LEAD 6323 Module 2 Motivation Theory Application Example

Competence Without Autonomy: Applying Self-Determination Theory and the Job Characteristics Model to Scientists Leaving a Public Health Laboratory

Student Name

American College of Education

LEAD6323: Organizational Behavior and Culture

Module 2 Assignment

Instructor Name

October 19, 2026

Introduction

My Module 1 analysis described a laboratory dominated by control and procedure, quietly convinced that mistakes reveal bad workers, and losing roughly a quarter of its molecular staff each year. Exit interviews mentioned pay, but they mentioned the approval culture almost as often. This paper asks a motivation question: why are capable scientists, who chose public health work and say they believe in it, leaving? It applies two theories, self-determination theory and the job characteristics model, to the jobs in two sections and proposes changes.

Self-Determination Theory

Self-determination theory distinguishes autonomous motivation, doing work because it is interesting or personally valued, from controlled motivation, doing it because of rewards, pressure or guilt. Carried into the workplace, the theory holds that autonomous motivation goes with better performance on complex tasks, greater well-being and stronger commitment (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Deci et al. (2017), surveying how the theory has fared in workplaces, stressed that people at work need to feel capable, to feel they are choosing their own actions and to feel connected to others, and that meeting those three needs fosters autonomous motivation, high-quality performance and wellness. The theory suggests a direct question for each job: does it let people feel capable, choose how they work and feel connected to others?

The Job Characteristics Model

Hackman and Oldham (1976) tested a model in which five features of a job, the range of abilities it draws on, whether one person sees a task through from start to finish, its consequences for other people, the discretion it grants and whether doing it shows the worker how well it went, shape three psychological states, the experienced meaningfulness of work, responsibility for outcomes and knowledge of results, which in turn affect internal motivation, satisfaction and performance. Their model complements self-determination theory by pointing to features of the job itself that leaders can redesign.

Two Sections Compared

The laboratory's foodborne illness microbiology section and its genomic sequencing unit illustrate the theories. Microbiology scientists perform established culture and identification methods under detailed procedures. Their work is highly significant, since it identifies outbreak organisms, and they receive clear feedback when results are confirmed, but task identity is limited because specimens pass through several hands and autonomy is narrow by design. Turnover there is about 8% a year. Sequencing scientists perform newer, more complex work: designing runs, troubleshooting failed libraries and interpreting genomes for outbreak investigations. Their skill variety and task significance are high, yet every change to a workflow requires the same three signatures as a microbiology method change, and their interpretations are summarized by supervisors before reaching epidemiologists. Turnover there is about 30%.

What the Theories Explain

Applied to the sequencing unit, self-determination theory explains the turnover well. Competence is satisfied; the scientists are skilled and know it. Autonomy is frustrated by approval chains designed for routine methods and by supervisors who stand between scientists and the epidemiologists who use their work. Relatedness is weak: the unit sits apart from established sections that describe it as chaotic, and its scientists rarely see how their analyses shaped an outbreak response. In job characteristics terms, the unit's low autonomy and indirect feedback undercut the meaningfulness its significant work should provide. The laboratory hired scientists for their judgment and then designed their jobs as if judgment were the risk.

What the Scientists Said

The theories were tested against the scientists' own words. In two group conversations with seven sequencing scientists and four microbiologists, I asked what made a day at the laboratory a good one and what made it a bad one. Sequencing scientists described good days in terms of solving a failed run or seeing their analysis link cases in an outbreak, and bad days in terms of waiting: for signatures, for supervisors to forward their results, for permission to try something new. One said, "I can sequence a genome in a day, but I can't change a spreadsheet in a month." Microbiologists described good days in terms of catching an unusual organism and bad days in terms of short staffing; few mentioned approvals, which they regarded as normal. Both groups described the satisfaction of public health work, which suggests the laboratory's mission is a strong source of autonomous motivation that its procedures, in the sequencing unit, are undermining.

What Must Not Change

Autonomy in a regulated laboratory has limits that protect the public. Validated methods for reporting results must follow documented procedures, and quality controls cannot depend on individual preference. The distinction that matters is between validated reporting methods, where control is essential, and development and troubleshooting work, where scientists' judgment is the point. The current approval system treats both the same.

Proposed Changes

Four changes follow. First, create a two-track change process: changes to validated reporting methods keep the three-signature review, while changes to development workflows, worksheets and internal tools require only the unit lead's approval and a record. Second, connect scientists directly to the epidemiologists who use their results, including them in outbreak calls when their sequencing data are discussed, which supplies both relatedness and feedback from the job. Third, give each sequencing scientist ownership of one assay or analysis pipeline from development through validation, increasing task identity and responsibility for outcomes. Fourth, hold a monthly joint session between microbiology and sequencing staff on shared outbreak cases, building relatedness across the subcultures identified in Module 1.

Pay and Its Limits

Pay cannot be ignored. Private and university laboratories pay molecular scientists considerably more than the state's classification system allows, and some departures would happen whatever the laboratory did with job design. Self-determination theory does not dismiss pay; it treats fair, adequate pay as a foundation and warns that rewards used to control behavior can crowd out autonomous motivation. The laboratory's leadership has asked the state personnel office to create a molecular scientist classification with a higher salary range. The job changes proposed here are not a substitute for that request but a recognition that even scientists who stay for the mission will not stay indefinitely in jobs that frustrate their judgment.

Measuring the Effect

Success will show in turnover in the sequencing unit over two years, a short survey of basic need satisfaction adapted from self-determination research administered twice a year and the time from proposing to implementing a development change. Quality indicators, including proficiency testing results and corrective actions, will be tracked alongside to confirm that greater autonomy does not weaken test quality.

Conclusion

The sequencing scientists are not leaving because they lack motivation; they are leaving because the jobs frustrate the autonomy and relatedness that sustain it. Self-determination theory names the unmet needs, and the job characteristics model shows which features of the work to redesign. The laboratory can keep the controls that protect its results while giving scientists real ownership of the work those controls do not need to touch.

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

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7