weighted heavily. Matching other problems to other remedies shows the writer is not forcing one answer onto every issue. Implementation and measurement make the recommendation testable. Risks should be addressed through design choices. Week-by-week summaries, or claims that one remedy fixes everything, score far lower. Precise use of each theory also counts, since a synthesis that misstates self-determination theory or procedural justice weakens the case it is trying to build. Clear structure, with headings that match the steps of the argument, helps graders follow the logic from cause to remedy to measurement.
MGMT 4400 Week 11 help: mistakes that cost marks
Look back over your weekly analyses and ask which problems share a cause. Write one recommendation that addresses that cause, and put it first. For each supporting concept, write two or three sentences showing how it points to the same remedy. Then list the problems your recommendation would not fix and say briefly what would. Describe the first few months concretely and choose two or three numbers to watch. Name what could go wrong. Many final papers try to use every concept equally. If you want help finding the common thread in your term's analyses, send us your papers. A useful check is to ask whether removing any one concept would weaken the case; if not, that concept may not belong. Keep the measures simple enough that a manager could track them monthly without new software or extra staff time.
Get a MGMT 4400 Week 11 example written to your instructions
Send your earlier papers or their main findings, together with the Week 11 prompt and the final rubric. The synthesis comes back in 24 to 48 hours, first one free, with the term's concepts sorted and one recommendation drawn from those that agree. Earlier findings are carried over as you wrote them, never reinvented.
More MGMT 4400 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MGMT 4400 Week 1: Levels of Analysis Discussion Post
- MGMT 4400 Week 2: Attribution Perception Memo
- MGMT 4400 Week 3: Self-Determination Analysis
- MGMT 4400 Week 4: Organizational Justice Case Paper
- MGMT 4400 Week 5: Real Team Analysis Paper
- MGMT 4400 Week 6: Interdependence Conflict Brief
- MGMT 4400 Week 7: Leadership Peer Reply Set
- MGMT 4400 Week 8: Social Proof Influence Memo
- MGMT 4400 Week 9: Organizational Culture Write-Up
- MGMT 4400 Week 10: Change Resistance Proposal
- MRKT 3001 Week 11: Marketing Plan Final Paper
- HRMG 4203 Week 11: Final Case Report
- HRMG 4202 Week 11: Final Training Proposal
- HRMG 4201 Week 11: Final Strategic HR Paper
MGMT 4400 Week 11 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MGMT 4400 Week 11 sample paper?
The final synthesis recommending a staff council can be read below for free.
What does the MGMT 4400 Week 11 synthesis recommend?
A monthly staff council of six elected members with authority over the specials board and the tip pool percentage.
Which concepts support it?
Procedural justice, self-determination theory and Piderit's view of resistance as information.
What problems would the council not solve?
The scheduling app's early access for managers, kitchen-server coordination and attribution errors about individuals.
How would success be measured?
Staff proposing specials again, survey ratings of fair process and lower turnover among cooks and servers.