Organizational Behavior

Organizational Behavior Ernestine K. Brown Grand Canyon University: ORG – 822-0500 March 22, 2017 Organizational Behavior The frequently fierce competition in the global market has forced many businesses to employ leaders who will advance innovations, and encourage team collaborations. In this study, the learner will discuss John Miner's (2003) work on organizational behavior theories, focusing on "Expectancy Theory of Work Motivation” (Miner, 2003). The student will review literatures on the theory since Miner’s (2003) study. The learner will also discuss "The Rated Importance, Scientific Validity, and Practical Usefulness of Expectancy Theory” (Miner, 2003). The learner will identify works of expectancy theory, and illustrates new research results since Miner’s (2003) review. The learner would also provide supporting evidence on how the application of expectancy theory and work motivation has been active or broken within the workplace. Based on the outcomes of empirical debates, the learner would suggest future research concerning the theory. One of the Theories from Miner’s Study One of the methods discussed in Miner's (2003) study is the “Expectancy Theory of Work Motivation” (Miner, 2003). This process, also known as “Valence-Instrumentality- Expectancy Theory” was originated by Victor Vroom (1964). Miner (2003) argued expectancy theory is one of the fundamental advances approaches to organizational behavior. “Expectancy Theory” expanded upon the works of Abraham Maslow's "hierarchy of needs theory" (1943), and Frederick Herzberg’s "theory of work motivation" (1959) (Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation, 2015; Miner, 2003; Vroom, 1964). Vroom (1964) asserted that motivation is the result of a person's effort at fulfilling five basic needs: "physiological” (the cognitive need of knowledge impulse), security, human, admiration, and "self-actualization.” That means that motivation process is a governing choice, and if a person has a goal to accomplish, some behavior must be performed (Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation, 2015). For instance, the method focuses on the notion that employees’ labor will lead to achievement, and achievement will lead to incentives (Vroom, 1964; Linder, 1998). Those incentives, for example, whether concrete or cynical might influence the individual performance. Contrary, if the incentives are cynical, the less influence it will have on the individual performance. Nice start here – could add a bit more New Research Findings Since Miner's Review Since Miner’s (2003) study, expectancy theory has expanded widely in business organizations. The method is said to be one of the process theories of motivation (Parijat & Bagga, 2014). Some of the most significant research findings view the approach as the cognitive processes or need-to-know that affects the motivation of employees working in organizations (Parijat & Bagga, 2014). Vroom (1964) developed the theory from his study on work motivation behind decision-making, the notion that enhanced exercise will lead to improved achievement. Example, if we humans strive harder, we will perform better (Parijat & Bagga, 2014). However, the expanded version of the current organizational behavior of expectation views motivation in a larger general and practical form than some of the other methods of motivation (Parijat & Bagga, 2014). Smith (2009) study also expanded on the need to fill the gap since Miner’s (2003) study. The study stated personal expectation hypothesis explains motivation in four principal theories: "Force; valence; expectancy; and instrumentality.” The force element assigns to the need of a person to behave in an acceptable way. The valence element assigns to the preference for sequential incentives. Expectancy applies to the notion that a possibility behavior may occur in the expected outcome, and instrumentality relates to the opinion that the expected outcome will lead to the consequent incentives. Although these might not seem realistic, they help to arrange personal goals amidst organizational goals. And they are compatible with the operation of leading by aspirations (Parijat & Bagga, 2014).   Expectancy Theory Success or Unsuccessful Within Organizations Setting Expectancy theory has been successful in managing individuals’ goals within organizations setting for decades. Parijat and Bagga (2014) cited that expectancy theory looks at the cognitive processes that affect the motivation of employees in the workforce. The method brings out “characteristics, merits and demerits” in the context of corporate leadership (Parijat & Bagga, 2014). The theory focuses on the self-interest of a person who wants to achieve maximum job satisfactions. For example, in the workplace, the expectancy element of an employee is the perception of the likelihood that an outcome may result from a behavior or action. The expectation that risk is possible it illustrates the connection between an action and an effect. Example, whenever an employee works hard, she expects to perform better and increase productivity (Vroom Expectancy Motivation Theory, 2015). On the other hand, the contributing element of the same employee mentioned believes that her execution may not be appreciated or may lead to expected incentives. Therefore, she may not be motivated to work harder to improve her skills to get promotion and tenure. Parijat and Bagga (2014) argued organizations can profit from the expectation approach as it encourages them to learn the mental processes that cause motives. That goes to say that these elements of thought, attitudes, expectations, appraisals of chances and possibilities and different factors of employees strongly influence, organizational, individual motivation, performance, and behaviors.   What Future Research for Expectancy Theory The future research recommended for expectancy theory: First, the theory is Incomplete and all Comprehensive (Parijat & Bagga, 2014). Example, like many other theories, expectancy theory has a point of view and an angle. But, organizations should not rely on the theory alone, they should use other theories as well. Despite that, this is one of the important critical approaches to motivation. Second, "Practical Applicability," concerning the hypothesis is challenging and comprises numerous changeable. Example, the actual applicability of the method, accordingly, persuade a little suspect. Meanwhile, some authorities think that the complexity of the hypothesis makes it complicated not only to test but also to execute (Parijat & Bagga, 2014). Third, most employees may not have the time, enthusiasm, agreeable position, means about the sufficient capability to regulate motivation in the way this hypothesis assumes (Parijat & Bagga, 2014). Fourth, the "quantitative measures" of expectation, aid and valence proposed, in the system, may not at times be possible or may be too tedious to count. For instance, experts questioned if the formula proposed for the quantitative measure of goals might in practical terms calculate and be applied to motivation (Parijat & Bagga, 2014). These weaknesses and limitations need to be research further. Synthesis Argument The arguments shared in this paper explain expectancy theory is more scientific than other theories of motivation. The Researchers explain why many of the phenomena related to a worker’s effort, work performance, motivation to name a few are observed in organizations (Parijat & Bagga, 2014). The theory emphasizes on individual behaviors, weighing heavily on the likelihood that various attributes achieve the desired goal, and if certain traits are expected to be more successful than others, that type of characteristics will likely be selected (Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation, 2015). Although the theory is a complicated primary method of work motivation that is based on the traditional thought psychological traits of people, it assumes that people will be motivated to act when there is an expectancy, that behaviors may result in the accomplishment of aspired decisions (Parijat & Bagga, 2014). In conclusion, organizations must understand that all theories in human sciences experience weaknesses and limitations, and the expectation theory is no different. Nonetheless, the vital importance of an approach rests on its strength to explain with a substantial possibility whatever it indicates to describe. Personal characteristics, performance, views, including motivation, are more subjective than objective and may nevermore be entirely objectified or hypothesized (Parijat & Bagga, 2014). Therefore, it is sufficed to argue that all theories of motivation suffer from limitations. References Lindner, J. R. (1998). Understanding employee motivation. Journal of extension, 36(3), 1-8. Retrieved from https://www.joe.org/joe/1998june/rb3.php/nR:/journal-current-issue.php Miner, J. B. (2003). The rated importance, scientific validity, and practical usefulness of organizational behavior theories: A quantitative review. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2(3), 250-268. Retrieved from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=10932132&site=ehost-live&scope=site Parijat, P., & Bagga, S. (2014). Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation–An Evaluation. International Research Journal of Business and Management, 7(9), 1-8. Retrieved from http://irjbm.org/irjbm2013/Sep2014/Paper1.pdf Smith, B. D. (2009). Maybe I will, maybe I won't: what the connected perspectives of motivation theory and organizational commitment may contribute to our understanding of strategy implementation. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 17(6), 473-485. doi:10.1080/09652540903371729 https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=46776926&site=ehost-live&scope=site Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation - Principles of Management (2015). Smart Learning Way. Retrieved from http://smartlearningway.blogspot.com/2015/01/vrooms-expectancy-theory-of-motivation.html Vroom expectancy motivation theory (n.d). Retrieved from http://www.yourcoach.be/en/employee-motivation-theories/vroom-expectancy-motivation-theory.php Great final paper! Excellent list of references. Good job overall – much improvement noted. You covered all the areas and provided analysis and research. You met all the basic requirements and provided a good paper. Nice job on future section –most slack on that Good on APA. Overall nice work on this paper. This was a good improvement and end to class for you! Good luck! Dr. Wendy 8 ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR Running head: ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 1