Expectancy Theory: Self-Fulfilling Prophecy & Selective Perception

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)

Motivational differences among generations and cultures

Human behavior and psychology has always fascinated me; therefore I have chosen to discuss the motivational differences among different cultures and generations. The fact that there is a direct link between different types of people and the way they respond to reward systems/incentives in the work place is a very interesting topic. Motivation strategies are difficult to implement when an organization just has one culture, or one generation; the implementation of such strategies becomes even more of a challenge when the workplace is more diverse in generations, culture, and the type of organization culture that is present. 

Cultural differences in motivation - 

"At the global level, culture affects reward structures" (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).   There are so many differences between cultures such as morals, values, and even what motivates an employee in an organization.  For instance, the German culture is individualistic which means it focuses more on personal growth and personal monetary gain; whereas in Japan, where it is a collective society, employees are more focused on group rewards.  But, there is an internal culture made up of many different cultures – for instance, an organization that employs Japanese, American, Germany, and Indian workers has cultural diversity; however the organization itself has an overall culture that it has created through the types of employees hired, and overall company practices.   

I feel that the difference in organizational culture is the best to discuss for this forum and not simply the collectivist vs. individualistic nature of particular cultures from around the globe.  The Orr and Lockwood article points out that there are three types of organizational cultures based on an adaptation from T.B. Wilson’s book entitled Innovative reward systems for the changing workplace.  These three organizational cultures are: entitled, compliant, and achievement-oriented.  

 “In an entitlement environment, people simply expect that they will receive the rewards because senior management will find a way to adjust the measures to justify the payout” (Wilson, 1995).   The entitlement culture expects to be promoted, they expect more rewards from their work, and they “feel that they deserve more” (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).  The entitled culture simply feel that the need a raise just because they are employed with the organization; they feel that they are entitled to a reward “without having to do anything special for it” (Wilson, 1995).   In cultures who feel entitled, the employees do not connect pay and performance well – in other words, employees do not link their pay increases with their performance and therefore do not exert any special effort for a raise, since there is no need to do so.   

As a previous manager, I feel that creating this type of culture or rewarding a person “just because” is not a good or correct step for any company to take.  I feel that specific cultures who feel they are entitled already need to be taught that hard work is what pays and rewards are not handed out to employees just because they work in the organization and have a pulse.  Standards should be held high and rewards should be given to those who earn them.  The second type of culture is the compliant.  In this culture, employees “do what is expected and seek clarity of goals; focus on the leader” and do not take risks very often.  In the compliant culture, employees understand very well what they need to do and they may or may not be rewarded for the efforts; however “the negative responses to problems or failures to meet certain goals are well known” (Wilson, 1995).  The third type of culture is achievement-oriented.   In this type of environment, “people are rewarded for achievements and feel that they have earned what they receive” (Wilson, 1995).   Employees in this type of organizational culture directly link pay to performance; a demotion or lack of reward is very noticed with achievement-oriented employees and it is understood that the reason for the loss of merit is due to their poor performance.  “Members of the organization will know why these awards did not materialize” (Wilson, 1995).   Achievement-oriented cultures “do what is necessary to achieve desired results; challenge conventional practices;” and “focus on the tasks to be done and communicate freely” (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).  So, essentially, the culture has a serious affect on the reward structure and if a company is just handing out rewards for no other reason that being present, the company has an entitlement culture.  If the company punishes people for not meeting goals and rarely rewards their employees for their efforts, then this is a compliant culture.  And if the organization reinforces good behavior with rewards, then the company s operating in an achievement-oriented environment.

Generation differences in motivation -

Currently, the United States labor pool consists of four major generations:  Traditionalists (also called veterans or seniors), Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y.  Due to the variety in the workforce, “a ‘one size fits all’ approach to total rewards will no longer be adequate” (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).   These generations are grouped by birth year: traditionalists (pre-1945), Baby Boomers (1945-1964),   Generation X (1965-1980), and Generation Y (post-1980).  There is some slight variation in the years according to research; however the years of the generations are usually congruent with each other, as are the typing of the generations.  “Traditionalists (also called Veterans, Silents [sic], or Greatest Generation; 75 million born before 1945; 10% of the workforce), Baby Boomers (80 million born 1945-1964, 45% of the workforce), Generation X (46 million born 1965-1980, 30% of the workforce), and Generation Y also called Echo Boomers, Millenials [sic], Internet Generation, or Nexters [sic]; 76 million born after 1980; 15% of the workforce)” (Eisner, 2005).

Traditionalists are the eldest of the generations and have experienced in their lifetime immense hardships such as the stock market crash in 1929, the Great Depression, and World War II (mainly).  These groups of employees understand scarcity and hard times and therefore they “have a tendency to be disciplined and respectful of rules and regulations” and “Individuals in this generation believe in a hard day’s work in exchange for fairness and pay” (Crampton & Hodge, 2009).    Traditionalists have the assets of wisdom, perseverance, and experience; however lack in technology skills and therefore should be communicated to via face-to-face methods instead of emails or text messaging.   Traditionalists also tend to take charge and do what is needed, and if there is a dilemma they are usually the group that does what is considered ethically right (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).  To motivate the traditionalists, managers should let these employees know that “their experience is respected and important to the company and that their perseverance is valued and will be rewarded” (Eisner, 2005).  The manager should let the traditionalists share information with the younger employees in order to teach them what has or has not worked in the past.  And if the traditionalist employee retires, it was also suggested in Eisner’s article to hire them as a part-time employee to coach and teach younger employees.   Baby boomers are the children of the traditionalists and they comprise the largest percentage of the total current workforce.  Baby boomers have the asset of social skills however they also lack in technology skills; they respect authority, are good at micro-managing, they are hard workers, proactive instead of reactive, and they enjoy networking (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).   Baby boomers have seen a lot such as the invention of the television, the JFK assassination, the invention of the birth control pill, the space race between Russia and the United States, the Vietnam War, and the start of the Civil Rights movement (to name a few pivotal moments).  They were the first generation to watch the world change via media and therefore tend to judge their performance with material incentives (in order to keep up with the Jones’).   Managers can motivate this group of employees by letting them know that they are important to organizational success, that they are considered equals among employees but that they are unique individuals whose contributions are important and needed.  This generation “should be encouraged to become facilitating coaches rather than authoritarian figures dictating expectations and methods. They should be offered flexibility, authority, and respect” (Eisner, 2005).  Both baby boomers and traditionalists “prefer monetary rewards and promotion to benefits, services and workplace opportunities” (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).     

Employees from generation X are the children of the baby boomers and comprise 30% of the total workforce.  Their assets include technology skills, fast achieving, managing capabilities (usually taking over management positions from the retiring traditionalists), and this group has a good education generally; however generation X employees are skeptical, bend rules where they see fit, and are hesitant to network (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).  This generation has also seen a lot such as more of the Civil Rights movement, the assassination of Martin Luther King, the assassination of Robert Kennedy, the Women’s Liberation Movement, the shooting of John Lennon, Woodstock, Watergate, and also during this time Apple released the first personal computer.   Also, many of the baby boomers parented the generation X children via the Dr. Spock method and therefore many of the generation X children want to be the authority figure, rather than the subordinate.  Generation X was also a part of the latch-key generation due to the baby boomers working hard; therefore the generation X (also known as the “me” generation) often feel less appreciated and overlooked (Crampton &  Hodge, 2009).  Motivators for generation X employees are personal freedom in their jobs (autonomy), and they should be provided with up-to-date technology.  This group of employees do not appreciate having orders barked at them, but would rather have a coaching-style of management and they enjoy room for organizational advancement (Eisner, 2005). 

Generation Y is the newest and most difficult to manage generation in the workforce today.  They comprise 15% of the current workforce and have been influenced by world events like AIDS epidemic, MTV, Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, video games, the Columbine High School killings, the Gulf War, soccer moms (strict scheduled childhood), Desert Storm, and the huge growth of the Internet.    This generation is “fundamentally conservative in their lifestyle, with a dislike of ambiguity and risk” (Williams, 2009).   This generation has been called the “why me?” generation, they become easily bored at work, and are considered impatient.  Pinpointing motivational factors for this generation and managing this generation overall is extremely difficult because they are considered the “trophy generation” which indicates that they were raised by soccer moms and in an environment where everyone always wins, even if they really lose (Crampton & Hodge, 2009).  This generation would likely fall into the category of the entitlement culture discussed above.   Generation Y employees are more motivated when they are communicated with through emails, text messaging, and other technologies because they like to be on the go and sitting through meetings or having long work days is considered demotivation for this generation.   Their assets include education, they love to network, they are able to effectively multitask, and they have great technology skills.  Their weaknesses are lack of soft skills (interpersonal), and lack of direction, focus, and confidence.   Generation Y is very fast-paced, open-minded, tolerant of diversity, enjoy blending work and play, and like to get their work done right away in order to start on new goals/tasks (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).   

Through researching the different types of generations, I feel that a great motivation for the generation Y employees would be to mentor /coach the baby boomers and traditionalists in new technologies and the Internet.  This way, the generation Y employees are not bored, they feel important, they feel in control, and they will gain knowledge from the older generations in casual conversations and in a work environment (Raines, 2002).   Flexibility and autonomy should be granted to generation Y employees, and job expectations should be clearly explained - sometimes even written out (Eisner, 2005).  Also, since this generation is so face-paced, a manager will need to make sure the praise/ feedback is immediate to the generation Y employee(s).   A manager could also make sure the generation Y employees have enough work, again, because they are fast-paced but also because this generation tends to get bored easily.   As for rewards, generation Y enjoys “time off, flexible work schedules, and specialized training” (Orr & Lockwood, 2006). 

  

References:

Crampton, S. M., & Hodge, J. W. (2009). Generation Y: Unchartered Territory. Journal of Business and Economic Research, 7(4), 1.

Eisner, S. P. (2005). Managing generation Y. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 70(4), 4-15. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/231242493?accountid=38003

Orr, C. B., & Lockwood, N. R. (2006). Total Rewards: Motivating with strategic rewards. SHRM Online - Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved November 1, 2012, from http://www.shrm.org/research/articles/articles/pages/total_20rewards_20_20motivating_20with_20strategic_20rewards.aspx

Raines, C. (2002). Managing Millenials. Generations at Work. Retrieved on October 31, 2012, from http:// www.generationsatwork.com

Williams, R. B. (2009, June 14). Millennials Poised to Take Over the Workplace | Psychology Today. Psychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness + Find a Therapist. Retrieved November 3,   2012, from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/200906/millennials-poised-take-over-the-workplace

Wilson, T. B. (1995). Transform Rewards from Entitlement to Achievement. Innovative reward systems            for the changing workplace (pp. 306-312). New York: McGraw-Hill.