Words: 1036
For the first step, the expectancy is the belief one’s effort will result in attainment of desired performance goals. In the view of this theory, when participants for the group activity received the papers to make a paper airplane, they might have doubted the success of the activity. Some said that even though participants put a lot of effort, it would not result in the successful performance. However, most Of them, including Our group, went the extra mile by developing their ideas to success the activity. Why did they think differently toward the same performance task?
One of the reasons is that the participator group seemed to be likely to feel less comfortable. From the perspective of this theory, participants, putting an extra effort might have had higher self-efficacy that is defined a primary determinant of the expectancy. The reasons they had higher self-efficacy were their past accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional cues (Colloquia, Lupine, & Wesson, 2013). From their past experiences, they might have more knowledge of making the airplane.
Also, the member of their groups encouraged each other so that they could feel more confident to challenge the task. The instrumentally, the belief that if one meets reference expectations, he/she will receive a greater reward, is followed after the expectancy. Within the given time limit, the participants focused on how they made the specific style of paper airplanes. As the professors instruction, every airplane we made correctly would count towards profit, and every plane made incorrectly would count against profit.
We believed that we could gain profit by carefully looking at the model and emulating its example. The last step is valence, referring the value individuals place on rewards with their performance. The example of valence can be the question showing that he outcome is worth the expenditure of time and effort. In fact, due to individual differences, people often assign different valences to rewards, such as bonus or incentive. In this activity, most participants were more motivated when they believed successful performance helped them gain profit.
These outcomes attained are the factor called “extrinsic motivation” affecting the act of performance task (Colloquia, Lupine, & Wesson, 2013). For example, when money stimulates people’s desire and boosts their performance outcomes, we were influenced by the belief we could make profit. Some seemed to have ore intrinsically motivated by enjoining the situation. Based on the expectancy theory, participants with higher total motivation (both intrinsic and extrinsic) for rewards seemed to have higher successful performance than do those with lower motivation for rewards.
However, none of our planes met specifications. As a result, none were accepted, and we made no profit. The reward would have occurred if each member had been successful in achieving the goal to which the reward was attached. In this activity, we could examine the relationship between motivational rewards and actual conduct. Even though none of us demonstrate the actual relationship, we could see the situation that people with higher motivation were willing to show an enthusiastic attitude. They might have more potential than others with lower motivation.
Thus, motivation is merely one of crucial factors to reach a goal according to expectancy theory. Colloquia, J. A.. Lupine. J. A, & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Organizational behavior. New York, NY: Ms-Grew-Hill Education Isaac, R. G, Zero, W. J, & Pit D. C. (2001). Leadership and motivation: The effective application of expectancy theory. Journal of Managerial Issues, Volvo. 3 (2), Peg. 212. Hey guys, here’s what I have as far as responsibilities go: I’ll be taking the first assignment: How did the Transactional Theory of Stress apply? Wabash chose the second assignment: How did the concept of Self- Efficacy apply?
Nick chose the third assignment: How did Goal Setting Theory apply? Lee chose the fourth assignment: How did Expectancy Theory apply? For the group activity, we were given the assignment of replicating as many of Dry. Palmers specific style of paper airplane as we could. We were given a limited amount of time to look over the model given to us, and then we added to decide how many airplanes we could make within the given time limit. Every airplane we made correctly would count towards profit, and every plane made incorrectly would count against profit.
We had to requisition however much paper we thought we would need to build the airplanes in the allotted time, and any paper we didn’t use would count against our profit, so we needed to be careful with how much paper we ordered. We needed to make 7 planes correctly to be profitable, we requisitioned 10 pieces of paper to make 10 planes, and we managed to need to order more paper to make 12 planes total. Afterward, Dry. Palmer revealed the exact specifications that the planes needed to meet. None of our planes met specifications, so none were accepted, and we made no profit.
Wabash and Nick, if you guys have anything to add, if missed something or said something incorrectly, feel free to add anything. Lee, this is the information you Will need to use to finish your part of the assignment. Encourage you guys to e-mail me back so I can be sure I got the correct e- mail addresses. For the group activity, participants were given the assignment of replicating as many of Dry. Palmers specific style of paper airplane as we could. Given a limited amount of time, we looked over the model, and then we needed to decide how many airplanes we could make.
Every airplane we made correctly would count towards profit, and every plane made incorrectly would count against profit. With this fundamental rule for the activity, we put a lot of effort to meet the specifications. However, none of our planes were accepted and made no profit. Why did it happen? What are the reasons we failed to replicate well? In this essay, we discuss the application of four theories for the group activity. In the beginning, Ales presents the transactional theory of tress affecting to the relationship between the participants and their environment from which stress arise.