MGT5OBR Organizational Behavior Online Tutoring

Organizational Behaviour

Introduction

The research and use of information on how people function within organizations is the organizational behavior. Organizational behavior explores people’s attitudes and behavior, team efficiency, processes, and organizational frameworks. It helps to examine and consider all the reasons required to build a productive and efficient organization (Davis & Newstrom, 1981). The multidisciplinary discipline is a combination of management, psychology, sociology, and anthropology. The fundamental aspect of the organization is to manage people and grasping detailed insights on the theories and concepts of organizational behavior theories which gives a sustainable competitive advantage through growth in business. The advantage is seen when workers move further than the structured positions that their job requirements and formal compensation programs do not expressly require (Organ, 1988). The pinnacle achievement of an organization is to achieve this behavior which has been characterized by Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) and Bateman and Organ (1983) as Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB). There is no formal route for any organization to take to achieve this, as the organizational behavior is multidiscipline the OCB is also a combination of several concepts. This paper will explore the impact on OCB from V. H. Vroom (1964) expectancy theory which is a psychological theory but in the context of organizational behavior is theory of motivation and is based to understand the behaviors and motivation within an organization (Chou & Pearson, 2012) discussing both theories individually with pros and cons with finally linking them together to develop a consensus on the impact of OCB through expectancy theory.

[hbupro_banner id=”6299″]

Expectancy Theory of MotIvation

The organization motivates its employees to complete the task (Mitchell, 1982). To create an understanding of the motivating factors to perform the task, the expectancy theory can be utilized (Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996). The theory is shaped by the interpretation of an individual and reflects on the decisions taken by people to earn an award. The theory focuses on the belief that something significant will be a result of their efforts. It illustrates how an individual’s understanding of effort levels can affect behavior and how it usually improves success if there is a chance of incentives and motivation. The theory by V. H. Vroom (1964) is based on three variables Valance (V), Expectancy (E), and Instrumentality (I). Liccione (2007) explained the concept of motivation in a mathematical equation; Motivation (M) = Valance (V) x Expectancy (E) x Instrumentality (I) taking the theory of V. H. Vroom (1964) forward. The theory differs from other motivations theories like Alderfer (1969), Herzberg and Mausner (1959), Maslow (1943) which are primarily focused on the factors of motivation where V. H. Vroom (1964) is focused on the cognitive process to achieve motivation.

Expectancy

Expectancy in simple terms is the relationship of Effort and Performance (Snead, 1991), In Figure 1 we can see that the path of motivation begins from effort where the perceived probability is analyzed by the employee which will lead to desired performance (Pritchard & Sanders, 1973). The individual efforts leading to the satisfaction of the individuals’ value are quite similar to Maslow (1943) hierarchy of needs. The perceived performance is factorized on previous experiences of the task/difficulty, control, and self-confidence/self-efficacy. The perception of effort where an individual feels will not bring the desired result due to either task being unachievable, low skill, or less control will create a negative perception. This uplifts the opportunity for the manager/leader to control the environment to create a positive perception for the desired performance.

Instrumentality

The second variable is a theory in itself which was presented by Graen (1969). In Figure 1 we can see that the journey from Performance -> Outcome, where the individual predicts the perceived outcome from the performance. The concept of instrumentality is a belief that the individual will be rewarded if the performance is at par. The level of instrumentality may be lower due to regular consistent rewarding, as compared to occasional rewarding which increases the level.

Valence

Valence is the value which one individual puts in the rewards received from the outcome (V. H. Vroom, 1964), or simply put the overall attractiveness. The value system of an individual is embedded and are dynamic for all individuals. The comparison of rewards to the goals, needs, and preferences of the individual is what derives valence. Positive valance occurs when an individual prefers obtaining rewards.

Pros

A deeper understanding of the motivational process.
Individuals can be managed efficiently if applied in the correct manner.
Identify gaps in rewards, performance, and effort to develop an optimal mix.

Cons

Requires active management participation
The effort to seek the needs and perceptions of each individual is a task in itself.
Intrinsic rewards and extrinsic rewards are measured on the same scale.

Analysis from Literature

The Expectancy theory has been criticized by many authors some important ones are Arvey (1972) that ability and expectancy lead to predicting performance which was inconsistent in result reflecting the stronger side of this theory however V. Vroom, Porter, and Lawler (2005) stated in a comparison of theories that the actions of workers cannot be concluded on how they will act which is why it is flawed according to Porter and Lawler (1968).

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

The OCB was defined by Bateman and Organ (1983) and Smith et al. (1983) on meeting two criteria.
Behavior above and beyond the required role

[hbupro_banner id=”6296″]

Organizationally functional

In a study by Pagell and LePine (2002) emphasized that achieving OCB is essential for an organization which can be constructed from teamwork and consultative activities. The evolving concept of organizational citizenship was further enhanced by Graham (1986) who added the word “citizenship” to the mix, this word was later added by Organ (1988). The theory of OCB refers to something workers do, inadvertently and by themselves, which also falls beyond the statutory obligations they have defined. It’s voluntary, in other words. OCB may not, for example, necessarily be accepted or compensated specifically and officially by OCB by pay raises or promotions, while OCB may represent a favorable employer and co-worker reviews or increased performance evaluations.

Pros

Highly satisfied workers improve performance.
Increase meaningfulness.
High engagement.
Increased Retention.

Cons

Managers expect the workers to go above and beyond following the “compulsory citizenship behavior”.
Employees are to be constantly motivated and satisfied to uphold OCB which requires resources and appreciation.
OCB can vary after rewards.
It requires a huge amount of time to develop.

Dimensions of OCB – Analysis from Literature

Since the inception of the idea, the authors have been expanding the term of OCB into several dimensions like Smith et al. (1983) described OCB into two factors altruism and conscientiousness which was further developed by Organ (1988) who is also considered the father of the concept of OCB by composing the theory into five dimensions altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. The concept was further expanded by Lin (1991) by expanding the original two factors into six factors like identification with the organization, assistance to team, harmony, righteousness, discipline, and self-improvement. The dimensions were concise by Van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch (1994) as obedience, loyalty and participation. Many others also expanded the dimensions but were primarily based on the original work and concept.

ExpeCtancy Theory and Organizational Citizenship BehAVIOr

Creating OCB can be a sustainable competitive advantage for any organization, this section will analyze the OCB with respect to the five traits by Organ (1988) altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue linking to the outcome of V. H. Vroom (1964) expectancy theory i.e. motivation. The cognitive process of motivation in the expectancy theory affects altruism positively which is found significant (Cho & Perry, 2012; Meier, 2007). The act of putting others first before one’s own is altruism and can be achieved by motivation (Clarkson, 2014). Courtesy can be defined as workers who try to prevent conflicts of personalities to ensure protection to preserving the interests of workers this pro-social behavior can be inflicted by the motivation of the organization (Cho & Perry, 2012). Employees who surpass the required vigilance, performance, precision, and dedication standards in their positions can be defined as conscientiousness are also impacted positively by motivation (Coetzer, Bussin, & Geldenhuys, 2017). Employees who are focused on maintaining and building strong relationships with fellow workers can be defined as sportsmanship which is positively influenced by motivation (Castanheira, Chambel, Lopes, & Oliveira-Cruz, 2016). The civic virtue of an employee going above and beyond for the organization can be positively influenced by motivation (Cho & Perry, 2012). It can be fairly concluded that the outcome of expectancy theory i.e. motivation is the factor that can derive OCB. However, to reach the OCB, it is essential that expectancy theory is applied within the context of achieving OCB and the valence of an employee for achieving OCB will determine the effort and performance put in by an employee to be motivated to achieve this behavior.

Pros

Perception leading to citizenship creates the utmost positive environment for the organizations.
The organization from its effective rewarding methods by meeting the needs of the individual has evolved citizenship.
Cons
The unique cognitive pattern of employees cannot create a standard route to achieve OCB.
The demotivating factor can impact the overall perception of the individual for the organization.
Analysis from Literature
In comprehensive research by Kemery, Bedeian, and Zacur (1996) concludes that specific instrumental beliefs have been shown to influence altruism and expectancies to greatly mediate the effects on work satisfaction of specific instrumental beliefs. In a study by Chou and Pearson (2012) they studied the impact of expectancy theory and OCB and structured by removing the cognitive factors and upholding one factor which is job satisfaction which is a post effect of motivation and added the factors like, trust, stress, and commitment to achieve valence on job satisfaction which influences the OCB. The results were significantly positive which is in line with other studies done by Mitchell and Nebeker (1973) and Campbell, Baronina, and Reider (2003). The dependency on job satisfaction is achieved by valence in the expectancy theory which leads to OCB in Figure 2 we can see the extended framework.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this essay studied the expectancy theory and organizational citizenship behavior and the dependency of expectancy theory on OCB primarily by achieving job satisfaction. In-depth research the literature reflected that there is a high co-relation in motivation and job satisfaction and a high dependency of OCB on job satisfaction. Furthermore, an extended model of the linkage of both concepts was presented. The positives were that the citizenship once achieved can be fruitful for the organization and its culture as it inflicts pro-social behavior in the employees, however, managers have to extend their relationships with employees in understanding them better and provide them with achievable tasks which can lead to motivation and job satisfaction which helps reduce turnover and improve the service quality to the customers. This requires the organization to expand its resources and focus on the relationship with employees to ensure maximum effort is given by the employee to achieve the task which is desirable for both organization and the individual. Organizational behavior which is a multidimensional field is focused on enhancing and developing behaviors that help the organization and individuals within it grow in an organic way. Expectancy theory extended to achieve the OCB by achieving job satisfaction can be beneficial for managers and organizations to understand the cognitive process of OCB through the given task and their rewards.

References

Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational behavior and human performance, 4(2), 142-175.
Arvey, R. D. (1972). Task performance as a function of perceived effort performance and performance-reward contingencies. Organizational behavior and human performance, 8(3), 423-433.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of management Journal, 26(4), 587-595.
Campbell, S. V., Baronina, T., & Reider, B. P. (2003). Using expectancy theory to assess group-level differences in student motivation: A replication in the Russian Far East. Issues in Accounting Education, 18(2), 125-136.
Castanheira, F., Chambel, M. J., Lopes, S., & Oliveira-Cruz, F. (2016). Relational job characteristics and work engagement: Mediation by prosocial motivation. Military Psychology, 28(4), 226-240.
Cho, Y. J., & Perry, J. L. (2012). Intrinsic motivation and employee attitudes: Role of managerial trustworthiness, goal directedness, and extrinsic reward expectancy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32(4), 382-406.
Chou, S. Y., & Pearson, J. M. (2012). Organizational citizenship behaviour in IT professionals: An expectancy theory approach. Management Research Review.
Clarkson, G. P. (2014). Twenty‐first century employment relationships: The case for an altruistic model. Human Resource Management, 53(2), 253-269.
Coetzer, M. F., Bussin, M., & Geldenhuys, M. (2017). The functions of a servant leader. Administrative Sciences, 7(1), 5.
Davis, K., & Newstrom, J. W. (1981). Human behavior at work: Organizational behavior: McGraw-Hill New York.
Graen, G. (1969). Instrumentality theory of work motivation: some experimental results and suggested modifications. Journal of applied psychology, 53(2p2), 1.
Graham, J. W. (1986). Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay. Research in organizational behavior.
Herzberg, F. M., & Mausner, B. (1959). B. & Snyderman, B.(1959). The motivation to work, 2, 49-58.
Kemery, E. R., Bedeian, A. G., & Zacur, S. R. (1996). Expectancy‐Based Job Cognitions and Job Affect as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(7), 635-651.
Liccione, W. J. (2007). A framework for compensation plans with incentive value. Performance Improvement, 46(2), 16-21.
Lin, S. (1991). Relationship between compensation equity, procedural justice, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Doctoral dissertation, National Chengchi University, Taiwan.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4), 370.
Meier, S. (2007). A survey of economic theories and field evidence on pro-social behavior: Mit Press.
Mitchell, T. R. (1982). Motivation: New directions for theory, research, and practice. Academy of management review, 7(1), 80-88.
Mitchell, T. R., & Nebeker, D. M. (1973). Expectancy theory predictions of academic effort and performance. Journal of applied psychology, 57(1), 61.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome: Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com.
Pagell, M., & LePine, J. A. (2002). Multiple case studies of team effectiveness in manufacturing organizations. Journal of Operations Management, 20(5), 619-639.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). What job attitudes tell about motivation: Harvard Business Review Reprint Service.
Pritchard, R. D., & Sanders, M. S. (1973). The influence of valence, instrumentality, and expectancy on effort and performance. Journal of applied psychology, 57(1), 55.
Smith, C., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of applied psychology, 68(4), 653.
Snead, K. (1991). An application of expectancy theory to examine managers’ motivation to utilize a decision support system. Abstract. Journal of Management Accounting Research(3), 213-222.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of management Journal, 37(4), 765-802.
Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 81(5), 575.
Vroom, V., Porter, L., & Lawler, E. (2005). Expectancy theories. Organizational behavior, 1, 94-113.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation.

[citationic]