MGMT 4400 Week 3 Self-Determination Analysis Example

A Prep Cook Who Stopped Inventing Specials: A Self-Determination Theory Analysis of What Changed When He Moved From the Family's Original Diner to Its Newest Bistro

Student Name

Walden University

MGMT 4400: Organizational Behavior and Management

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

A Prep Cook Who Stopped Inventing Specials: A Self-Determination Theory Analysis of What Changed When He Moved From the Family's Original Diner to Its Newest Bistro

Before and After

For three years at the flagship diner of Brennan Family Kitchens, the composite family-owned group studied in this course, a prep cook named Luis created a weekly special most weeks, often a soup or a sandwich built from whatever the produce supplier had in surplus. The diner's owner would taste it, suggest a change or two and put it on the board. In March, Luis transferred to the group's new bistro in Overland Park to help it open. In the two months since, he has not suggested a single special. He arrives on time, his prep is complete and accurate, and his manager rates his work as excellent. Something changed, and it was not his skill or his reliability.

Three Needs, Defined First

Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) holds that motivation for interesting work is strongest when a person's needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness are all satisfied. Autonomy is the need to feel that one's actions are self-chosen rather than controlled. Competence is the need to feel effective at what one does. Relatedness is the need to feel connected to and valued by others. Where work satisfies those needs, people tend to act from intrinsic motivation, doing something because it is interesting or meaningful; when the needs go unmet, people drift toward doing only what outside pressure requires. Gagné and Deci (2005) applied the theory to work, arguing that workplaces support or undermine these needs through how tasks are assigned and how feedback is given.

Competence Is Still There

Competence is unlikely to explain the change. Luis's prep work at the bistro is rated excellent, and he has learned the new menu quickly. Nothing in the record suggests he feels less capable than before. If anything, the bistro's more complex menu gives him more room to show skill. The theory would predict reduced motivation if competence were thwarted, but there is no sign that it has been.

Autonomy Is Missing

Autonomy shows a clear change. At the diner, the weekly special was Luis's to design; the owner reviewed it but the idea was his. At the bistro, the menu is set by a consulting chef the owners hired for the opening, and the kitchen manager has told staff that "the menu is locked for the first year" so the new location can establish consistent quality. There is no specials board. The bistro's prep list arrives each morning fully specified, down to portion weights. Luis's work is now entirely directed by others, which is the kind of controlling environment the theory predicts will reduce intrinsic motivation for creative tasks.

Relatedness Has Weakened

Relatedness has also changed, though less sharply. At the diner, Luis worked alongside the owner, who tasted every special and talked with him about it; the special was a shared ritual. At the bistro, the kitchen manager is new to the group, and the consulting chef visits once a month. Luis has said to coworkers that "nobody here would notice" if he made something new. That comment suggests he does not feel his contributions are seen by people whose opinion he values.

What the Theory Predicts and Recommends

The theory predicts that restoring autonomy, and to a lesser degree relatedness, would bring back the behavior. A small, bounded change could do both without undermining the opening menu's consistency: one rotating special a week, proposed by kitchen staff and approved by the kitchen manager after a tasting, with the cook's name on the board. Deci and Ryan (2000) emphasize that autonomy support does not mean the absence of structure; it means giving people meaningful choice within limits and explaining the reasons for the limits. Explaining why the regular menu is fixed, while opening one space for staff ideas, would do exactly that.

Why a Bonus Would Not Fix It

A manager might respond by offering Luis a bonus for each special he creates. The theory suggests caution. A meta-analysis by Deci et al. (1999) reported that concrete rewards offered for simply doing an enjoyable task usually lower intrinsic motivation for it, because people come to see the task as something done for the reward rather than for its own sake. A bonus would address none of the missing needs: it would not give Luis a real choice about what goes on the menu, and it would not restore the shared tasting that made the special meaningful at the diner. It might produce specials, but they would be specials made for money, and they might stop when the money did. Recognition that comes from autonomy and relationship, a name on the board and a manager who tastes the dish, is more likely to bring back the behavior the diner once had for free.

Limits

The analysis rests on a single case and on secondhand reports of what Luis has said. It cannot rule out personal reasons for the change, such as a longer commute or a new family responsibility. A short conversation with Luis, asking what would make creating a special worthwhile again, would test the analysis more directly than any further observation. Robbins and Judge (2019) note that motivation theories are most useful when they suggest such conversations rather than replace them.

References

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627

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

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

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.