Case Study 01 — Jordan: The Eight-Month Proposal

Chapter 7 Application: Motivation and Drive

Extended Motivational Analysis

Jordan's stalled business development proposal has sat at two pages for eight months. This case study applies the chapter's framework in detail.

Step 1: What Type of Motivation Is Operating?

Jordan's motivation for the proposal is primarily identified — he personally values the strategic contribution it would make, and he genuinely believes in the idea. It is not purely intrinsic (writing itself is not something he loves; it is effortful), nor is it external (no one has asked for it; there is no reward attached). It sits in the identified zone: the activity is not inherently enjoyable, but the outcome is genuinely valued.

Identified motivation can sustain behavior — but it requires more deliberate support than intrinsic motivation, because the activity itself does not reward the effort in the moment. Jordan has to sustain the effort on the basis of his conviction about the outcome, without the support of either inherent enjoyment or external structure.

Step 2: What Competing Motivations Are Winning?

The proposal is losing to multiple competing motivations:

Avoidance of performance threat: This proposal involves something Jordan cares about, which means it is evaluable, which means it can be assessed as inadequate. Writing it and sharing it involves risk in a way that not writing it does not. The avoidance motivation (maintain safety by not exposing the idea to judgment) is winning against the approach motivation (contribute something meaningful).

Avoidance of effortful, uncertain work: The actual writing is hard in a way that many of Jordan's other tasks are not. He is a strong verbal thinker but the translation from ideas to polished written argument requires sustained, difficult effort. On any given Sunday, the immediate reward of that effort is small (a rough draft that doesn't capture what he has in mind); the immediate reward of doing something else is larger.

Attentional competition: The proposal requires sustained, uninterrupted focus. Jordan's life, as he has structured it, does not provide many protected windows of that kind. Every time he opens the document, he is competing with notifications, work emails, household demands, and Dev's presence. The conditions for deep work are not structured into his week.

Step 3: What Need Deficits Are Relevant?

Autonomy: The proposal is autonomous — Jordan is choosing it. This is not the problem.

Competence: Jordan is somewhat uncertain whether he can write the proposal well. His competence need is imperfectly satisfied here — there is real risk of the experience confirming inadequacy rather than efficacy. This is a threat to the competence need, not a satisfaction of it.

Relatedness: The proposal is being done in isolation. There is no one in Jordan's life who is involved in the project — he has mentioned it to Dev but not as a collaborative process; it is a solo undertaking without relational context. The relatedness need is not engaged.

Step 4: Intervention Design

Based on this analysis, Jordan's generic problem ("I need more motivation") resolves into specific, addressable components:

Address the performance threat: - Lower the bar explicitly: commit to a rough draft that no one will see, purely for his own thinking - Separate the identity from the performance: "This is an experiment in strategic thinking, not a referendum on whether I have good ideas" - Establish a process goal (write for 90 minutes) rather than an outcome goal (write a good proposal)

Reduce task aversiveness: - Create implementation intentions: "Sunday 9 AM, coffee made, phone in bedroom, I write for 90 minutes" - Identify the specific next sentence to be written before ending each session, so the next session has a concrete starting point - Pair the writing session with something that sets a positive mood: particular music, a specific location, the morning before any screen time

Build in relational support: - Share the project with someone who can ask about it periodically — not to review it, just to create a relational stake - Consider a structured accountability partner who is also working on a creative project simultaneously (not reviewing each other's work, just witnessing each other's commitment)

Protect attentional conditions: - Block 90-minute windows in the calendar and treat them as meetings - Identify the specific time of week when his energy and focus are typically highest - Turn off all notifications during writing sessions

Connect more vividly to values: - Write a one-paragraph statement of why this proposal matters to him — not to the company, but to him personally — and read it before each session - Articulate what completing this project would mean for his sense of professional identity

None of these are "try harder." They are structural changes that address the actual motivational obstacles.

Six Months Later

Jordan finished the proposal in the next six weeks after implementing the Sunday morning structure. He shared it with Helen, who received it warmly and asked him to develop it into a formal strategic recommendation.

The motivational insight that stayed with him was the performance threat realization. He had understood that he was procrastinating; he had not understood what he was procrastinating on. The avoidance was not of writing — it was of the risk of caring about something and having it assessed. Once he recognized that, he could address it directly rather than fighting against generic laziness.

Discussion Questions

  1. The analysis identifies the performance threat as a central motivational obstacle. Jordan cares about the proposal, which makes it risky. Is there a general principle here: that caring deeply about something makes it more motivationally difficult? How does this intersect with the concept of intrinsic motivation?

  2. The intervention includes "lower the bar" — committing to a rough draft no one will see. This feels counterintuitive for someone who wants to produce high-quality work. How does reducing the performance stakes relate to performance outcomes? Is there evidence that lowering the bar on first attempts improves eventual quality?

  3. The analysis shows that Jordan's relatedness need is not engaged with this project. Why would adding relational accountability help a solo creative project? What is the mechanism?

  4. Jordan implemented the solution within six weeks of the analysis. But the analysis was available to him, in principle, eight months earlier — he knew he was procrastinating and knew roughly why. What made the difference? What was the additional element that moved him from knowing to doing?