Hrir 307

Analyse expectancy and social learning theory and provide illustrations of where these theories might most usefully be applied.

Executive summary

This report provides a critical analysis of the expectancy and Social learning theory through illustrations of current and potential workplace practices used for human resource development in organisations. Findings showed the social learning theory emphasises way individuals learn by observing credible and knowledgeable people, with behaviours repeated if rewarded. Vroom’s (1932) expectancy theory is explained as a process theory as it understands individual perceptions of the environment and following interactions arising as a result of personal expectations. The way these to theories relate can is shown though self-efficacy due to the relationship between ones input and a given output.

1.1 Introduction

This report draws on two theorists, by analysing the practicality of their ideas, as well as strengths and weaknesses. A thorough literature review examines core aspects of Albert Banduras and Victor Vroom’s learning and motivation theories to give a more depth understanding of how each theory can be applied to workplace and performance issues. The aim is to communicate the most significant ideas about each and examine what other factors may influence ones perceptions and behaviours.

1.2 Literature Review:

Social learning theory

Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory is suggested to be one of the most influential theories of learning and development. Although the theory is rooted with various basic concepts of traditional learning, Bandura (1977) believed direct reinforcement could not account for different levels of learning. The social element to this theory emphasises that individuals are able to learn new information and behaviours by observing credible and knowledgeable people, known as observational learning. This type of learning explains a range of behaviours and suggests when behaviours are observed from a model and are rewarded; it is likely to be repeated. (Bandura, 1977)

A person’s self-efficacy can influence learning, due to ones judgment whether they have the ability to learn skills and knowledge. It is an important factor to consider in the person analysis phase of needs assessment, a worker with high self-efficacy will put effort on learning a training programme and will persist learning even if the environment is distracting with loud noises etc. However, one with low self-efficacy may have self–doubts on mastering the training programme and is likely to withdraw physically and psychologically, due to not believing in ability regardless of effort levels. (McGraw-Hill. 2013)

Three significant concepts of social learning theory include, individuals ability to learn through observation, secondly is internal mental states are essential to learning and lastly, the theory acknowledges when something has been learnt it does not necessarily mean behaviours will change.

Bandura’s most influential experiment in 1961 was the Bobo doll study. The experiment was a film shown to a group of children of a woman beating up a Bobo doll and shouting aggressive words, the behaviour of the woman was then imitated by the children that observed the video. (Bandura, 1965) Bandura emphasised the phenomena as observational learning, with strong characteristics including retention, attention, motivation and reciprocation. Basic models of observational learning, included a verbal instructional model which explained behaviour and included descriptions, a live model demonstrating behaviours and a symbolic model involving characters displaying behaviours through online media, television, film and books.

Expectancy theory
Vroom’s (1932) expectancy theory of motivation is best explained as a process theory as it understands individual perceptions of the environment and following interactions rising as a result of personal expectations. The theory explains why individuals choose a certain behavioural option over another. Redmond, (2009) suggests the core idea of the theory is individuals are motivated knowing their decision will result in their desired outcome. Chen and Fang, (2008) believed work motivation relies on the perceived relationship between performance and outcomes, as individuals may modify behaviours based on expected outcomes.
Scribd, (2013) states enhancing motivation in the workplace can have a practical and positive benefit, by creating motivational programmes. The theory builds the belief that motivation is driven from individuals believing they will get what they want in shape of rewards or performance. The theory is not inclusive of all individual motivational factors, but provides a good understanding for employers with a foundation to enhance employee motivation. (Scribd, 2013)
The theory notes individuals are likely to increase motivation if they believe there is a positive relationship between efforts and performance, the end result will satisfy needs and favourable performance will outcome a desirable reward. Desire to satisfy ones need is strong enough to make inputs worthwhile noted by Lawler, Porter and Vroom, (2009).
Vroom’s expectancy theory is based on three core components. Expectancy, if one increases effort, it will yield better performance. Conditions include, having equipped resources, required skill set and necessary support available. Secondly, is instrumentality, which can be explained when an employee performs successfully, then a valued outcome will result. A thorough understanding of the relationship between performance and outcome, will enhance instrumentality, as well trust and respect for individuals who provide rewards and seeing transparency of who gets what reward. Redmond, (2010) states the last component as Valence, referring to beliefs on outcome desirability, as there are individual differences in level of value related to outcomes.
Vroom concludes the force of motivation in an employee is analysed using the three dimensions. Motivation= Valence*Expectancy*Instrumentality. As emphasised in the diagram above.

1.3 Strengths of Social learning theory

Bandura (2001) suggests any factor that influences behaviour choice can strongly affect the direction of personal development. This is because social influences operating in certain environments continue to encourage selected competencies, interests and values long after behavioural determinants have taken place. (Bandura, 2001, p. 10-11) Social psychology examines how learning is influenced, by attempting to understand how feelings, thoughts and behaviours of individuals relate to implied, imagined or actual presence of others. (Allport, 1985, p.3)

Social influences create positive learning surroundings, Kop and Hill, (2008, p. 6) note society has one of the strongest impacts on social learning, based on the premises individuals are social beings, with knowledge developed throughout individuals lives from active engagement in valued happenings. Vygotsky (1934,1986) explains learning to be entrenched within social events, which occur as an individual interacts with events, people and objects in their surroundings.

Furthermore, with online communications and influences, interactions are increasing which are in line with theories of Jean Piaget. Noted, knowledge is rather actively constructed by the mind of the learner opposed to information transmitted from teacher to learner. Karai and Resnick, (1996, p. 1) suggest learners are more likely to create ideas when actively engaged which can be shared and reflected on with others. Sherman and Kurshan (2005, p. 12) notes enhancement of technology engages learners they can construct meanings in what has been learnt, by discussing, assessing, and questioning ideas of others. The complex information available on the Internet, offers new ways individuals can communicate on global networks and for the ability to combine various information streams. Kop and Hill (2008, p.7) note technology communications can increase social learning, it is rather how communications are implemented. Weaknesses of Social learning theory Limitations of the social learning theory have been described as placing too much emphasis on the cognitive side of the individual and ignoring the objective situation. Traditionalist learning viewpoint argue the emphasis on social learning theory has put on subjective perceptions by the individual. (Carducci, 2009). For example, the theory may rely on such subjective concepts as reinforcement value and specific and generalised expectancies at the expense of attention to situational conditions. Secondly, a humanistic viewpoint discusses criticises the theory as placing much emphasis on cognitive aspects of human nature at the expense of the emotional side. Basic emotions such as, anxiety are not recognised in the language of social learning theory. (Carducci, 2009). *Theories do not take into account Not a fully systematized, unified theory; loosely organized,

Strengths of Expectancy theory

When using the expectancy theory within organisations, an evaluation in regard to an individuals expectations and the belief that efforts will lead to reward can be made, both factors that lead to valance. The within-subject research method can be used to utilise the expectancy theory, which evaluates employee motivational factors, by calculating the relationship of motivational levels between tasks of more than one individual. (Redmond, 2010)
Redmond, (2010) notes expectations are influenced by incentives and rewards. Set goals and objects can trigger motivational processes, enhancing performance. Vroom (1995) discusses motivational forces are equated the expectancy level then multiplied by the instrumentality and multiplied by the valance. Thus, individuals that score any of the factors zero, the motivational score will then equal zero. (Penn State World Campus, 2011). It is more clear in situations when an individual believes the effort level exerted on a job will not result in the desired outcome, for example, the level of performance will not return the desired results or the reward does not have the desired value as expected. Also noted, when factors in the equation are higher, motivation forces are likely to be high. (Penn State World Campus, 2011).
By utilising expectancy theory, an organisation may understand the importance of demonstrating appreciation for their employees' work, and as a result, their employees will perform stronger, and show more loyalty towards the organisation.

Weaknesses of Expectancy theory

A weakness of the expectancy theory is that it assumes all necessities are in place, which is not always the case. Walker (2003) notes employees need to have resources, ability and the opportunity to perform a high standard of work. For example, the role of genetics that play as a biological limited factor in performance, thus understanding what motivates an employee may not influence due the scarcity of available resources.
Secondly, weakness can be vivid in the organisational applications of the theory. In certain organisations rewards offered may not be seen as attractive due to change in ideas of desired reward. Penn State World Campus, (2011) note what may have been a desirable reward at one point in time, it may no longer hold the same value as previously.
Lastly, expectancy theory, by nature, only focuses on the extrinsic motivational factors and determinant decisions driven by employees. Wabba and House, (1974) suggest individuals are not always motivated solely on extrinsic factors, including, monetary rewards and public recognition. Therefore, the idea of instrumentality is found to difficult to operationalise and ambiguous and it is important for leaders to understand all factors that contribute to ones motivation.

1.4 Application to a performance issue:

The social learning theory is the behaviour theory most relevant to criminology, however it can be applied to various different situations, such as classrooms. Three reinforcements can be achieved if students witness and adapt into appropriate desired behaviours and reinforcements, students seek the reduction of tension and gain of praise, self-esteem and rewards. In a classroom situation, it enables teachers to provide the same reward that students seek for desired behaviours to encourage students with learning impairments and unsatisfied work ethic. Bandura reinforces encouragement from family members, as he believed they were the most prominent source of behaviour modeling, with teachers having little control over what happens at home. However, Bandura believes teachers as appropriate models can equip students to self-regulate, self-correct and self-monitor.

Application to performance issue: Expectancy theory

The theory suggests employees base the level of work, output and quality in anticipation of their employer’s response, such as, positive performance appraisal, or more responsibility. However, if an employee specialising in technology improves the method for increasing business data with the expectation the employer will reward the individual with a positive response and doesn’t then it may cause conflict in the employer employee relationship. The employee sees the quality of work relative to the level of response of which effort and time has been put into tasks. (McGraw-Hill, 2013). This issue could be resolved by employers identifying what rewards to provide to an employee with focus on ones psychological and physiological needs that need to be fulfilled within themselves or the external surroundings.

1.5 Conclusion:

The Social learning theory by Albert Bandura and Expectancy theory by Viktor Vroom both show different ways individuals learn. The social learning theory emphasises one learns from a credible and knowledgeable model and recongises behaviours that are rewarded tend to be repeated. Self-efficacy is also enforced, emphasising ones judgment whether one can successfully learn knowledge and skills, which is an important factor to consider in person analysis of the needs assessment phase. Expectancy theory explains ones behaviour is determined by expectancy, instrumentality and valence. Expectancy has similarities to self-efficacy, a belief that performing a given job is associated with a particular outcome, such as ability to perform better at that job, which is instrumentality. Lastly, valence is then the value that one places on that outcome, such as how important it is to perform better at that job.

1.6 Reference List:

Allport, A. (1985). The historical background of social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.). Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 3rd ed., pp. 1-46). New York: Random House.

Bandura, A. (1965) Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 589-595.
Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Carducci, B. J. (2009). The Psychology of Personality: Viewpoints, Research and Application. Retrieved from http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=1gJPXv5wQbIC&pg=PA424&lpg=PA424&dq=limitations+of+bandura's+social+learning+theory&source=bl&ots=rmMAYyBBzg&

Chen, M. J., & Miller, D. (1994). Competitive attack, retaliation and performance: An expectancy-valence framework. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 85-102.

Fang, C. Y. (2008). The moderating effect of impression management on the organizational politics performance relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(3).

Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kop, R. & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Reserarch in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3), 1-13.

Lawler, E., Porter. L., & Vroom, V. (2009). Motivation and management Vroom's expectancy theory. Value Based Management Website. Retrieved February 8, 2010, from http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_vroom_expectancy_theory.htmlhttp://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_vroom_expectancy_theory.html
McGraw-Hill. (2013) Learning: Theories and Programme Design. Retrieved from http://answers.mheducation.com/business/management/employee-training-and-development/learning-theories-and-program-design
Redmond, B. (2010). Lesson 4: Expectancy Theory: Is there a link between my effort and what I want? The Pennsylvania State University Website. Retrieved from https://cms.psu.edu" class="external-link" rel="nofollow"linktype="raw" wikidestination="https://cms.psu.edu/section/content/default.asp?

Scribd (2013). Motivation Theory : Expectancy Theory. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/93749244/Motivation-Theory

Sherman, T. M. & Kurshan, B. L. (2005). Constructing learning: Using technology to support teaching for understanding. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(5), 10-39.

Penn State World Campus. (2011). Lesson 4: Expectancy Theory: Is there a link between my effort and what I really want? Retrieved from Penn State World Campus: https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa11/psych484/001/content/lesson04/lesson04_01.html

Wabba, M. A. & House, R. J. (1974). Expectancy theory in work and motivation: Some logical and methodological issues. The Tavistock Institute Website. Retrieved from http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/2/121
Walker, J. (2003). Self Realization Approach. SR Consulting, Performance & Sport Psychology Website. Retrieved February 9, 2010, from http://srconsulting.net/about_sr_theory.html!story5.jpg!