| Course | MGMT 4400 Organizational Behavior and Management |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Perception memo |
| Length | About 620 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGMT 4400 Week 2
Memorandum
To: General Manager, Overland Park bistro, Brennan Family Kitchens
From: Shift Lead
Date: September 15, 2026
Re: The kitchen manager's view of the new grill cook
The Judgment, in the Manager's Words
After a busy Friday two weeks ago, when five steaks came back to the kitchen for being undercooked, our kitchen manager said: "Tyler is careless. He's been here six weeks and he still can't run the grill." Tyler is the line cook who started at the bistro in August. Before anyone writes him up, I want to test that judgment, because it may be right, but the evidence available suggests something else may be going on.
The Model
Kelley (1973) proposed that when people judge whether someone's behavior reflects the person or the situation, they rely, often without noticing, on three kinds of information. Consensus concerns whether coworkers placed where Tyler stands act as he does. Distinctiveness asks whether the person behaves this way in other situations or only in this one. Consistency asks whether the person behaves this way every time the situation recurs. When few others act this way, when the behavior shows up across many settings and when it repeats over time, Kelley's model favors a cause inside the person; when many others act alike and the behavior appears only in one setting, it favors the circumstances.
Consensus: The Grill, Not the Cook
The ticket system records every returned plate and the station it came from. Last month, before Tyler started, the cook who worked the grill on Friday nights also had returned steaks, four on one Friday and six on another. Two weeks ago, when Tyler had a night off, the experienced cook covering the grill had three returns. Consensus is high: most people who work our grill on a busy Friday get steaks sent back.
Distinctiveness: Other Stations
Tyler also works the sauté station on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. In six weeks he has had one returned plate there, which is below the station average. His problems are distinctive to the grill; he is not making mistakes across the board.
Consistency: Fridays Only
Tyler's grill returns happen almost entirely on Friday and Saturday nights between seven and nine, when the dining room is full. On weeknight grill shifts he has had none. Consistency is high, but only for one situation, the weekend rush on the grill.
What the Pattern Points To
Taken together, high consensus, high distinctiveness and consistency limited to one situation point away from Tyler and toward the grill station on busy nights. Something about that station at that time produces returns regardless of who runs it. Two candidates stand out from what I have seen: the grill's thermometer was reported as unreliable in July and has not been replaced, and on weekend nights servers ring in steaks in large batches, so the grill cook is cooking twelve at once. Robbins and Judge (2019) describe the tendency to explain others' behavior by their character while overlooking the situation as the fundamental attribution error, and the manager's comment looks like an example.
What I Recommend
Before any discipline, replace the grill thermometer and ask servers to fire steaks in smaller groups on weekend nights. Then watch two weekends of returns. If returns fall for whoever is on the grill, the situation was the problem. If Tyler's returns stay high while others' fall, the manager's judgment would deserve a second look, and coaching would be the next step. Either way, the decision would rest on evidence rather than on an impression formed during one bad night. A new cook who is blamed for a station's faults also tends to lose the sense of competence that keeps people motivated at work (Gagné & Deci, 2005), so a mistaken judgment carries a cost beyond the write-up itself.
References
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107-128. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.
Reading the MGMT 4400 Week 2 instructions
Week 2 asks you to test a perception or judgment using an attribution model. Quote the judgment as it was actually expressed, so you test what was said rather than a softer version. Define the model briefly. Then examine each kind of information the model uses, consensus, distinctiveness and consistency in Kelley's case, against evidence the organization keeps. Say what the pattern points to, and name any bias the judgment may reflect. Recommend steps that would show whether your reading is right before anyone acts on the original judgment. Write in memo form to a manager who can act. Two pages in memo form is enough.
How this MGMT 4400 Week 2 example is built
The memo opens by quoting the kitchen manager and explaining why the judgment deserves a test. A section defines Kelley's three kinds of information. Three sections examine consensus through other cooks' returns, distinctiveness through the cook's sauté record and consistency through the timing of returns. A section interprets the pattern as situational, points to the thermometer and batched orders and names the fundamental attribution error, citing Robbins and Judge. The recommendation section proposes fixes and a two-weekend check, and notes the motivational cost of a wrong judgment, citing Gagné and Deci. Each of the three tests names the record it used, from the ticket system to the station schedule. The recommendation describes what result would prove the memo wrong.
MGMT 4400 Week 2 rubric: what earns full marks
Perception memos are graded on whether the model is applied rigorously to real evidence. Quoting the actual judgment earns credit. Each kind of information should be tested against specific records, not assumed. The conclusion should follow from the combined pattern, and naming the relevant bias shows understanding of why the judgment arose. Recommendations should test the reading before any action against the person. Memo format, a clear audience and concise writing are expected. Memos that define the model at length and apply it loosely, or that simply defend the employee without evidence, earn fewer marks. Respect for the manager whose judgment is under review also counts.
MGMT 4400 Week 2 help: mistakes that cost marks
Write down the judgment exactly as someone said it. Then ask: do other people in the same situation behave the same way? Does this person behave this way elsewhere? Does it happen every time the situation recurs? Find a record for each answer, such as error logs or schedules. If many people struggle in the same spot, look at the spot. Name the bias if the judgment ignored the situation. Recommend a small change and a way to see whether it helps. Students often argue for the employee on sympathy rather than evidence. If you have a workplace judgment you want to test, describe the records available to you.
Get a MGMT 4400 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 2 memo prompt with its rubric, and describe a judgment someone at work made about another person's behavior. The perception memo is written in 24 to 48 hours, first one free, with each of Kelley's questions answered from facts. Coworkers go unnamed and appear only through their jobs.
More MGMT 4400 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MGMT 4400 Week 1: Levels of Analysis Discussion Post
- 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
- MGMT 4400 Week 11: Final Synthesis Paper
- MRKT 3001 Week 2: Marketing Environment Scan
- HRMG 4203 Week 2: Case Fact Sheet
- HRMG 4202 Week 2: Four-Column Change Account
- HRMG 4201 Week 2: Strategic Direction Brief
MGMT 4400 Week 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MGMT 4400 Week 2 sample paper?
The attribution memo about the new grill cook is free to read on this page.
What judgment does the MGMT 4400 Week 2 memo test?
A kitchen manager's statement that a new line cook is careless after steaks were returned.
What does consensus show?
Other cooks working the same grill on busy Fridays also had steaks returned.
What does the pattern point to?
The grill station on busy nights, where an unreliable thermometer and batched orders stand out.
What does the memo recommend?
Fixing the thermometer and order batching, then watching two weekends of returns before any discipline.