| Course | WMBA 6010 Managing People and Promoting Collaboration |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Motivation diagnosis |
| Length | About 1,040 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Business Administration (MBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for WMBA 6010 Week 2
On Time, On Budget and Quietly Gone: A Self-Determination Theory Diagnosis of One Senior Project Manager After a Reassignment, With Three Changes Her Team Lead Already Controls
Student Name
Walden University
WMBA 6010: Managing People and Promoting Collaboration
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
On Time, On Budget and Quietly Gone: A Self-Determination Theory Diagnosis of One Senior Project Manager After a Reassignment, With Three Changes Her Team Lead Already Controls
What the Behavior Shows
D. A. is the most experienced of the seven project managers I lead at Larkspur, the made-up localization firm this course follows. She has managed translation projects for six years. Her work today meets every formal standard: her projects deliver on time, her budgets hold and her clients' quality scores are in the top third of the team. On paper, there is no problem to diagnose.
The change is in what she no longer does. Until last spring she volunteered for the hardest launches, the twenty-language software releases with fixed dates. She trained every new project manager on our translation management system. She proposed two of the process changes we still use. In the past eight months she has volunteered for nothing, declined to train the two most recent hires, citing workload, and spoken in our weekly meeting only when asked a direct question. Her one-on-ones, once full of ideas, now run ten minutes.
Two events coincide with the change. Last April the company moved project assignment from team leads to a scheduling tool, managed by the account director, that assigns projects by capacity. The tool moved D. A.'s longtime medical device client, whose account she had built from one language to fourteen, to a newer project manager with more open hours. In the same month procurement locked reviewer selection to a preferred-vendor list, removing the freedom project managers had to choose the Lisbon reviewers they trusted for each language.
The Framework
Self-determination theory distinguishes motivation that comes from within, because the work is interesting or important to the person, from motivation driven by pressure or reward. In its account, people keep up self-driven effort when work feeds three needs: autonomy, feeling that what one does is one's own choice; competence, feeling good at work that counts; and relatedness, feeling tied to the people around one (Gagné & Deci, 2005). A review of research in work organizations found that conditions supporting these needs are associated with better performance, greater well-being and lower turnover intention, and that controlling conditions tend to shift people toward doing what is required and no more (Deci et al., 2017).
The theory fits this case because it predicts the specific pattern D. A. shows. A person whose autonomous motivation has been undermined does not usually stop working; she keeps meeting requirements, which are controlled by rewards and deadlines, while the discretionary effort that came from her own interest disappears.
Reading the Behavior Through the Three Needs
Table 1
Each Need, What Changed and What D. A. Now Does
| Need | What changed in April | Observed behavior since | |
|---|---|---|
| Autonomy | Reviewer choice locked to a vendor list; projects assigned by a tool | Stopped proposing process changes; follows the vendor list without comment | |
| Competence | Lost the complex fourteen-language account; receives mid-size projects matched to open hours | Stopped volunteering for difficult launches | |
| Relatedness | Lost a six-year client relationship; training role faded | Declined to train new hires; quiet in team meetings | |
Behaviors are drawn from my one-on-one notes and meeting records; the case is composite.
Autonomy is the clearest loss. The reviewer list removed a judgment she exercised dozens of times a month and that she was known for doing well. Competence was hit indirectly: the assignment tool sees open hours, not skill, so she now receives work below her ability, and the projects that once tested her go to whoever has time. Relatedness took two blows, the loss of a client relationship she built and the fading of the training role through which she connected with newer colleagues.
Other Explanations
A diagnosis should test alternatives. Whetten and Cameron (2020) suggest beginning any performance problem by separating ability from motivation; here ability is not in question, since her formal results remain strong, so the alternatives worth testing are other sources of lower motivation. Pay is one: D. A. received a normal raise this year, and in conversation she has never raised compensation. Personal circumstances are another, and I cannot know everything about her life; I will not speculate, and the plan below does not depend on it. Workload is a third, since she cited it when declining training. Her logged hours, however, are slightly lower than last year, which suggests the workload explanation is the polite reason rather than the real one. None of these alternatives explains why the change began in April, while the reassignment does.
Three Changes Within My Control
I cannot reverse the scheduling tool or the vendor list, both owned by other people. I can change three things within my own authority.
First, autonomy: the vendor policy allows exceptions when a project manager documents a quality reason. I will ask D. A. to write the exception criteria for our team, the languages and content types where reviewer continuity matters most, and to approve exceptions for the team herself. This restores judgment she is known for within the existing policy.
Second, competence: the scheduling tool accepts a manual override for projects flagged as complex. I will flag the next two large software launches and assign them to her, after asking whether she wants them. Asking matters. An assignment imposed as a reward would be one more controlled condition.
Third, relatedness: I will ask her to design, not deliver, the onboarding for new project managers, choosing who teaches which module. She may decline, and the offer should make clear that she can.
How I Will Know
In three months I will look for discretionary behavior returning: a process suggestion, a volunteered project, longer one-on-ones that she sets the agenda for. I will not measure on-time delivery, which never fell. If nothing changes, the diagnosis was wrong or incomplete, and the next step is a direct conversation in which I describe what I have noticed and ask what she would change if she could. That conversation should probably come first in any case, because the three needs are hers to describe, not mine to assume. Deci et al. (2017) note that managers support autonomy partly by acknowledging the other person's perspective, and asking her is the plainest way to do that.
References
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19-43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108
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
Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2020). Developing management skills (10th ed.). Pearson.
WMBA 6010 Week 2 instructions, in plain terms
Motivation assignments in management courses ask students to diagnose one employee's or one team's motivation problem using a framework from the readings, then recommend changes. Prompts commonly allow expectancy theory, goal setting, job design or self-determination theory, and some assign one. Instructors expect the student to describe behavior first, apply the framework to that behavior and test other explanations before concluding. Recommendations should be things the supervisor can actually do, not organization-wide reforms. Papers usually run three to four pages. Students drawing on their own workplace should use initials or roles. Some prompts ask how the student will know whether the changes worked; even where they do not, a short paragraph on measurement shows the diagnosis can be tested.
How the WMBA 6010 Week 2 example is put together
The paper begins with what D. A. still does well and what she no longer does, both drawn from the writer's records. Two events from last April are then described: the scheduling tool's reassignment of her largest client and procurement's preferred-vendor list. A framework section defines autonomous and controlled motivation and the three needs, citing Gagné and Deci and a later review of the theory at work. A table maps each need to the April change and the behavior that followed. A section tests other explanations, using Whetten and Cameron's advice to separate ability from motivation. Three recommendations follow, one per need, each inside the team lead's authority. A final section says what will count as improvement and why a direct conversation should probably come first. Margin notes point to the behavior list and the limits of the recommendations.
WMBA 6010 Week 2 rubric: what earns full marks
Graders reward a diagnosis built from observed behavior rather than from the framework downward. Matching each element of the theory to a specific change and a specific behavior shows understanding. Testing alternatives, and explaining why they fit the timing less well, often separates strong papers from adequate ones. Recommendations that respect the supervisor's real authority earn more than proposals to change company policy. Recognizing that an imposed reward can itself undermine autonomy shows a careful reading of the theory. Rubrics typically also look for a way to tell whether the changes worked, measured by the behavior that disappeared rather than by results that never fell. Clear headings, a table or figure where useful and properly cited sources make up the remaining expectations.
WMBA 6010 Week 2 help: mistakes that cost marks
Write down what the person does and no longer does before you open the textbook. Note when the change began and what else changed at the same time. Then choose the framework that predicts the pattern you see, rather than the one you know best. Test at least two other explanations. Keep recommendations within your authority; if the cause is a company policy, look for flexibility inside it. A common mistake is diagnosing a lack of motivation in someone who is meeting every standard, when the real loss is discretionary effort. Another is recommending a bonus, which may not address the need that was thwarted. Use initials and avoid speculating about private life. For a custom sample diagnosis of someone on your own team, send us anonymized observations.
Get a WMBA 6010 Week 2 example written to your instructions
The desk writes this one against a live prompt: forward the Week 2 assignment and the rubric posted in your section, and a matched sample comes back inside 24-48h, free the first time. If your classroom fixes the framework, say which; if it lets you choose the employee, say a sentence about them. What arrives is a structural model, not a submission.
More WMBA 6010 papers and MBA samples
- WMBA 6010 Week 1: Management Self-Assessment
- WMBA 6010 Week 3: Team Stage Diagnosis
- WMBA 6010 Week 4: Difficult Conversation Plan
- WMBA 6010 Week 5: Conflict Approach Post
- WMBA 6010 Week 6: Cross-Site Collaboration Design
- WMBA 6010 Week 7: People Management Plan Draft
- WMBA 6010 Week 8: Final Collaboration Plan
- WMBA 6020 Week 2: Culture Model Assessment
- WMBA 6000 Week 2: Founder Transparency Memo
- WMBA 6030 Week 2: Enterprise Platform Evaluation
- WMBA 6040 Week 2: Swimlane Process Map
WMBA 6010 Week 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free WMBA 6010 Week 2 sample paper?
Read the full motivation diagnosis of a senior project manager after a reassignment right here on this page.
Which framework does the diagnosis use?
Self-determination theory, which looks at whether work meets people's needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness.
What changed for the project manager?
A scheduling tool reassigned her largest client and a vendor list removed her choice of reviewers.
Which explanations does the paper rule out?
Pay, workload and personal circumstances, since none explains why the change began in April.
What are the three recommendations?
Letting her set the team's vendor exception criteria, flagging complex launches for her and asking her to design onboarding.