The Theory
I became interested
in this theory because human perception is as individual as individuals are
themselves and with each perception being unique, the outcomes of situations
are often a product of subjective inference more so than being a solid reality.
The expectancy theory occurs when a person sees only what they expect to see
through a variety of different means such as the self-fulfilling prophecy,
selective perceptions, projection, and perceptual defense mechanisms; however I
have chosen to discuss two of these sub-theories: the self-fulfilling prophecy
and selective perception. These expectancy factors deeply influence how we, as
humans, perceive situations around us, how we interpret information, and how we
see other peoples’ behaviors.
According to Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart (2008), our
expectations influence behaviors and attitudes toward other people, situations,
and can even distort reality based on what we expect and choose to see (p.
48). A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when
a person anticipates a particular behavior from another person and due to that
expectation the other person actually behaves in accordance to the expectation.
Vroom (1995) reinforces and expands the Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart text,
stating: the “expectancy theory asserts that human choice is subjectively
rational” (p. xviii). This means that
people expect certain outcomes and they view these expectations with their own
perceptions and prejudices; also that these viewpoints are deemed as completely
rational by the perceiver, even if the human choice, behavior, or perception is
not considered rational by other people.
This subjectivity often leads to
a distortion of reality and often alters the behaviors of others, usually unbeknownst to the person who perceives the situation. Specifically so considering the
self-fulfilling prophecy wherein an individual actually makes the outcome of a
situation occur simply due to their own expectations and actions. The selective perception exacerbates the subjectivity
of the situation and sets the framework for a self-fulfilling prophecy because
an individual is only looking for attributes which he/she expects to find and
ignores other attributes that are not expected (Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart,
2008, p. 48). It is important to note
that the expectancy theory can work for or against organizations and
individuals; it is exclusively dependent upon the individual who is making
choices in situations and ultimately who guides the direction of the
organization with their perceptions (John, McKinley, & Moon, 2002).
Application of Theory
Appling the Theory to
the Workplace:
Expectancy theory and the theory
sub-sets are used quite frequently in organizations to study human behaviors
and the effect of these behaviors on particular organizational settings fundamentally
in order to enhance motivation in employees; as Lawler and Suttle (1973)
stated, “expectancy theory has evolved in recent years as a basic paradigm for
the study of human attitudes and behavior in work and organizational settings”
(p. 482). The self-fulfilling prophecy
and selective perception are often prevalent in organizations, specifically to
entrepreneurs/small business owners (John, McKinley, & Moon, 2002). I understand this as true because I owned a
small business between the years of 1998 and 2009 and personally enacted expectancy
theory through the self-fulfilling prophecy and selective perceptions on
employees. For instance, I hired a
friend as an employee and expected that as a friend she would do the duties
assigned to her correctly and efficiently.
I did not watch her work and failed to have accurate performance
appraisals on her mainly because she was a great friend and I expected she
would also be a great worker. I failed
to notice that she was causing issues with other employees, slacking on the
job, and ignoring her duties, even in the face of facts from other employees. I enacted the expectancy theory and
especially the selective perception factor in this instance. Also, at work, I often expected employees to
do well when we had large shipments come in.
I expected it so much that I worked overtime; I helped employees meet
quotas, and gave employees drive by continuously telling them we could get the
job done. I did not simply think we would get the job done, I knew we would. However the main reason that we did get the
job done was due to my actions and positively reinforcing my employees, as well
as motivating them to work harder and longer hours in order to get the job
done. We never missed a deadline using
this technique and after each time, I would say, “See? I knew we could do
this.” This is not the only instance
where I have enacted the self-fulfilling prophecy with my employees. In the year 2005, at the request of a female
friend employee, I hired a young man to work in the shipping department. I immediately felt as though, because of his
age, that I would have to watch him carefully and stay on him to ensure that he
was doing his job correctly. I felt that
he would not do the job I needed him to do and verbally made that clear to him
on a few occasions. I would say things such
as, “just leave that for Emily, she has been here longer and will do it
right.” My forecast was that he would not do the job
right and that he would quit soon, and again I felt this way simply due to his
age. It was because of my own negative
actions and behaviors toward this young man, that I was ultimately
correct. He quit because of my failure
to note any of his good qualities, my lack of confidence in him which was ever
so evident in my actions, and my bad managerial practices; thus I enacted the
expectancy theory and both sub-sets of the theory (a self-fulfilling prophecy and
selective perceptions) in this instance.
Strengths and
Weaknesses of Application:
The expectancy theory and the theory sub-sets have great
strengths when used positively in organizational settings for the purpose of
motivating employees. Primarily when a
manager expects positive outcomes from employees and that manager expresses
their expectations and standards in the form of praise, recognition, and
rewards. Using the expectancy theory in
this way gives confidence to employees and influences their behaviors in a productive
way. This is evident with the Pygmalion effect (a.k.a.,
the Rosenthal effect) which is a situation where a manager, educator, or other
leader holds positive expectations for their students, employees, or
followers. It is the simple fact that
there are positive expectations held that feed the students’, employees’, or
followers’ inner beliefs that they can accomplish what the authority figure
expects from them. According to Dr.
Ronald Riggio, “Research has clearly
shown the power of holding positive expectations of others; we get the outcomes
that we expect” (2009).
Unfortunately, the
expectancy theory and the sub-sets can also create a negative effect in
organizational settings. As seen in my personal
application of the theories, a poor manager may use the expectancy theory with
negative intent and expect bad things from employees, only look for the
negative attributes of employees, and enact a self-fulfilling prophecy based on
his/her own negative actions and behaviors.
If a manager holds negative expectations, it follows that the Pygmalion
effect with also apply with an equal but opposite effect. Also, it is important to note that
organizational decline due to expectancy theory and sub-theories can occur with
little or no awareness; “organizational decline through the self-fulfilling
prophecy is particularly important because it is a subtle process, and it tends
to unfold without the awareness of the managers or external constituencies that
are its agents” (John, McKinley, & Moon, 2002). Therefore, it is imperative that managers are
self-aware and make sure they are expecting only positive outcomes with their
employees, as to not influence employee behaviors inadvertently negatively.
References:
Bowditch, J. L., Buono,
A. F., & Stewart, M. M. (2008). Chapter 2: Perceptions, Attitudes, and Individual Differences. A Primer on Organizational Behavior (7th ed., p. 48-49). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
John, C. E., McKinley, W., & Moon, G. (2002). The
enactment of organizational decline: The self-fulfilling
prophecy.International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(1), 55-75. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/198626894?accountid=38003
Lawler, E. E., & Suttle, J. l. (1973). Expectancy Theory and Job
Behavior. ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE, 9, p.
482-503. Retrieved November 27, 2012,
from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/33872/1/0000133.pdf
Riggio, R. (2009, April 18). Pygmalion Leadership: The Power of Positive
Expectations | Psychology Today. Psychology Today: Health, Help,
Happiness + Find a Therapist. Retrieved December 1,
2012, from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge- leadership/200904/pygmalion-leadership-the-power-positive-expectations
Vroom, V. H. (1995).
Introduction to the Classic Edition. Work
and Motivation (p. xviii). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers. (Original work published 1964)
No comments:
Post a Comment