BA 352 FALL 2007
1. A p. 13
2. B p. 17-18
3. C p. 41
4. B p. 41
5. B p. 47
6. D p. 50
7. C p. 86
8. A p. 41
9. C p. 86
10. B p. 89
11. A lecture
12. B lecture
13. B p. 143
14. A lecture; p. 199
15. E lecture; p. 201
16. C lecture; p. 204-205
17. E lecture; p. 222
18. A lecture; p. 223
19. A lecture
20. D lecture
21. A lecture
22. C lecture
23. C lecture
24. A lecture
25. E lecture
Essay I: You needed to address each element of expectancy theory thoroughly and accurately.
Also, there are three performance issues here: the analysis of the entire benefits package, errors
and time delays.
The Rhodes Scholar case involving a highly competent employee is an interesting
situation. To have such an accredited and well-qualified employee for a position take such an
unproductive approach to his job may seem to be simply a case of poor fit for the employee and
the company, Puma. However, when one takes a thorough look at the details of the case, it is
easy to see what is happening. An application of Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory reveals
that the processes involved in the case study are much easier to understand than initially
When applying Vroom’s Expectancy Theory to this case study, there are three main
stages to examine: Effort, Performance Goal, and Outcome; and three concepts which connect
these stages: Expectancy, Instrumentality, and Valence. First, allow us to apply the Theory of
Expectancy to our case study beginning with analyzing our Rhodes Scholar early in his position.
In the case, it is clear that our Rhodes Scholar, Dan, is highly qualified for the position of
Benefits Administrator, and may even be over-qualified. It becomes apparent early on that Dan
has mastered the aspects of the job after only a short term with Puma. The text states that Dan
was “quite talented and the job did not present a strong challenge to him.” Dan realizes that he
does not need to exert much effort to complete the tasks of his job. In the first six months or so,
Dan put forth the right amount of effort to attain the performance goals of his position, i.e.
designing benefit packages for Puma employees and the outcome was that he was paid well, had
a position of some status, and could enjoy the outdoors of Utah on the weekends.
However, Dan’s behavior changes towards the end of his first year with Puma and in this
behavior, the Expectancy Theory is most easily applicable.
Let’s take it step by step. Dan, a very intelligent employee, understands the aspects of his
position well and learns that he does not need to exert much energy to accomplish the
performance goals related to his position. However, once Frances begins encouraging Dan to
evaluate other total benefits packages, Dan’s behavior can be more clearly identified through
It appears that through an internal thought process, Dan predicts that performing the extra
tasks put forth by Frances would require an added amount of effort to achieve those performance
goals. Dan further expects that the outcomes of these added efforts will not be of any value to
On the other hand, Dan expects that if he puts forth only the amount of effort necessary to
accomplish his performance goals at the bare minimum, he will be paid the same and will be able
to enjoy the outdoors of Utah, each of which are outcomes of value to him. Dan’s behavior
comes down to the expectancy that the minimum effort put forth by him self will allow him to
accomplish the goals necessary for his position and will allow him to achieve outcomes of high
valence to him like pay and time off from work via sick days. Furthermore, Dan expects that if
he puts forth more effort to achieve the higher performance goals from Frances, the
instrumentalities of achieving those goals will not produce outcomes of any higher valence to
him, so he slacks on those efforts.
To help increase Dan’s efforts in achieving higher performance goals, I suggest that
Frances apply more motivating actions. Frances should perhaps be more specific with the goals
she sets for Dan and make those goals more difficult, to the point that Dan will not reject them or
the job. Furthermore, Frances should tie more rewards to those goals she sets for Dan. In
evaluation Dan’s behavior, perhaps Frances should give Dan legitimate days off depending upon
whether or not he accomplishes those goals. Frances could also work with Dan to make the job
more challenging or exciting for Dan, since it seems he is performing the tasks of his position
with great ease.
Each of these suggestions will help Frances be more satisfied with Dan’s efforts and Dan
will be more satisfied with the outcomes of those efforts.
Essay II: You needed to address perception in expectancy, instrumentality and valence. A
number of people addressed halo effect, stereotyping, attribution; I did not accept this.
Perception is crucial in expectancy theory. It is all about how one perceives them self and their
employer. For example, one must perceive them self as being able to accomplish the goal
expected of them. One must perceive the employer as trustworthy in following through with
their rewards if they will consider doing the task. One must know how they feel and think about
certain outcomes, and what is important to them. The employer must perceive the employee as
being able to complete the task, too. The employee’s perception of the importance of the
performance goal is important, too, because if they don’t perceive it as being important, they
may be less likely to be motivated to do it. Also, if they perceive the company or their boss as
not very important or respectable, they would be less motivated to do it.
Essay III: Some responses confused direct, descriptive and specific. Direct needed to include
some mention of oral and face-to-face; descriptive relates to exactly what does “unprofessional
behavior” mean. Specific should have a focused time element in it. Attainable relates to
whether Dan is capable of not flirting or cussing.
Immediate – I didn’t talk to Chris immediately after I observed these behaviors. This behavior
had been going on for some time, and since I was concerned about it I should have talked to him
when the first instance occurred so he was aware that that was unacceptable behavior.
Direct – My feedback was definitely face to face and orally given. He heard it from one and not
someone else so he knew I was really upset with his behavior.
Attainable – The behavior I want Chris to do is definitely possible for him to follow.
Descriptive – I was not at all descriptive in my feedback to Chris. I didn’t tell him what I meant
by “unprofessional behavior” or ways he could more professional. He probably had no idea
what I was talking about, especially since I had never talked to him about this before.
Specific – I didn’t relay to him specific instances that he did that were unacceptable behaviors. It
was very general and out of the blue. I should have talked to him about the several instances I
observed and told him way he could have been more professional.