Assignment on Semester Final Exam

Course Code: MGT3124

Course Title: Organizational Behavior

Prepared for:

...........................................

Shamima Akter
Lecturer
School of Business Studies
Southeast University

Prepared By:

Twasin Abduho Al Wares - ID No: 2015010000442

Sec: 1
School of Business Studies
Southeast University
Answer to the Question No. 1
Goal-setting theory is one of the most influential theories of motivation. In order to
motivate employees, goals should be SMART (specific, measurable, aggressive,
realistic, and time-bound). SMART goals motivate employees because they energize
behavior, give it direction, provide a challenge, force employees to think outside the
box, and devise new and novel methods of performing. Goals are more effective in
motivating employees when employees receive feedback on their accomplishments,
have the ability to perform, and are committed to goals. Poorly derived goals have the
downsides of hampering learning, preventing adaptability, causing a single-minded
pursuit of goals at the exclusion of other activities, and encouraging unethical behavior.
Companies tie individual goals to company goals using management by objectives.

Answer to the Question No. 2

The idea that a manager’s attitude has an impact on employee motivation was originally
proposed by Douglas McGregor, a management professor at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology during the 1950s and 1960s. In his 1960 book, The Human Side
of Enterprise, McGregor proposed two theories by which managers perceive and
address employee motivation. He referred to these opposing motivational methods as
Theory X and Theory Y management. Each assumes that the manager’s role is to
organize resources, including people, to best benefit the company. However, beyond
this commonality, the attitudes and assumptions they embody are quite different.

Theory X:

According to McGregor, Theory X management assumes the following:

 Work is inherently distasteful to most people, and they will attempt to avoid work
whenever possible.
 Most people are not ambitious, have little desire for responsibility, and prefer to
be directed.
 Most people have little aptitude for creativity in solving organizational problems.
 Motivation occurs only at the physiological and security levels of Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs.
 Most people are self-centered. As a result, they must be closely controlled and
often coerced to achieve organizational objectives.
 Most people resist change.
 Most people are gullible and unintelligent.

Essentially, Theory X assumes that the primary source of employee motivation is

monetary, with security as a strong second. Under Theory X, one can take a hard or
soft approach to getting results. The hard approach to motivation relies on coercion,
implicit threats, micromanagement, and tight controls— essentially an environment of
command and control. The soft approach, however, is to be permissive and seek
harmony in the hopes that, in return, employees will cooperate when asked. However,
neither of these extremes is optimal. The hard approach results in hostility, purposely
low output, and extreme union demands. The soft approach results in a growing  desire
for greater reward in exchange for diminished work output.

It might seem that the optimal approach to human resource management would lie

somewhere between these extremes. However, McGregor asserts that neither
approach is appropriate, since the basic assumptions of Theory X are incorrect.
Drawing on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, McGregor argues that a need, once satisfied,
no longer motivates. The company uses monetary rewards and benefits to satisfy
employees’ lower-level needs. Once those needs have been satisfied, the motivation
disappears. Theory X management hinders the satisfaction of higher-level needs
because it doesn’t acknowledge that those needs are relevant in the workplace. As a
result, the only way that employees can attempt to meet higher-level needs at work is to
seek more compensation, so, predictably, they focus on monetary rewards. While
money may not be the most effective way to self-fulfillment, it may be the only way
available. People will use work to satisfy their lower needs and seek to satisfy their
higher needs during their leisure time. However, employees can be most productive
when their work goals align with their higher-level needs. McGregor makes the point
that a command-and-control environment is not effective because it relies on lower
needs for motivation, but in modern society those needs are mostly satisfied and thus
are no longer motivating. In this situation, one would expect employees to dislike their
work, avoid responsibility, have no interest in organizational goals, resist change, etc.—
creating, in effect, a self-fulfilling prophecy. To McGregor, a steady supply of motivation
seemed more likely to occur under Theory Y management.

Theory Y:

The higher-level needs of esteem and self-actualization are ongoing needs that, for
most people, are never completely satisfied. As such, it is these higher-level needs
through which employees can best be motivated. In strong contrast to Theory X, Theory
Y management makes the following assumptions:

 Work can be as natural as play if the conditions are favorable.

 People will be self-directed and creative to meet their work and organizational
objectives if they are committed to them.
 People will be committed to their quality and productivity objectives if rewards are
in place that addresses higher needs such as self-fulfillment.
 The capacity for creativity spreads throughout organizations.
 Most people can handle responsibility because creativity and ingenuity are
common in the population.
  Under these conditions, people will seek responsibility.

Under these assumptions, there is an opportunity to align personal goals with

organizational goals by using the employee’s own need for fulfillment as the motivator.
McGregor stressed that Theory Y management does not imply a soft approach.
McGregor recognized that some people may not have reached the level of maturity
assumed by Theory Y and may initially need tighter controls that can be relaxed as the
employee develops. If Theory Y holds true, an organization can apply the
following principles of scientific management to improve employee motivation:

 Decentralization and delegation: If firms decentralize control and reduce the

number of levels of management, managers will have more subordinates and
consequently need to delegate some responsibility and decision making to them.
 Job enlargement: Broadening the scope of an employee’s job adds variety and
opportunities to satisfy ego needs.
 Participative management: Consulting employees in the decision-making
process taps their creative capacity and provides them with some control over
their work environment.
 Performance appraisals: Having the employee set objectives and participate in
the process of self-evaluation increases engagement and dedication.

If properly implemented, such an environment can increase and continually

fuel motivation as employees work to satisfy their higher-level personal needs through
their jobs.

Answer to the Question No: 3

The present study estimated the unique contribution of self-efficacy to work-related

performance controlling for personality (the Big 5 traits), intelligence or general mental
ability, and job or task experience. Results, based on a meta-analysis of the relevant
literatures, revealed that overall, across all studies and moderator conditions, the
contribution of self-efficacy relative to purportedly more distal variables is relatively
small. Within moderator categories, there were several cases in which self-efficacy
made unique contributions to work-related performance. For example, self-efficacy
predicted performance in jobs or tasks of low complexity but not those of medium or
high complexity, and self-efficacy predicted performance for task but not job
performance. Overall, results suggest that the predictive validity of self-efficacy is
attenuated in the presence of individual differences, though this attenuation does
depend on the context.
Bandura evidences four ways to develop self-efficacy across the breadth of his
research.
1) Mastery Experiences:

Bandura (2008) argues that the most effective way to build self-efficacy is through
mastery experiences. There is no better way to start believing in one’s ability to succeed
than to set a goal, persist through challenges on the road to goal-achievement, and
enjoy the satisfying results. Once a person has done this enough times, they will come
to believe that sustained effort and perseverance through adversity will serve a purpose
in the end; belief in one’s ability to succeed will grow. In contrast, regularly achieving
easy success with little effort can lead people to expect rapid results, which can result in
their being easily discouraged by failure (Bandura, 2008). The importance of mastery
experiences becomes poignant when we consider it in the context of parenting and
early developmental experiences. As a parent, there is a strong temptation to prevent a
child from ever experiencing failure (sometimes referred to as ‘snowplow parenting’).
However, a child who doesn’t learn to overcome disappointment and draw upon their
internal resources to push through obstacles will miss out on opportunities to develop
their self-efficacy. Consequently, the child may be left under-equipped when it comes to
handling the challenges that await them in adulthood. Experiencing failure is important
so that we can build resilience. This is done by treating every failure as a learning
opportunity and a chance to reach competence via a different approach. 

2) Social Modeling:

Another way that a person can build self-efficacy is by witnessing demonstrations of

competence by people who are similar to them (Bandura, 2008). In this scenario, the
person witnessing the display of competence perceives aspects of their own identity in
the actor. That is, the actor may be of a similar age, ethnic background, sexuality, or
gender as the observer (Bandura, 1997). The observer, who witnesses the actor’s
success through dedicated efforts, will be inspired to believe that they, too, can achieve
their goals. When we consider the power of role modeling for inspiring self-belief, we
can begin to understand the importance of diverse representation in the media. In the
past, one would have needed to find a role-model in one’s immediate social
surroundings. Now, through the internet and other digital mediums, people (especially
young people) are being exposed to many potential role-models. If these viewers never
see anyone like themselves displaying acts of competence across the various domains
of life (e.g., speaking in the media, competing in elite sports), they are denied the
opportunity to develop self-efficacy through this vicarious modeling and may be less
likely than other populations to pursue their ambitions.

3) Social Persuasion:

When a person is told that they have what it takes to succeed, they are more likely to
achieve success. In this way, self-efficacy becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy (Eden &
Zuk, 1995). While not as powerful as mastery for strengthening self-efficacy (Bandura,
2008), being told by someone we trust that we possess the capabilities to achieve our
goals will do more for us than dwelling on our deficiencies. Therefore, a good mentor
can boost self-efficacy not only through role-modeling but by serving as a trusted voice
of encouragement. They may also help their mentee to recognize opportunities in which
they can demonstrate competence (without being overwhelmed) and persuade them to
step into the ring. Other works (beyond those of Bandura) have even investigated the
role of self-talk for strengthening self-efficacy and improving performance. For instance,
one study found that tennis players who gave themselves a motivational pep talk before
practicing a particular swing performed significantly better than a group who did not give
themselves a pep talk (Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, Goltsios, & Theodorakis, 2008).
This finding suggests that we can verbally persuade ourselves to believe in our
capabilities and strengthen our self-efficacy. 

4) States of Physiology:

Lastly, our emotions, moods, and physical states influence how we judge our self-
efficacy (Kavanagh & Bower, 1985). According to Bandura (2008), it is harder to feel
assured of our ability to succeed when we feel weariness and a low mood. This is
especially true if we perceive these emotional and physiological states to be indicative
of our incompetence, vulnerability, or inability to achieve a goal. Introspection and
education can prevent these physical states from being interpreted negatively. For
example, when experiencing a personal or work-related failure, people can practice self-
compassion. At chronic levels, low mood can have a debilitating effect on self-efficacy
and subsequent goal achievement, as people with chronically low mood are likely to
give up on goals sooner and demonstrate a reluctance to even take up goals in the first
place (Bandura, 2008). Indeed, it’s been shown that while people suffering from
depression still have goals, they hold more pessimistic beliefs about their ability to
achieve goals successfully and perceive that they have less control over the outcomes
of goals (Dickson, Moberly, & Kinderman, 2011). In sum, changing negative
misinterpretations of physical and affective states is key to build self-efficacy (Bandura,
2008). The strength self-efficacy scale is one tool which can help build insight and
introspection, and alleviate the need for judging ourselves too harshly when we make
mistakes.

Answer to the Question No: 4

In perceiving the stimuli in our environment, people are likely to make so many errors
and ended up with poor results. Some of those errors are stereotyping, halo effects,
selective perception, distortions, attributions, projections etc. Each of these errors is
dysfunctional for good decision making and management. Since subjective emotions,
judgmental attitudes, and distortion of facts are common in perceiving any situation, we
have tried to identify ways in which we can minimize perceptual biases. The need for
managers to accurately perceive the environment and how manages can sharpen their
perceptual skill are vital in enhancing perceptual skills. People tend to follow a number
of shortcut methods when observing others and making judgment of others activities.
These techniques are to some extent valuable and allow us to make accurate
perceptions rapidly and provide valid data for making predictions. However, they are not
foolproof. However, people often rely on them and follow them blindly. They can get us
into trouble, particularly if you happen to hold higher level position and required to make
effective decision making. An understanding of this shortcut can be helpful in
recognizing when they can result in significant distortions.
Frequently used shortcuts in judging others:
While observing others in our day-to-day life, people tend to commit errors due to faulty
perceptual process and make a wrong decision. This has to be avoided. There are five
types of errors or short-cut methods which are frequently used by the individuals. They
are:
i) Selective Perception:
It is a tendency to observe people selectively and accordingly interpret based on their
interest, background, experience and attitudes. For example, a production manager is
always likely to identify the need to strengthen the production system; the marketing
manager will focus only on the marketing research and sales promotions activities. In
general, we tend to notice things which are similar to us. For instance, we are more
likely to notice the type of cars which are similar to ours. The simplest way of avoiding
hasty or wrong decision being made due to selective perception is to seek other
people’s perceptions of “reality” in the same situation in order to make a better
assessment of the situation.
ii) Projection: It is a tendency to assign one’s own personal attributes to others. For
instance, a manager who is corrupt will tend to project that all others are also corrupt
like him. Similarly, a manager who loves challenging work might project that all others
like challenging work. Many times, this is not true, and the manager who tries to enrich
all the jobs as challenging might be leading to wrong motivational technique for other
employees. When managers engage in projection, they compromise their ability to
respond to individual differences. They tend to see people as more homogeneous than
they really are. Thus, managers should guard themselves against perceptual biases
through projection.
iii) Stereotyping: It is a tendency to judge people based on the perception of the group
to which he belongs. We tend to attribute favorable or unfavorable characteristics to the
individual based on upon widely held generalization about the group. For instance, we
perceive that Japanese in general are hardworking, quality conscious and industrious,
and based on that we generalize that all Japanese are like that, but in reality it may not
be so. There are some Japanese who may not possess the above mentioned
characteristics. Similarly we assume that women in general are soft, kind, caring,
affectionate, considerate, gentle, but there are some women who may not possess
these characteristics. Similarly, we may assume older people are traditional,
conservative, and cranky, but not every elderly person fits into this mold and hence we
are likely to make errors of judgment. Sex-role stereotypes and age-stereotypes
adversely affect recruitment, pay, job placement, and promotion decisions. As a result
of which, organizations frequently lose good employees.
iv) Halo Effect: It is tendency to draw a general overall impression about an individual
based on single striking characteristics. For instance, if a person speaks English
fluently, we tend to assume that that person is very knowledgeable, intelligent, smart,
clever etc. hard working, smart etc. Similarly, if a man is abrasive, he may also be
perceived as bad, awful, unkind, aggressive, harmful, deceitful and wicked. Halo effect,
whether it is positive or negative, will distort our perception and block us from actually
perceiving the trait that is being judged. This phenomenon frequently occurs when
students appraise their university lecturer.
v) Contrast Effect: It is tendency to evaluate a person’s characteristics by just
comparing with other people who happened to acquire higher or lower position on the
same characteristics. For instance, while comparing the presentation of students, a
good presentation made by one student just before you will probably make you feel that
you won’t be as good as you probably are. This contrast effect can distort our
perception. In general, a person will be evaluated in isolation. But our reaction to one
person is often influenced by other people or events in which we have recently
encountered. In interview situation, a job applicant is likely to receive a more favorable
evaluation if preceded by mediocre applicants and a less favorable evaluation if
preceded by strong applicants.

Answer to the Question No: 5

(I) The Hierarchy of Needs is as follows in a business environment(fifth need of self-

actualization is left out in the present case study as it seems to be far away as deduced
from case study):
1. Physiological Needs (Primary issues of survival in job market salary and stability of
employment).
2. Security Needs (classified as stable physical and emotional environment issues
namely benefits, pension, safe work environment, and fair work practices and ethical
workplace).
3. Belongingness Needs (social acceptance issues such as friendship or cooperation on
the job, respected member of a team)Lack of response by team Leader Aparna blows
holes in the achievement of this important need as analyzed from Rahul's mental
framework.
4. Esteem needs (positive self-image and respect and recognition issues such as job
titles, nice work spaces, and prestigious job assignments.)Rahul changed over from
smaller firm to bigger firm in the quest for this emotional need.

(II) Rohit needs to understand Madam Aparna's way of working. The lady is good at her
job and must have seen earlier success and does not feel the need to change. However
Rohit must persevere in his work which should be of acceptable standards and within
time. No point trying to change the boss, but change your way of working. The boss will
notice the results and change. Some bosses are exactly like the lady team leader and
way to win them is not by any confrontation or pressure. Put up the work in proper
fashion and only time and good working results can change her mental attitude/way of
working. The name of the game s patience and focused work at your level.

(III) Rohit has probably achieved to certain level the first three basic needs of
physiological, safety, belongingness to some extent. He is a team member and feeling
of belongingness gets fostered when each member hears out and is fully involved in
team activities. But the remoteness of the leader is a big dampener. The quest of fourth
need of esteem becomes vital when other basic needs are met by and large, which I
presume Rohit has. Security and safety are all relative and level can and will vary from
person to person. The quest of achievement, respect from others is dented because
team leader does not respond to suggestions, ideas and is cut off (seemingly) for others
views as team member. Rohit has joined this bigger firm for growth in horizon,
knowledge and varied experience. His previous boss Suresh was a different type of
team leader and his new boss is different-chalk from cheese.