Essay Available:
page:
7 pages/≈1925 words
Sources:
5
Style:
APA
Subject:
Literature & Language
Type:
Research Paper
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 30.24
Topic:
Expectancy Theory of Motivation by Victor Vroom
Research Paper Instructions:
Assignment #2 Consists of an outside produced essay, approximately 6-8 pages, discussing an organizational theorist of your choice to include an overall global historical perspective with dates, what influenced the theorist, how the theory was achieved, methodology used, results obatined, is it still valid today,can improvements be made what would you do today to continue on the research and whether the student agrees or not with the theory.
Theorist must be found in the be: The theorist i've chosen is Victor Vroom in chapter 6 out of the Central Michigan University organization dynamics and human behavior book. Second edition.
Research Paper Sample Content Preview:
Expectancy Theory of Motivation by Victor Vroom
Student:
Professor:
Course title:
Date:
Expectancy Theory of Motivation, also referred to as a Valence-Instrumentality- Expectancy Theory, is an organization based motivation theory developed by Victor Vroom in 1964. His motivation on developing the theory was based on his study regarding motivation behind decision making. The theory was further extended by Lawler and Porter in the year 1968. This theory is very popular in explaining the decision making process of an individual. In addition, the theory is popularly supported by modern researchers with regard to its proposed decision making process (Yale University, 1998).
Vroom’s expectant theory of motivation offers an explanation on why people may decide to act out on a particular behavior, instead of another. The cognitive process of this theory assesses the motivational force of the various options of behavior on the basis of an individual’s own perception of the prospect of realizing his or her desired goal. Therefore, the motivation force could be summarized in the following equation.
MF = Instrumentality X Expectancy X ∑ (Valence).
Expetancy is the relation of effort performance and therefore, an individual’s perception is the efforts put forth by him or her, and which eventually degenerate into the achievement of that performance. Such cognitive assessment is greatly weighted by personal experiences, self esteem, personality and state of emotion. Instrumentality on the other hand, refers to the relation of the performance reward whereby, an individual assesses the probability that, realizing the level of performance will in actual sense lead to the achievement of that reward. Valence refers to an individual’s relation to value with the desired outcome. A positive valance means that an individual prefers the reward while a negative one means that the individual does not prefer the reward. The negative valance may portray that an individual had perceived the reward to be significant enough, and therefore does not add value towards the achievement of the specified goals. Since the motivation force is the outcome of the multiplication of instrumentality and expectancy, it is by valence through which the perceptions that have a zero value or an individual perception that will lead to a motivational force of zero (Michigan University, 2012).
In accordance to the author, motivation is a process that governs individual decisions amidst the alternative forms of voluntary actions. This process according to the author is largely controlled by the specific individual. This individual makes decision on the basis of the estimates on how the effectiveness of the anticipated behavior will align with the expected outcome(s). The author goes on to assert that motivation is the result of an individual’s expectancy that a particular effort will lead into the anticipated performance, the instrument of this performance to realizing a particular outcome, plus the desirability of this outcome regarded as valence (Holdford and Lovelace-Elmore, 2001).
Victor Broom developed his expectancy theory in 1964 while he was studying the aspect of motivation in decision making. The theory of expectancy in motivation is quite relevant in management practices and studies. The author is currently a professor at Yale university school of management (Yale Univesity, 1988).
In choosing their behavioral alternatives, individuals are mandated to choose the option that they deem as being the best and that which have a larger amount of motivational force (MF). Instrumentality and expectancy are perceptions or cognitions representing the attitude of an individual concerning the probability that his or her effort will subsequently lead to improved performance and the achievement of the desired goals. These attitudes represent the reality of an individual’s subjection and may either resemble or not resemble the factual likelihoods. Such attitudes are however, tempered by the experiences of people, observations from others and self perceptions. Valence is based on a person’s value system.
An example of how this model could be applicable is in relation to an employee’s work performance. The performance of a particular worker is known to be the role of a multiplicative relation between the ability and motivation of an individual [P=f (M*A]. This could be stated as [M=f (V*E)] or in other words, the role of valence times expectancy. Stated differently, this is the number of times an individual has invested in particular objective and the likelihood of that objective being achieved according to the individual’s perception.
Historical Perspective
The expectancy theory of motivation finds its origin in the Michigan University back in the year 1957. Researchers Nyle Jones, Gerald Mahoney and Basil Georgopoulos were working in a research program concerning organizational behavior. There study emphasized on the rational and conscious aspects of employee motivation and the factors related with low or high level of productivity. These researchers focused on evaluating the following aspects: The perception of individuals in the relative significance of low or high productive behavior as away of realizing the desired goals, needs of individuals as reflected in the sought goals for instance, making more money or getting along in a team. In addition, they also wanted to know the amount of freedom from restraining issues which an individual posted when following the desired goals. Examples of such could be the ability or knowledge limitations, work group or supervisory pressures (Oliver, 1974).
The general hypothesis for this theory is related to the fact that if an employee perceives high productivity as a path that lead to the achievement of one or more individual objectives, then he or she will tend to be a high producer. On the other hand, if a worker perceives the aspect of low productivity as a means to realizing his objectives, then he or she will consequently tend to be a low producer.
Despite the fact that the model largely emanated from this initiative in 1964,...
Student:
Professor:
Course title:
Date:
Expectancy Theory of Motivation, also referred to as a Valence-Instrumentality- Expectancy Theory, is an organization based motivation theory developed by Victor Vroom in 1964. His motivation on developing the theory was based on his study regarding motivation behind decision making. The theory was further extended by Lawler and Porter in the year 1968. This theory is very popular in explaining the decision making process of an individual. In addition, the theory is popularly supported by modern researchers with regard to its proposed decision making process (Yale University, 1998).
Vroom’s expectant theory of motivation offers an explanation on why people may decide to act out on a particular behavior, instead of another. The cognitive process of this theory assesses the motivational force of the various options of behavior on the basis of an individual’s own perception of the prospect of realizing his or her desired goal. Therefore, the motivation force could be summarized in the following equation.
MF = Instrumentality X Expectancy X ∑ (Valence).
Expetancy is the relation of effort performance and therefore, an individual’s perception is the efforts put forth by him or her, and which eventually degenerate into the achievement of that performance. Such cognitive assessment is greatly weighted by personal experiences, self esteem, personality and state of emotion. Instrumentality on the other hand, refers to the relation of the performance reward whereby, an individual assesses the probability that, realizing the level of performance will in actual sense lead to the achievement of that reward. Valence refers to an individual’s relation to value with the desired outcome. A positive valance means that an individual prefers the reward while a negative one means that the individual does not prefer the reward. The negative valance may portray that an individual had perceived the reward to be significant enough, and therefore does not add value towards the achievement of the specified goals. Since the motivation force is the outcome of the multiplication of instrumentality and expectancy, it is by valence through which the perceptions that have a zero value or an individual perception that will lead to a motivational force of zero (Michigan University, 2012).
In accordance to the author, motivation is a process that governs individual decisions amidst the alternative forms of voluntary actions. This process according to the author is largely controlled by the specific individual. This individual makes decision on the basis of the estimates on how the effectiveness of the anticipated behavior will align with the expected outcome(s). The author goes on to assert that motivation is the result of an individual’s expectancy that a particular effort will lead into the anticipated performance, the instrument of this performance to realizing a particular outcome, plus the desirability of this outcome regarded as valence (Holdford and Lovelace-Elmore, 2001).
Victor Broom developed his expectancy theory in 1964 while he was studying the aspect of motivation in decision making. The theory of expectancy in motivation is quite relevant in management practices and studies. The author is currently a professor at Yale university school of management (Yale Univesity, 1988).
In choosing their behavioral alternatives, individuals are mandated to choose the option that they deem as being the best and that which have a larger amount of motivational force (MF). Instrumentality and expectancy are perceptions or cognitions representing the attitude of an individual concerning the probability that his or her effort will subsequently lead to improved performance and the achievement of the desired goals. These attitudes represent the reality of an individual’s subjection and may either resemble or not resemble the factual likelihoods. Such attitudes are however, tempered by the experiences of people, observations from others and self perceptions. Valence is based on a person’s value system.
An example of how this model could be applicable is in relation to an employee’s work performance. The performance of a particular worker is known to be the role of a multiplicative relation between the ability and motivation of an individual [P=f (M*A]. This could be stated as [M=f (V*E)] or in other words, the role of valence times expectancy. Stated differently, this is the number of times an individual has invested in particular objective and the likelihood of that objective being achieved according to the individual’s perception.
Historical Perspective
The expectancy theory of motivation finds its origin in the Michigan University back in the year 1957. Researchers Nyle Jones, Gerald Mahoney and Basil Georgopoulos were working in a research program concerning organizational behavior. There study emphasized on the rational and conscious aspects of employee motivation and the factors related with low or high level of productivity. These researchers focused on evaluating the following aspects: The perception of individuals in the relative significance of low or high productive behavior as away of realizing the desired goals, needs of individuals as reflected in the sought goals for instance, making more money or getting along in a team. In addition, they also wanted to know the amount of freedom from restraining issues which an individual posted when following the desired goals. Examples of such could be the ability or knowledge limitations, work group or supervisory pressures (Oliver, 1974).
The general hypothesis for this theory is related to the fact that if an employee perceives high productivity as a path that lead to the achievement of one or more individual objectives, then he or she will tend to be a high producer. On the other hand, if a worker perceives the aspect of low productivity as a means to realizing his objectives, then he or she will consequently tend to be a low producer.
Despite the fact that the model largely emanated from this initiative in 1964,...
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:
👀 Other Visitors are Viewing These APA Essay Samples:
-
Analyzing a Social Policy
4 pages/≈1100 words | 2 Sources | APA | Literature & Language | Research Paper |
-
marketing unhealthy foods to children
2 pages/≈550 words | 5 Sources | APA | Literature & Language | Research Paper |
-
Diagnostic tool for the treatment and control of diabetes
3 pages/≈825 words | 1 Source | APA | Literature & Language | Research Paper |