Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 17

Section 1: Purpose of this paper

The purpose of this paper is to make the 2015 Btech class more employable, by
covering the theoretical paradigm chosen and then linking the paradigm to the work
in General Electric by Jack Welch.
To introduce our topic we will now be illustrating the Basic Organisational Behaviour
Model that shows the dependent and independent variables at three levels within an
organisation. The group will focus on motivation as an independent variable and
productivity as a dependant variable. The reason we chose this topic is that it is
widely accepted that motivated individuals will work more efficiently and will increase
profitability. Therefor the management of motivation is a critical aspect of profitability
of an organisation.
Figure 1: The Basic Organisational Behaviour Model
(Robbins & Judge, 2007: 33)
We will then continue to the theoretical paradigms available to the researcher,
the detailed
analysis of
the chosen
theoretical
paradigm,

followed by the
linkage of the
theoretical paradigm

to work done

by Jack Welch. The

paper will

conclude with an

explanation of

how this paper will

enhance the
group. Now

employability of the 2015 Btech


that we have introduced the paper, we turn our attention to

definitions that apply to this paper


Section 2: Theoretical definitions applicable to this paper
The following definitions of key words will aid the readers understanding of the
paper.
2.1 Motivation:

According to Robbins and Judge (2007:187) motivation is the processes that


account for an individuals intensity, direction, and persistence of effort

towards attaining a goal.


Bergh and Theron (2009:129) describes motivation as a process that involves
the purposiveness of behaviour and is brought about by the factors that

activate behaviour and influences its direction and sustained effort.


Hellreigal and Slocum (2007: 267) refer to motivation is any influence that
triggers, directs or maintains goal directed behaviour.

2.2 Organisation:
Robbins and Judge (2007: 5) describes organisation as a consciously
coordinated social unit, composed of two or more people, that functions on a

relatively continuous basis to achieve a common goal or set of goals.


An organisation is a collection of people working together to achieve a

common purpose. (Hellriegal et al., 2012: 103)


An organised group of people with a particular purpose, such as a business or
government department. (Allen et al., 1990:12)

2.3 Behaviour:

Robbins and Judge (2007: 9) describes organisational

behaviour as a field of study that investigates the impact that individuals,


groups and structure have on behaviour with in organisations, for the purpose
of applying such knowledge towards improving the organisations
effectiveness.

Behaviour is explained as responses to stimuli, selectively


received from the social and physical environment, which have been
cognitively processed into information (Werlen, 1993:9)

All forms of doing, refraining or tolerating that are linked to any


subjective valuation by the individual. (Tellegen & Wolsink, 1998: 115)
2.4 Effectiveness:

Achievement of goals (Robbins & Judge, 2007: 27).

The degree of congruence between organisational goals and

some observed outcome (Stojkovic et al., 2012: 385).

According to Covey (2004: 52), effectiveness encompasses the


following 7 habits: Be proactive, begin with the end in mind, put first things
first, think win/win, seek first to understand then to be understood, synergise
and sharpen the saw.
2.5 Efficiency
The ratio of effective output to the input required to achieve it (Robbins
& Judge, 2007: 27).
Productive of the desired effect; especially to be productive without
waste (Black, 2013:3).
Producing a desired result with a minimum of effort, expense or waste.
(Gelberg, 1997:15)

Now that we have defined the terms that are applicable to this paper, we turn
our attention to the theoretical paradigms of motivation.

We need to print the menu page separate.


(leave page 4 blank)

Now that we have seen the theoretical paradigms available, the group has
chosen to focus on the Expectancy Theory by Victor Vroom as the chosen
theoretical paradigm. It is easy to understand and apply to situations in the
workplace as well as to the Vitality Curve of General Electric.
Section 4: The detailed analysis of the chosen theoretical paradigm
Robbins & Judge (2007: 208) stated that employees will be motivated to exert a high
level of effort, if they believe it would lead to a good performance appraisal, and in
turn lead to organisational rewards such as a bonus, salary increase or promotion,
and that those rewards would satisfy the employees personal goals.
Figure 2: Victor Vrooms Expectancy Theory Model
(Robbins & Judge. 2007: 208)

Vrooms theory focuses on three relationships (Robbins & Judge. 2007:208)


Effort-performance relationship:
The perception of the individual that a certain amount of effort would very
likely result in performance.
Performance-reward relationship:
The extent to which an individual believes that performing at a certain level
will lead to attaining a desired outcome.
Rewards-personal goals relationship:
The extent to which the reward satisfies the employees personal goals or
needs and the perceived attractiveness of those rewards to the individual.
Victor Vroom also maintained that expectancy in combination with valence triggers
and sustains behaviour. The concept of instrumentality was then also incorporated
into the theory of motivation.

Bergh & Theron (2009:134) describe expectancy, instrumentality and Valence as


follows:
Expectancy: The persons perception of the likelihood that a particular outcome will
result from particular behaviour or action.
Instrumentality: The valence of an outcome is also determined by its instrumental
relation to other outcomes.
Valence: the relative attractiveness that outcomes have for an individual.
o An outcome/reward has a positive valence if the individual prefers to attain the
outcome rather than not attain it.
o An outcome/reward has a negative valence if the individual prefers to not attain it.

o An outcome/ reward may have zero valence if the individual is indifferent to the
outcome.

Figure 3: Victor Vrooms model of Expectancy-Valence-Instrumentality

(Swenson, n.d)
As per figure 3 Victor Vroom introduces 3 variables within the expectancy theory:
Expectancy (E)
Can I achieve the desired

Instrumentality (I)
What work outcomes will

Valence (V)
How highly do I value the

level of task performance?

be received as a result of

work outcomes?

the performance?
As per the above you need to manage all variables to make sure that employees
produce at the maximum level. See below:

Expectancy (E)
High

Instrumentality (I)
High

Valence (V)
High

Motivation
High

High
High
High
Low

High
Low
Low
High

Low
High
Low
High

Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low

Different ways in which managers can maximise Motivation:


Expectancy (E)

Make the employee feel that they are capable of doing the job.
How?
1. Firstly recruit people with the correct ability to do the job.
2. Train existing employees to do the job.
3. Support employee work efforts
4. Clarify job Specification

Instrumentality (I)

Clarify what rewards and employee will receive if they do perform.


How?
1. Communicate performance outcome possibilities
2. Demonstrate what rewards are dependent on performance

Valence (V)

Make employees understand the value of the rewards and work outcomes.
How?
1. Identify individual needs
2. Adjust rewards to address these individual needs

In a nutshell the implication of this theory is 2 fold:


First, you need to establish what individual needs are. Secondly you need to provide
an employee a clear path between the effort they put in and the satisfaction of their
individual need.
i.e.

Effort leading to performance

Performance leading to rewards

Satisfying individual needs

Now that we have provided a detailed analysis of the chosen theoretical


paradigm, we turn our attention to the linkage of the paradigm, to the work
done by Jack Welch in General Electric.
Section 5: Linkage of the theoretical paradigm to work done by Jack Welch
We chose to link our theoretical paradigm with Jack Welchs interventions as he is
believed to be the best CEO in the world. He succeeded in transforming a
complacent organisation into a company energised and ready to face the
competition.
This section of the paper will provide a brief introduction to Jack Welch, followed by
an explanation of the selected intervention implemented by Jack at General Electric.

Jack Welch joined General Electric in October 1960 as a Junior Engineer at the age
of 24. (Welch, 2001:23). Jack worked his way through the ranks of the company,
having occupied a number of positions such as General Manager of Plastics, Group
Executive and Sector Executive for consumer products businesses, before being
named CEO in 1981 (Welch, 2001:39-59).
As CEO, Jack had a strong desire to change the way business was done at General
Electric. He was dubbed neutron jack in the early 1980s when trying to make
General Electric more competitive by cutting back the workforce. Jack believed
strongly in differentiation and implemented it via the differentiation Vitality Curve
(Welch, 2001:158). Jack Welch retired in 2001 after 20 years as CEO (Ge, n.d)
A photograph of Jack Welch

The group has linked

Victor Vrooms Expectancy

Theory to General

Electrics Vitality Curve.

The vitality curve was a

system created by GE to

rank leaders on their

performance. The

characteristics that differentiated these leaders were identified as 4E's and one P
(Welch, 2001:123).
The characteristics are further explained below:

Energy: A high performing leader would have high personal energy.


Energize others: Can inspire others to perform and brighten up a colleagues day.
Edge: A leader who can make tough decisions without fear of being disliked.
Execution: Has the ability to deliver.
(Welch, 2001: 123)
The last characteristic was P which signified Passion. The P was the glue to all the
Es for the top 20% performers. A manager that had all these qualities would be able
to achieve the goal of the organisation and this would lead to great success and
most importantly, return on investment. The curve classified the leaders in different
categories and each category was named. Their performance in relation to the
abovementioned categories would determine where they would fall, see below
(Welch 2001: 124)
Figure 4: The Differentiation Vitality Curve

10

(J-B, 2013)

The vitality curve has 3 categories, As B and Cs (Welch, 2001: 124). Jack believed
that the top A employees are the 20% of the organization, they are driven with
passion, commitment and always making things happen. They are open to ideas,
they have the ability to lead and energise everyone around them. The group A is
known to make the business productive and fun. They are what we call the 4Es of
leadership. The top 20% comes with very high energy levels and they also have the
ability to energise others to achieve a common goal. They have the edge to make
tough decisions and finally the ability to execute and deliver Welch J. (2001). They
had succeeded in their positions and were rewarded accordingly. The rewards would
be in the form of promotions, company shares, car and house allowances etc.
In the Middle 70% Jack believed that the Bs are known as the heart of the company
they are the majority. Lots are energy is put towards improving the Bs. They are
managed differently and always motivated. Managing the middle 70% is all about
training them, giving them positive feedback and always setting goals for them to
achieve. They would also receive rewards but on a lesser scale.
The C employees are the bottom 10% of the organisation. Jack believes that they
cant get the job done as they delay the process rather than deliver.

11

The most important tool of session C ranking employees on a 20-70-10 percent


scale forces managers to make the right decisions. Jack believed that the A
employees should be rewarded with raises 2-3 times the size given to B employees
and B employees should solid increases yearly. (Welch, 2001).
Victor Vrooms relationship model mentioned above is evident at General Electric
with managers believing that their effort would result in performance. They further
believed that performing at a certain level would lead to them achieving a desired
outcome. In this instance, the desired outcome was to be among the top 20% and
thus be rewarded with bonuses, homes, cars, shares etc. It could further be argued
that some managers may have performed to simply remain in section B as they
may have perceived the lesser reward to be in line with their personal goals and
needs.
How does Jack Welch maximise motivation
Expectancy (E)

Make the employee feel that they are capable of doing the job.
How?
1. Jack only recruited the best of the best. In his book Winning he
discusses in detail the importance of recruiting the right people.
2. Jack believed you should create a clear, simple, reality based vision
and communicate it to all.
3. Jack set normal goals and stretch goal for employees (see diagram
below). He called it the slope of satisfaction.

Instrumentality (I)

12

Clarify what rewards and employee will receive if they do perform.


How?
1. He used the Vitality Curve to indicate exactly what a manager needed
to do to reach a specific out (whether they are ranked A, B or C)

Valence (V)

Make employees understand the value of the rewards and work outcomes.
How?
1. Jack communicated his goals and visions through the entire
organisation by using tools as 360 review process and work-outs
sessions.

Now that we have linked the theoretical paradigm to work done by Jack Welch,
we will look at how this paper enhances the employability of the 2015 BTech
group.

Section 6: How this paper enhances the employability of the 2015 BTech
group
This paper will contribute to the employability of the Btech group as it will improve
their interviewing ability and conduct. The individual may be able to answer certain
technical HR questions confidently by applying the expectancy theory to
performance/ productivity problems posed by the interviewer, by displaying their
understanding of what motivates employees.

13

Most companies offer standard remuneration packages as a one size fits all and
this may not be the best way to gain optimal productivity. The individual can display
their understanding of the relationship between effort and performance, performance
and reward, and the reward and personal goals. If the reward and personal goals are
misaligned, there will inevitably be a productivity problem, and maybe even a poor
organisational climate. The individual could then suggest flexible remuneration
packages as a solution.
A secondary way in which the paper will improve employability, specifically related to
interviews, is that the individual can discuss General Electrics Vitality Curve as an
example of flexible rewards. This will further indicate that the individual is in touch
with practical business concepts and subsequently display an understanding of the
practical implementation of the theory.
It is important to note that the above mentioned benefits can also be applied to solve
problems that may be experienced in their current workplace. It can also benefit
them personally, in terms of their own performance in the workplace and what type of
motivation is required in order for them to perform at their best and possibly
encourage them to make recommendations to their direct superiors to put a
beneficial reward system in place.

14

Section 7: Reference List

Allen, R., Fowler, H. & Fowler, F. (1990).The Concise Oxford dictionary of

current English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.


Appsych. (2015). Reinforcement Theory. http://appsych.mrduez.com [30

March 2015].
Berg, Z.C. & Theron, A. (2009). Psychology in the work context. 4th edition.
Oxford.

Black, R., 2013. Pragmatic Software Testing. Indianapolis: John Wiley &
Sons.

15

Collins dictionary, (2015). Definition of transformation.


http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/transformation
[11 Mar. 2015].

Covey, S.R. 2004. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People : Personal


Lessons in Personal Change. 2nd ed. London: Simon & Schuster Inc.

Dugar, C. (n.d.). About Jack Welch Jack Welch Online MBA Program.

https://jackwelch.strayer.edu/about/jack-welch [14 Apr. 2015].


Ge.com, (n.d.). John F. Welch, Jr. http://www.ge.com/about-

us/leadership/profiles/john-f-welch-jr [18 Apr. 2015].


Gelberg, D. 1997. The Business of Reforming American Schools. New

York: Sunny Press.


Hellriegal, D., Slocum, J.W., Jackson,S.E., Amos,T., Klopper. H.B., Louw,
L., and Oosthuizen, T. (2006). Management. 2 nd ed. Oxford University

Press
Hellriegal, D., Slocum, J.W., Jackson,S.E., Amos,T., Klopper. H.B., Louw,
L., Louw, M., Oosthuizen, T., Perks, S., Staude, G. & Zindiwe, S. (2012)

Management. 4th ed. Oxford University Press.


Hellriegel, D. & Slocum, J.W. (2007) Fundamentals of Organisational
Behaviour. Thomson South-Western.

Imgarcade, (2009). David Mcclelland Theory.

http://imgarcade.com/1/david-mcclelland-theory. [30 Mar. 2015].


Jon, J.B. 2013. The Vitality Curve.
https://rightcandidate.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/stack-ranking-does-

it-work-is-it-healthy/ [21 Apr. 2015].


LitheSpeed, S. (2011). Theory X and Theory Y.

http://lithespeed.com/theory-x-and-theory-y. [30 Mar. 2015].


Meer, H. (2013). Cognitive Evaluation Theory of Motivation.

http://studyob.com/cognitive-evaluation-theory/. [8 Apr. 2015].


Pelinks4u. (2015). Self-efficacy theory.

http://www.pelinks4u.org/articles/samson5_11.html [8 Apr. 2015].


Robbins,S.P. & Judge,T.A. (2007). Organisational Behaviour. 12th ed. USA:
Pearson Prentice Hall.

16

Slidegeeks. (2015). Maslows Hierarchy Of Needs.


http://www.slidegeeks.com/powerpoint-slides/20151people_maslows_hierarchy_of_needs_2d_powerpoint_slides_and_p
pt_diagram_templates [30 Mar. 2015].

Stratoserve. (2011). Jack Welch GE's 4 E and one P curve.


http://www.stratoserve.com/2011/05/jack-welch-ges-4-p-and-one-ecurve.html [14 Mar. 2015].

Strategicleadershipinstitute. (2011). Herzberg two-factor theory.


http://www.strategicleadershipinstitute.net/news/start-with-herzberg-

if-motivation-lacks-at-work [30 Mar. 2015].


Stojkovic, S., Kalinich, D. & Klofas, J. 2012. Criminal Justice
Organizations: Administration and Management. 6th ed. Stamford:

Cengage Learning.
Swenson, D. (n.d.). Expectancy and equity theories of motivation.
http://faculty.css.edu/dswenson/web/OB/VIEtheory.html [05 May
2015].

Tellegen, E. & Wolsink, M. (1998). Society and Its Environment: An

Introduction. Amsterdam: Psychology Press.


Vikas, S. (2014). Organization Behaviour-II.
Wikispaces. (2014). 6. Goal Setting Theor.
https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/PSYCH484/6.+Goal+Setting+Theor

y [30 Mar. 2015].


Welch J. (2001). Straight From The Gut. Great Britain. Headline.
Whatishumanresource. (2015). Equity Theory.
http://www.whatishumanresource.com/adams-equity-theory [30 Mar.
2015].

17