Expectancy Theory - Cognitive Variables That Present the Differences Exhibited in Work Motivation - Essay Example

EXPECTANCY THEORY by Student’s name Code+ course name Professor’s name University name City, State Date Expectancy Theory Organizational motivation is an indispensable in determining the performance of the organization. Employee motivation is imperative given the dynamic involved in attaining the set objectives. In this regard, expectation theory presents variables that define individual differences in attainment of motivation. From a management standpoint, the expectancy theory has significant implications in achieving motivation. As such, this retrospect paper seeks to understand motivation and associated expectancy theory that affects motivation. In a nutshell, motivation seeks to improve team spirit with respect to achieving various organizational goals. Simply put Williams and McWilliams defines motivation as a set of forces that fundamentally initiates, propels and channels peoples efforts towards the accomplishment of a set objective (Williams and McWilliams, 2010). Principally, motivation comprises of powers able to move, direct and enable an individual to attain certain goals. Efforts to relate to the choices made on how much efforts is channelled towards the specified job. Direction, on the other hand, re-counts on the choices made by affected persons with respect to the placement of effort in their jobs (Fred, 2011). Subsequently, persistence relates to the choices regarding the length of time individuals will be willing to take before reducing or eliminating their efforts. These aspects are a guiding factor in realising the expected outcomes. Expectancy theory is conceptualised upon four assumptions. One assumption affirms that the people work in organisations with expectations regarding their needs, past experiences and motivation (Skudiene, 2012). These factors affect how people react in the organisation. Secondly, it presupposes that an individual’s behaviour is linked to his conscious choice. Simply put, people can freely choose behaviours suggested by their expectancy assumptions (De Cremer, 2010). Thirdly, it suggests that people want different things from an organisation namely good salary, job security, challenges and advancement, among others (Fred, 2011). The last assumption is that people will always choose various alternatives in optimization of their personal outcomes. A number of beliefs are essential in understanding the expectancy theory. Each of the beliefs rests on the belief of the employees namely; i. Effort and performance ii. Need satisfaction iii. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Rewards Effort and performance An individual’s effort and performance correlates directly. Motivation is a key determinant in job performance. As such, performance is determined by three domineering factors that correlate mathematically as shown in the equation below: Job Performance = Motivation × Ability × Situational Constraints Ability, a behavioural determinants, is fairly stable in individuals as it is manifested in broad spectrums such as intelligence or rather physical coordination. Situational constrains, on the other hand, is an important determinant of behaviour (Fred, 2011). Essentially, these are opportunities and environmental factors that facilitate or demean behaviour whose results affect job performance. For instance equipment, tools and procedures, which if present oversee the improvement in behaviour; while their absence diminish behaviour (Rahman, 2013). Fundamentally, they are factors beyond an employees’ control. The absence of situational constraints can result in maximised behaviour. Motivation defines one's capability, thus job satisfaction will suffer if any of these factor lack in the equation (De Cremer, 2010). Need satisfaction These are the requirements met in ensuring the survival and wellbeing of an individual. When the needs are met, individuals feel safe and well protected. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Rewards Rewards are important in sustaining a person’s motivation. Simply put, extrinsic rewards are tangible and visible to the rest of the people (Skudiene, 2012). These rewards are given to employees who have achieved proffered performance. Intrinsic rewards on the other hand, are natural rewards linked to task performance for its own improvement (Williams and McWilliams, 2010). Initially developed by Victor Vroom, the expectancy theory suggests that people will be motivated to the level to which their relative efforts will result in better performance, as such, good performance necessitates for attractive rewards. Even so, motivation is a product of the value anticipated by an individual with respect to the actions presented. It is understood that the propensity of a achieving an individual’s goal can be achieved as a product of the expected value in the action. Further, the expectancy model is built on the concept of motivation, valency, instrumentality and expectancy. Simply put, it can be illustrated in the following equation; Motivation = Valency × Instrumentality × Expectancy The multiplier effect is essential in the equation. It simply means that high levels of motivation are achieved with high expectancy, valence and instrumentality. Tentatively, the multiplier effects suggests that when all the three factors are zero, the overall motivation level is zero. For instance, if an employee affirms that his effort in the performance will be subject to be rewarded, motivation will be zero if the valency of the reward expected is zero. In this regard, the expectancy theory has three elements, namely; instrumentality, valency and expectancy. Valency Valency is the attractiveness of the rewards or outcome. In essence, it is the strength of an individual’s predilection for the results of the set goal (for instance the fear of transfer or demotion or prospective promotion) (Williams and McWilliams, 2010). Therefore, promotion, salary increment, peer acceptance, recognition and other affiliated reward systems may significantly impact employee motivation in attaining the specified goals (Skudiene, 2012). As opposed to instrumentality and expectancy, valency can be typified by either positive or negative outcomes. Given the case when an employee has a strong preference for the attainment of a reward, valence is positive. On the other extreme, however, the valency is negative. Contrastingly, if the employee is indifferent to a given reward, the valence is zero. A reward has a valence since it is linked to the employee’s need, as such, it presents the link to the need of expectancy theory (Williams and McWilliams, 2010). For example, while working at McDonalds Restaurant, customer satisfaction was imperative as such handling the customers in a professional ways garnered the supervisor’s support and consequently earned the employee a promotion. In this respect, a number of questions were used as guiding principles; Is it worth the extra effort? Do I want a bigger raise? Expectancy Expectancy suggests a person’s estimate of the probability of a job related effort resulting to the anticipated performance level. Rather, it is the probability that a particular action will result in a requisite outcome. It is principally based on ranges and probability from 0 to 1. If the employee is set for a particular job, some behaviours have to be seen in the accomplishment of that goal (Rahman, 2013). The employee weighs the likelihood of divergent behaviours that his/her efforts will result to the anticipated performance level, hence, the expectancy will be zero (De Cremer, 2010). Nevertheless, if the employee is certain that he /she will complete the task then the expectancy is one. In a more general perspective, expectancy often lies between the two extremes. In this respect, working as an intern at Coca Cola production factory, necessitated that employees could voluntarily participate in company activities (CSR). This offered a chance for employees to show their support and goal centeredness of the company. Instrumentality This refers to an individual’s estimation of the probability that a given level of task will result in different work outcomes. Generally, it is the relationship existing between rewards and performance. Just like expectancy, instrumentality ranges from 0 to 1. For instance, in the case when an employee feels that good performance results in a salary increase, then the instrumentality value is 1(Fred, 2011). Accordingly, if there is no relationship existing between good performance rating and salary increment; instrumentality will be zero. For intense, while working at Walmart, the company used compensation strategies based on the individual performance. This ranged from reporting to work earlier than expected, or extending work hours at the stores. Expectancy theory in practice Expectancy theory is indispensable in motivating the employees. The theory offers a framework through which the employee motivation can be achieved through an alteration of the individual’s efforts-to-performance expectancy. Various implications are seen below; Effort in performance expectancy Managers or leaders of various organisation should strive at increasing the belief that employees can successfully perform their duties. A variety of strategies can be employed in this regard. This includes; selection of people with required skills in the field, provision of sufficient resources and time, assigning of more progressive difficult tasks in the training of the employees; intervention in alleviating problems that affects employee performance; provision of employees lacking self-confidence, as well as , following employees suggestions. In essence, mangers ought to create proffered performance attainable for its employees. Good mangers, not only make it clear on the expected outcome but as well help the employees attain the preferred level of performance. Performance to Reward Expectancy Managers should encourage the perception that good performance will result to value rewards. This can be achieved through; measuring job performance accurately, description of how employee rewards are based on past performance and the provision of other examples on employees whose performance results in higher rewards. Inherently, managers or leaders should directly link specific desired organisational performance to the rewards desired by the employees (Williams and McWilliams, 2010). Concrete acts should complement an organisation’s statement of intent. Traditionally, compensation systems are powerful tools that substantially link the performance to the reward. Pay-for-performance plans, for instance, is a compensation system that rewards people directly based on how well they perform their duties (Williams and McWilliams, 2010). Evidently, it takes various commission plans such as incentive stock option plans (ISO), for executives and “piece rates systems” for factory workers. Nonetheless, the rewards linked to performance should be monetary based, as opposed to symbolic and verbal forms. Valance of Rewards Leaders should adequately increase the anticipated values of rewards with respect to the desired organisations performance (Williams and McWilliams, 2010). A demographically diversified employees have different desires of the same rewards. Some employees may prefer promotions, improved insurance benefits, and additional vacation days, among others. Additionally, leaders must minimise the existence of countervalent rewards – rewards with negative valencies. For instance, group norms can cause the employees to perform their jobs at a minimum level despite the requisition of formal rewards. Basically, in using the expectancy theory to motivate employees, leaders can further in various activities. Leaders can conduct surveys in understanding what the employees need (Williams and McWilliams, 2010). This is achieved through the systematic gathering of information in the workplace. Tentatively, leaders can directly ask the employees what they want from the jobs (Williams and McWilliams, 2010). Surveys are indispensable since people reflect on the valence of all the rewards and outcomes that is receivable from their jobs. Thus, identification of these factors offers the organisations the chance to turn negative valence rewards to positive rewards and outcomes; as a result raising effort and motivation (Fred, 2011). Therefore, regular surveys will identify a divergent range of rewards and understand the different preferences from the outcomes. In addition mangers can link individual performance to the available rewards in an effort for offer clarity and understanding among the employees (Williams and McWilliams, 2010). Significantly, managers can effectively empower employees in making decisions that make them believe that their hard work and effort would be channelled towards better performance. In a nutshell, the expectancy theory offers a process of cognitive variables that present the differences exhibited in work motivation (Gagne, 2005). In effect, this model suggests that people do not simply act because of the internal drives, instead their rationale focus on the beliefs and perceptions in influencing their behaviours. It is evident that employee motivation can be increased through alteration of various perception that ultimately boosts the expectancy level. This is achievable through enhanced communication and increasing actual rewards in the organisation. Moreover, the expectancy theory clarified the existing relationship between organisational goals and the employees. It recognises the differences existing between the employees in the production of work motivation. The theory is consistent with the notion that a manager’s job rests on designing an environment that suits effective performance. It is therefore important that the leaders motivate their employees so as to achieve competitive advantage in the industry. Reference List De Cremer, D, Mayer, D, & Marshall, S 2010, ‘An understanding ethical behavior and Decision making: A behavioural approach’, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol 20, No 1. Fred, C 2011, ‘Expectancy Theory of Motivation: Motivating by Altering Expectations,’ International Journal OF Management, Business, and Administration', Vol 15, No 1. Gagne, M, & Deci, E 2005, ‘Self-determination theory and work motivation’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 26, pp. 331–362. Rahman, M, Mondol, D, & Ali, A 2013, ‘Nexus of employee motivation with HRM and workplace behaviour: an assessment of the dominant factors’, Management Research and Practice, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 49-57. Skudiene, V, & Auruskeviciene, V 2012, ‘The contribution of corporate social responsibility to internal employee motivation’, Baltic Journal of Management, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 49-67. Williams, C, and McWilliams, A, 2010, MGMT, 1st Asia-Pacific edition, Cengage Learning Australia Limited, South Melbourne. Read More