Short paper on Orienting New Employees

Cognitive Process Theories of Motivation Few of us would deny that our conscious thoughts play a role in how we behave. A second group of motivation theories, called cognitive process theories, recognizes this and argues that motivation is based on a person’s thoughts and beliefs (or cognitions). These theories are sometimes referred to as process theo- ries because they attempt to explain the sequence of thoughts and decisions that energize, direct, and control behavior. Cognitive motivation theories have direct relevance to HRD. Most HRD programs include attempts to change employee behavior by influencing their thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes. Learning, which lies at the heart of HRD, is often seen as a cognitive process (learning is discussed in Chapter 3). We can do a better job of designing and implementing HRD programs if we understand how employees’ thoughts and beliefs affect their behavior. In the following sec- tion, we briefly review four cognitive theories of motivation: expectancy theory, goal-setting theory, social learning theory, and equity theory. Each theory has relevance for the practice of HRD. Expectancy Theory. Expectancy theory, first proposed by Victor Vroom, assumes that motivation is a conscious choice process.57 According to this theory, people choose to put their effort into activities they believe they can perform that will produce desired outcomes. Expectancy theory argues that decisions about which activities to engage in are based on the combination of three sets of beliefs: expec- tancy, instrumentality, and valence. Expectancy beliefs reflect an individual’s judgment of whether applying (or increasing) effort to a task will result in its successful accomplishment. Stated another way, people with high expectancy believe that increased effort will lead to better performance, but people with low expectancy do not believe that their efforts, no matter how great, will affect their performance. All things being equal, people should engage in tasks for which they have high expectancy beliefs. The second belief, instrumentality, is a judgment about the connection the individual perceives (if any) between task performance and possible outcomes. Making an instrumentality judgment entails asking the question, “If I perform this task successfully, is it likely to get me something I want (or something I don’t want)?” Instrumentality ranges from strongly positive (the individual is cer- tain that performing a task will lead to a particular outcome), through zero (the individual is certain there is no relationship between performing the task and the occurrence of a particular outcome), to strongly negative (the individual is cer- tain that performing a certain task will prevent a particular outcome from occurring). The third belief important to expectancy theory is valence. Valence refers to the value the person places on a particular outcome. Valence judgments range from strongly positive (for highly valued outcomes), through zero (for outcomes the per- son doesn’t care about), to strongly negative (for outcomes the person finds aversive). Expectancy theory posits that employees will make these three sets of judg- ments when deciding which behaviors and tasks to engage in. Specifically, the theory predicts that employees will choose to put effort into behaviors they • believe they can perform successfully (high expectancy) and : • believe are connected (high instrumentality) to outcomes they desire (high valence) or • believe will prevent (negative instrumentality) outcomes they want to avoid (negative valence). Figure 2-3 graphically depicts this process. For example, suppose the man- ager of a bus company tries to motivate drivers to drive more safely by offering safe drivers additional vacation days. Whether this will motivate a driver to drive more safely depends on whether 1. the driver thinks he or she can improve his or her safety record to the level desired by the manager (expectancy), 2. the driver believes the manager will give more vacation days if his or her safety record is improved to the desired level (instrumentality), and 3. the driver values having more vacation days (valence). Do people behave in the way expectancy theory predicts? Empirical studies testing the theory have supported its predictions.58 However, methodological problems in some of these studies may have led to underestimates of the theory’s predictive ability.59 Expectancy theory may seem complex, and more research is needed to understand whether the theory accurately represents the behavioral choices we make.60 Expectancy theory is, however, clearly relevant to HRD. It offers a way to diagnose performance problems and then suggests how these pro- blems can be overcome. In addition, expectancy theory has implications for the design and effectiveness of HRD programs. For example, according to expec- tancy theory, employees will not be motivated to attend HRD programs and try to learn from them unless they believe : 1. their efforts will result in learning the new skills or information presented in the program, 2. attending the program and learning new skills will increase their job perfor- mance, and 3. doing so will help them obtain desired outcomes or prevent unwanted outcomes. Viewing employee behavior from an expectancy theory perspective, super- visors and HRD professionals can design and market programs in ways to ensure that employees make the appropriate judgments and, as a result, will be motivated to attend, learn, and apply what they have learned back on the job. Some ways to do this include offering incentives such as holding HRD programs in attrac- tive locations, offering paid time off from work to attend, designing a program that is interesting and enjoyable, providing proof that the program is effective, and making success in the program a prerequisite for promotion and other desirable outcomes. Summary of Motivation As we have seen, there are many approaches to explaining and understanding motivation.87 Each theory we have discussed enhances our understanding of employee behavior and has at least some research support (with the strongest support going to goal setting, reinforcement theory, social learning theory, and expectancy theory). In addition, each approach offers valuable insight into the design and implementation of HRD programs. This brief discussion of different approaches to understanding work motiva- tion is not exhaustive and does not explain the complexity of and interrelation- ships among theories. Some theories, such as expectancy theory and reinforcement theory, make many similar predictions.88 In addition, researchers have attempted to integrate several theories into a larger, more inclusive model (for example, the Porter-Lawler model, which combines expectancy and equity theories). One attempt to synthesize multiple motivational models was proposed by John Wagner and John Hollenbeck.89 Their model can be seen in Figure 2-6. In this model, four employee work outcomes are of particular interest (these are the rectangles in the center of the model): employee desire to perform, the effort employees put forth, employee performance, and employee satisfaction. Expectancy theory is used as an overarching framework to depict influences on employee moti- vation and performance. However, the other theories described earlier are also used to increase our understanding of how this process unfolds. For example, we previously described valence, instrumentality, and expec- tancy during our discussion of expectancy theory. However, the various need the- ories can assist us in understanding valences, that is, what it is that people value or want. Similarly, both reinforcement theory and social learning theory can provide guidance in understanding what employees believe will lead to the attainment of what they want, that is, their instrumentality beliefs. The various forms of reinforce- ment, as well as the vicarious learning via modeling (suggested by social learning theory), lead to such instrumentality beliefs. These combine to produce a given desire to perform on the part of employees. As suggested by expectancy theory, this then interacts with expectancy (the judgment that one’s efforts will lead to a successful outcome) to produce a high level of effort. Effort, in turn, must be accompanied by a sufficient level of ability (described later), as well as accurate role perceptions. Goal-setting theory is useful here in providing guidance to employees concerning what needs to be done, at what performance level, and who has responsibility for doing it. When effort, ability, and accurate role percep- tions are all present, then high levels of individual performance are predicted to occur. The final variable in this model, satisfaction, is predicted to follow from performance, as well as from a perception that rewards have been given out fairly. Equity theory provides a helpful framework for understanding employees’ percep- tions of the equity of rewards. Finally, the model portrays return arrows back to valence, instrumentality, and expectancy. This is meant to portray the dynamic nature of employee motivation and performance, that is, that motivation and per- formance can change over time. A highly motivated person can lose motivation when valence, instrumentality, or expectancy decline. On the other hand, when one of the aspects of this model improves or increases, then higher levels of moti- vation, performance, and satisfaction are predicted to occur. We view this model as a useful diagnostic tool to understand employee motivation, since it effectively synthesizes and summarizes our discussion of the various motivational theories.