Motivation in the workplace or in a project team is one of the vital aspects within an organization. Motivation can be defined as a feeling of interest that enables one to become determined to execute a specific task. If the employees of an organization lacks motivation, they do not have the desire in doing their work at maximum potential, and it will consequently reduce the productivity of the organization. Therefore, we investigate on how motivation is linked directly to one’s performance while executing their tasks at work. Besides that, other than the factors of employees, the managers also play an important role in motivation. Here, we shall also discuss on how a manager’s perception and expectations will reflect their attitudes toward his or her employees, subsequently affecting the type of management style the manager shall use. Lastly, the expanded model by Edwin Locke which states of his goal-setting theory is investigated, and how will this specific theory play a role towards motivated work behaviors. Victor Vroom (1970) expectancy theory explanation is widely used. He states, "Expectancy theory argues that the strength of a tendency to act in a certain way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual." Vroom’s expectancy theory presumes that behavior results from conscious choices among alternatives whose purpose it is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Scaffolding upon some of Vroom's original work, Porter and Lawler developed a theoretical model suggesting that the expenditure or an individual's energy or efforts will be determined by the level of expectations that a specific outcome may be obtained and the degree to which that outcome is valued by someone (Pinder, 1984). This theory became known as Expectancy Theory, or also known as the VIE theory (valence, instrumentality, and expectancy). The theory suggests that although individuals may have different sets of goals, they can be motivated if they believe that :    A positive connection exists between performance and effort, A favorable performance will lead to a desirable reward, The reward is able to satisfy an essential need, The desire to satisfy that particular need is strong enough to make the effort worthwhile. The theory of relationship between motivation and performance are based upon the following formula: Motivation = Expectancy (Effort-Performance) x Instrumentality (Performance-Reward) x Valence (Reward-Personal Goal) In brief, the first component is the effect-performance relationship; this is where employees view that by working hard will lead to a certain specific performance. The second component is performance-reward relationship; where an employee truly believes by performing at that specific certain level would lead to positive results. Finally, the third component is rewardpersonal goal relationship; here is where the manager or employer rewards the employee for 1 doing a great job (Stephen & Timothy, 2007). Thus, with the combination of these three components, it forms the motivation to work. For the first component, "the relationship between Effort and Performance is known as the E-P linkage" (Isaac, 2001) or commonly known as Effort-Performance Linkage or Expectancy. Expectancy is placed as the VIE theory’s initial component; emphasizing that in order for employees to be effectively motivated, the employee needs to view their personal expense of effort will result in an acceptable level of performance. The main idea of perception is essential throughout this theory, as it deduces that in order for an average employee to be motivated into putting effort in doing a specific task, they have to believe that the effort they exert will result in a specific level of performance, or that a specific level of performance is achievable. Because VIE Theory involves perceptions, and expectancy is a belief about the future rather than a solid existence in the surroundings, people's beliefs can vary greatly (Redmond, 2014). This means that while one person perceives their efforts to lead to a great accomplishment, another person may believe their same effort will not lead to much accomplishment at all. This difference in perceptions is due to many factors. Two factors that can affect expectancy are ability and interest (Redmond, 2014). When things go wrong at this level seem most related to beliefs about situational factors such as poor training, low skill, poor staff/communication systems, and poor equipment. As a result, it causes the factor of E-P linkage to be deficient. Hence, it will decrease the employee’s motivation in their work. However, with proper training and a high interest level, people will have an increased level of expectancy and consequently increasing motivation at work. The second component in the Expectancy Theory equation is Instrumentality. Instrumentality is the perception that a given performance level is related to a given outcome. In other words, an employee believes that by exerting a specific output will facilitate a given reward or outcome. Thus, that particular employee will only perform at a specific level if they believe that the performance will lead to a given expressed outcome. The relationship is represented by the P-O linkage (Isaac, 2001), commonly known as Performance-Reward Linkage. An example of instrumentality of Expectancy Theory would be, "If I complete more work than anyone else, will I get a promotion before they do?" On the other hand, things that can go wrong at this level shall seem to be most related to reward expectations directly. Depending on the individual’s perception of ideal rewards, these may vary between persons; however, motivational challenges in this area seem to include expectations/beliefs that such as pay not proportionally rewarded as per the performance (pay caps at a certain level, pay is based on favoritism and not related to performance, pay based on time spent with company alone, etc.), having little recognition from management of certain departments, personnel, positions, etc. As a consequence, when this component of the VIE theory is deficient, that is when an employee works hard and believes there will be some kind of attainable outcome but in the end, does not receive one, can easily destroy the motivation of wanting to perform their duty. Performance-reward relationship is important due that it gives the employee a feel of involvement (UK Essays, 2015). When their 2 motivation in doing the particular task is lost, they will tend to reduce the quality of the outcome or lower the productivity of the organization. The third component, also the final component, in the Expectancy Theory equation is Valence. Valence is characterized to the degree of which a person values a given outcome or reward. It is important to note that valence is not the actual level of satisfaction that an individual receives from an outcome, but rather it is the expected satisfaction a person receives from a particular outcome (Redmond, 2014). This “value” is based in individual differences. The value a person places on an expected outcome or reward is directly related to who they are; their needs, goals, and values/preferences. For example this could include things such as paid time off, extra cash bonuses, or raises. This subjective value is based on the individual's perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs. "The level at which an individual values an outcome is described as valence" (Gerhart, Minkoff, Olsen, 1995). Valence can include a range from both a positive to negative outcome. A positive outcome would occur if a person views the outcome or the reward as being good and also being on more valued outcomes after like a promotion. However, a negative outcome is something that a person perceives as being an outcome that would lead to dissatisfaction whereby at this level, it seems that it is highly related to whether the type of reward that seems available appears to be one that the employee values. If most employees believe that those who perform best get moved to a distant office, put on “desk-work,” or given the “privilege of working directly with clients,” perhaps only few/certain personnel are interested in receiving those rewards while many others are interested in avoiding them, depending of course on personalities, goals, and interests, which causes the component of valence to be deficient for those that who are trying to avoid them. As a consequence, the employee will not be motivated to do the specific job i.e. exerting less effort in executing the specific task itself. In a very short summary, motivation is driven by the employee’s effort which links to the expected performance, followed by the expected rewards and lastly the degree of satisfaction of the rewards. Therefore, when the motivation in an employee increases, the performance by that particular employee will also have a tendency to increase. Hence, managers’ should keep a close eye, but not directly, at his or her employees and give necessary time-to-time motivations so that the performance level can be maintained. The relevant theory to relate to a manager’s perception and expectations that reflect their attitude towards employees and the management style is social psychologist Douglas McGregor. He has expounded two contrasting theories on human management and motivation in the 1960s: The X Theory and the Y Theory (Waddell, Jones, George 2010, p.49). In brief, Douglas McGregor claimed that Theory X managers are those who perceive their employees as slackers and shall have a higher probability to follow an approach based on control. On the other hand, he also claimed that Theory Y managers are those who trusts his or her employees could be motivated and have a desire to improve themselves, resulting an increased 3 likeliness to seek for a positive working environment and opportunities for a step up the ladder (Kopelman, Prottas, Davis, 2008, p.255-271). Theory X According to theory X, it states that a manager thinks that all of his or her subordinates are lazy, dislike work and will attempt to avoid doing work as much as possible. Furthermore, they also have no ambition or sense of responsibility, and do not care about the performance of the organization. As such, they will tend to resist any organizational changes, and not be particularly creative or smart, only working to focus on low level needs such as food and security. However, it also holds that the employees are quite naive and relatively easy to manipulate. With that being said, managers who follow theory X approach can try to take a hard, controlling approach or a soft persuasive approach as their management style in attempt to counter the laziness and irresponsibility of the employees (Waddell, Jones, George 2010, p.50). The hard, controlling approach depends on tight managerial controls and detailed supervision, such as proposed by scientific management whilst also pressuring them and implied threats at the same time. In contrast, the soft approach seeks to influence employees with money and reduced levels of supervision, in an attempt to acquire employee coordination and rational levels of productivity. Unfortunately, the hard approach will tend to generate hatred within employees and resistance, whilst the soft approach may lead to workers implore increased levels of rewards whilst working as little as possible. McGregor felt that most firms tried to use some aspect of both of these approaches, but neither were very successful (Scribd, 2015). The rationale for this is that McGregor states that theory X would only ever emphasize on low level needs such as security. As such, whilst the threat of removing security, in the form of reducing wages or potential sackings would only motivate an employee to a certain level. As such, it will never satisfy high level needs and employees will not be encouraged by their tasks while following a Theory X approach, but it would be better than following no approach. Instead, they will search for alternative ways to earn more money and rewards, thus allowing them to fulfill their social and esteem needs outside of work. Therefore, employees will never work to their maximum potential nor will they meet their high level needs through work. Besides that, McGregor argued that present-day developed communities, with their abundant and cheap food, high tax rates and social safety nets, already pleased most of the physiological and security needs of the community. This indicates that by furnishing financial rewards and punishments would not have any influence on the employees as their discomfort at being controlled would outbalance the monetary advantages. As such, employees under theory X often dislike their work and have no interest in a particular company’s organizational goals, thus fulfilling the assumptions made under the theory. As such, McGregor argued that theory X was a self-fulfilling prediction, and that managers who followed it would end up demotivating even the most intrinsically motivated workforce (UK Essays, 2015). Theory Y 4 In opposition of Theory X, theory Y goes against everything theory X says. Theory Y's presumptions are that managers should create the work culture of a company where opportunities for subordinates to exercise initiative and self-direction would be facilitated to (Waddell, Jones, George 2010, p.50). In Bennis' (1972, p.142), it was stated that in a speech that Douglas McGregor was giving, he said that "This is a process primarily of creating opportunities, releasing potential, removing obstacles, encouraging growth, providing guidance. It is what Peter Drucker called 'management by objectives' in contrast to 'management by control (Bennis 1972, p.142). According to theory Y, it states that a manager perceives his or her employees are self-directed, enjoy work and accepts responsibility. In addition, theory Y managers assume that employees view work can be made as relaxed as play and rest. As such, people will tend to exercise more self-direction and self-control to fulfill their objectives from work, provided they are dedicated to them, and have a feeling that they will fulfill greater demands by achieving them. In addition, if these prerequisite can be fulfilled, people will seek for additional challenges and responsibility, and will manage them well because humans are naturally creative and innovative, it is their talents is just needed to be encouraged in their work. Approaching self-actualization in their work is of utmost importance aspect of theory Y. To achieve such results, it is commonly focused on the cycle of managers to provide stimulating work, which stimulates employees to achieve, which allows managers to provide them with additional interesting, stimulating and challenging work, thus fulfilling a greater level esteem needs, and finally shall allow the employees to approach self-actualization in their work. Selfactualization is a continually evolving need; it will thus continue to stimulate the employees’ passion in work throughout their working lives. With that being said, this allows managers to use a management style that aligns employees’ personal goals with organizational goals, by allowing the employee to satisfy their needs as the organization achieve success. For example, a firm can decentralize its control structure, giving employees with greater responsibility and utilizing more of their skills to excel towards success. Employees can also consult their managers as part of the planning and decision making processes, allowing the employees an opportunity to contribute into the organization’s success whilst benefiting from the employees’ creativity. If such a system can be perfectly implemented, it would give a great increment of levels of motivation, with employees working ever harder as their personal needs develop and their job develops to satisfy them. Therefore, the best way to manage them is to manage as little as possible. Give them water and let them bloom (S. Matthew, 2010). However, Theory Y management cannot be seen as a soft approach as it is easy for employees to manipulate the system by pretending to be demotivated and hiding their true motivations. Indeed, McGregor argued that some employees may not have developed sufficient emotional maturity to embrace a Theory Y style of management, and may believe the managers are trying to 5 manipulate them or are being weak. As such, managers may need to develop an initial system of control for employees, and relax that system as the employee matures and develops (UK Essays, 2015). To be brief, both theory X and theory Y can be said that managers are responsible for assembling and organizing the various factors of production, including their employees, with the goal being to produce maximum economic benefit for the shareholders. However, both the theories take different views around the drivers of employee behavior. Goal difficulty is proven to be an effective motivation tactic. It is the extent to which a goal is challenging and requires effort. It should be set high enough to encourage high motivation to achieve high performance but low enough to be attainable. (Pennsylvania State University World Campus, 2015) High or hard goals are motivating because they require people to attain more in order to be satisfied than do the low or easy goals. (Edwin A. Locke, 2006) The more difficult the goal, the more energy the person will put into the goal. The energy is proportionate to the level of the task. It is on account of the achieving easier goals it smaller amounts of effort are required and it can be said that effort responds to the magnitude of the goal peformance discrepancy. (Creative Commons Attribution, 2014) People are often motivated by challenging goals, yet it is important that not to set a goal which is so challenging until it cannot be accomplished. For instance, if a manager ask his employee to increase sales by 100 percent, the employee may think it is ridiculous and laughable because he regards it as impossible to reach. To the realistic condition, perhaps the manager may give instruction in temrs of increasing the sales by 20 percent. In this case, the employee may regard as important and motivate himself to achieve the goal. Hence, the more difficult goals lead to increased motivation if they seem feasible. On the other hand, if they seem the goals are too high, employees will give up when they fail to achieve it. (Clark, 2015) Goal specificity is also known as setting clear goal which is the degree of quantitative precision and clarity of the goal. It should answer the questions of who, what, when, where, why, and how of the goal’s expectations. Specificity and measurability provide an external referent to gauge progress, whereas vague “do better” goals are ambiguous and often have little effect on motivation. Removing ambiguity allows one to focus on precise actions and behaviors related to goal achievement. (Redmond, 2015) Meanwhile, increasing goal specificity has been shown to be particularly related to increases in performance. Specific goals that are quantifiable reduce ambiguity and thereby help to focus employees’ efforts. It is generally a good idea to avoid developing or performing goals in broad or ambiguous terms. (Sims, 2002) Some goals, such as those involving costs, output, profitability, and growth, can easily be stated in clear and precise terms. Whereas, there are some goals are much harder to state in specific or measureable such as improving employee job satisfaction and morale, company image and reputation, ethical behavior, and social responsibility. (Griffin, 2014) However, a specific goal has a much greater chance of being accomplished than a general goal. Goal acceptance is the first step in creating motivation. It is the extent to which a person accepts a goal as his or her own. Goal acceptance is most likely to occur when assigned goals 6 correspond with personal aspirations. Difficult and specific goals that are accepted by an employee will therefore result in superior performance and increase motivation. This line of reasoning suggests that managers must encourage employees to focus on measurable and challenging goals (Sims, 2002). Goal acceptance is postulated that participation in goal setting thereby increasing motivation to exert effort toward goals. If performance is to occur, acceptance appears to be a crucial variable in goal setting because when acceptance is low, motivation will be low. The workers are allowed to participate in the goal setting process if the acceptance of goals and the motivation to attain them is greater (King, 2003). The worker, who participates in the process, generally set higher goals than if the goals were set for them. It also affects their belief that the goals are obtainable and increases their motivation to achieve them (Clark, 2015). Goal commitment is the degree of determination one uses to achieve an accepted goal. It is extent to which he or she is personally interested in reaching the goal. There is a need for commitment when goals are specific and difficult. Locke’s has found that commitment to goal attainment could be increased in two ways. The individual must believe that the goal is important and must believe that the goal is attainable. Individual could be convinced of the goal’s importance by providing the reasons for the necessity of goal attainment (King, 2003). When the goals are important and attainable for the individual, higher committed individuals report better performance and boost their motivation. Goal commitment and difficulty often work together. The harder the goal the more commitment required. If the goal is easy individuals do not need a lot of motivation to get it done. When individual working on a difficult task it is likely will encounter challenges that require a deeper source of inspiration and incentive (Creative Commons Attribution, 2014). In short, these four attributes of goal-setting theory, which is goal difficulty, goal specificity, goal acceptance and goal commitment are related to motivated work behaviors and they are interrelated with each other. Whether or not an employee will accept the goal depends on how legitimate the difficulty and specificity of the goal is, and also how committed will they be towards achieving that particular goal. 7 In conclusion, it is now very clear that motivation plays an important role in an organization. Not only does motivation can now be seen is directly linked to performance, but when one of the factors in the linkage becomes deficient, one’s motivation would decrease severely and it could affect the outcomes or productivity of the individual or the organization respectively. Furthermore, from theory X and Y, it can be concluded that it is directly related to how managers perceive and expect reflect their attitudes toward his or her employees. These two theories are the main theory by Douglas McGregor, but however both theories are inapplicable to all types of situations. This is due to the difference in attitude and personality in each and every individual working in an organization. This can be exemplified by using theory X for new recruits or internships for a specific organization, while theory Y can be used for existing staff or employees who are familiar with the operations of the organization. Lastly is Edwin Locke’s expanded model of goal-setting theory. There are four attributes in Edwin Locke’s theory. Those theories are goal difficulty, goals specificity, goal acceptance, and goal commitment. In goal difficulty, it explains on how employees gain motivation when they face new challenges as presented by the manager. In short, when goal difficulties are set high, it can induce motivation within the employees, but the difficulty must be attainable for that to happen. Hence, if the difficulty seems impossible to achieve, it may back fire instead. Goal specificity, on the other hand, generally states that having a specific goal is much better than having a general goal in the specific organization. Hence, it would affect by increasing the motivation of the employees at work with a specific goal. Next, is the goal acceptance, where it states mainly about how is motivation developed by accepting the goal as his or her own. When the elements of difficult and specific goals are together while the employee accepts the said goal, it will create motivation within them in doing their job well. Finally, is the goal commitment, where it states that how devoted is the employee in striving to achieve their goal. Since commitment is directly proportional to the difficulty of the task, a harder goal may also induce a greater commitment within an employee to execute his task. 8 References/Bibliography Part A: Group  Question 1 o Stephen P. R. & Timothy A. J. 2007. Motivation Concepts. Organizational Behavior, 12th Edition, pg. 208, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. o Vroom, V.H., 1970, Management and Motivation, Expectancy Theory, Penguin 1983 o Isaac, R. G., Zerbe, W.J., & Pitt, D. C., 2001, Leadership and motivation: The effective application of expectancy theory, Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(2), pg.212-226 o Pinder, C. C., 1984, Work motivation: Theory, issues, and applications. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. o Redmond, B.F., 2014, Lecture on expectancy theory (Lesson 4). Personal Collection of B.F. Redmond, Penn State University, University Park, PA. o Gerhart, B., Minkoff, H. B., & Olsen, R. N., 1995, Employee compensation: Theory, practice, and evidence. In G. R. P. Ferris, S. D. Rosen, & D. T. Barnum (Eds.), Handbook of Human Resources Management. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. o University of Cambridge, 2015, Vroom’s Expectancy Theory. [Online] Available at: http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/research/dstools/vrooms-expectancy-theory/ [Accessed 16 November 2015] o UK Essays, 2015, Expectation Theory of Motivation Management. [Online] Available at: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/management/expectancy-theory-of-motivationmanagement-essay.php [Accessed 16 November 2015]  Question 2 o Kopelman, R. E., Prottas, D. J., & Davis, A. L., 2008, Douglas McGregor’s theory X and Y: Toward a construct-valid measure, Journal of Managerial Issues, pg.255-271. o S. Matthew, 2010, Oxford Leadership Journal, Theories X and Y, Revisited, Volume 1, Issue 3, pg. 1-2. o Scribd, 2015, Theory X and Theory Y. [Online] Available at: http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=266827777&access_key=key -LngwsKzlQSSHo5jTvpFE [Accessed 15 November 2015] o Thomas, J. M., & Bennis, W. G., 1972, The management of change and conflict: selected readings, pg.142, Harmondsworth, Penguin. o UK Essays, 2015, Theory X and Theory Y. [Online] Available at: http://www.ukessays.com/mba/management/theory-x-y.php [Accessed 15 November 2015] o Waddell, Jones & George, 2010, Contemporary Management, 2nd Edition, pg.49-50, Australia; McGraw-Hill.  Question 3  Clark, D., 2015. Goals. [Online] Available at: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leadership/goals.html [Accessed 09 November 2015].  Creative Commons Attribution, 2014. Motivation and Goal Setting. [Online] Available at: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Motivation_and_emotion/Textbook/Motivation/Goal_setti ng [Accessed 08 November 2015]. 9 References/Bibliography Part A: Group  Question 3 (Cont’d)  Edwin A. Locke, G. P., 2006. New Directions in Goal-Setting. [Online] Available at: http://cmaleadershipconsultants.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Newdirections-in-goal-setting.pdf [Accessed 08 November 2015].  Friedman, E., 2015. 10 Steps to Keeping Employees Engaged an Motivated. [Online] Available at: http://blog.eskill.com/employees-engaged-motivated/ [Accessed 16 November 2015].  Griffin, R., 2014. Goal-Setting Theory. In: Organizational Behavior : Managing People and Organizations. South-Western: Cengage Learning, p. 598.  King, K. M., 2003. Goal Acceptance. [Online] Available at: http://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1915&context=etd [Accessed 09 November 2015].  King, K. M., 2003. Goal Commitment. [Online] Available at: http://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1915&context=etd [Accessed 09 November 2015].  Larsen, B., 2015. 10 Strategies to Retain and Motivate Employee. [Online] Available at: http://www.standard.net/Success-Strategies/2014/09/24/10-strategies-tohelp-retain-and-motivate-employees [Accessed 16 November 2015].  Pennsylvania State University World Campus, 2015. PSYCH 484, Lesson 6: GoalSetting Theory: What am I trying to achieve in my work? Work Attitudes and Motivation.. In: s.l.:s.n.  Quast, L., 2012. 5 Tips For Motivating Employees. [Online] Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/lisaquast/2012/01/10/5-tips-for-motivatingemployees/ [Accessed 18 November 2015].  Redmond, B. F., 2015. Goal Setting Theory. [Online] Available at: https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/PSYCH484/6.+Goal+Setting+Theory [Accessed 09 November 2015].  Sims, R. R., 2002. Goal Setting. In: Managing Organizational Behavior. United States: Quorum Books, p. 395. 10