Leadership in Healthcare

Question 1: The Correlation between Goal Setting Theory and Expectancy Theory

The theory of goal setting was advanced by Dr. Edwin Locke and Dr. Gary Latham way back in 1960s, after they pioneered intensive research into goal setting and motivation (Ledlow & Coppola, 2010). This theory depicts that clear goals and relevant feedback are major aspects that motivate employees at any given place of work. They further highlighted another crucial source of motivation for workers, which improves performance and it remains goal oriented at all times. On the other hand, the Expectancy Theory of motivation, which was advanced by Porte and Lawler in 1968, seeks to explain the behavioral direction process, showing why individual choose one behavioral option over another (Ledlow & Coppola, 2010). It explicitly explains how people make decisions to achieve the end they value, although it evades the causative factors of motivation in individuals (Ledlow & Coppola, 2010).

Both theories correlate in numerous aspects. Firstly, they both emphasize the significance of consciously setting goals and self-efficacy. They are fully consistent with social cognitive aspect in performance, which majorly influences the outcomes. Apart from that, they both design goals to meet the organizational requirements such as increased productivity, operational efficiency, and quality of services and products. They reiterate that in order to satisfy the needs of the individual employees like interests, challenge, achievement or triumph, the needs of an individual should be integrated with those of the interests of the organization.

More so, the theories imply a conscious process of making a clear definition and establishment of the degree of performance to be deployed if specific results are to be achieved. This is an acknowledgement of the function of a conscious mind that affects individual behaviors on the level of strategy, purpose, and errands. Clarity is crucial here since it is essential during the identification of needs and selection of capable rewards that match the performance of workers. Furthermore, as pertains to performance, the Expectancy Theory is linearly connected to performance; a similar position held in the theory of goal setting, which articulates direct linear relationship between the complexities of goals, performance levels, and the involved effort.

More important is the practicability of both theories in appraising goal revision processes when discrepancies in outcomes are observed. This also becomes a factor which determines a kind of results expected and not the actual satisfaction that an employee expects to receive after achieving the goals. Similarly, both theories bear same managerial implications by calling for concerted effort among the personnel in line with the related task, performance outcomes, and instrumentality valence expectancy.

Conversely, these theories also bear distinctive ideologies, for instance, according to the Goal Setting Theory, the magnitude of the goal is proportional to the effort deployed in order to increase performance towards the completion of the goal, no matter the existing sideshows. However, the theory of expectancy contradicts the fact saying that performance expectancy may be negatively related to goal success, since difficult goals require higher performance. This makes a big difference between expectancy within and expectancy between goal conditions (Ledlow & Coppola, 2010).

Moreover, in terms of emphasis and scoop, the two theories have a sharp disagreement. In the Expectancy Theory self-efficacy is directed towards rewards, whereas Goal Setting directs self-efficacy toward the accomplishment of the goal. Furthermore, the main concern of the Expectancy Theory is the self-regulatory process during the time an individual pursues a goal and sub-goals over an extended period of time. Goal setting theory on the other hand is focused on core characteristics of an effective goal through the stipulated mechanisms.

Question 2: Why the Scientific Method in Leadership Research, Theory and Practice Necessary

Leadership in any given organization entails modeling the way, inspiring shared vision, challenging the process and encouraging hearts to enable people to act. For this to be fully achieved, the health organization ought to shun antiquated styles of leadership and embrace the scientific methods for increased productivity. With regard to transactional and transformational theories of leadership, the significance of scientific method in leadership research, theory, and practice is as follows:

First, scientific method in leadership research fosters the use of human talents to stimulate performance, cultivate trust and integrity among the employees and the organization’s leaders (Ledlow & Coppola, 2010). It enables people to learn, cope, and appreciate different personalities that define varied kinds of leadership. Personality refers to a combination of traits that differentiate personal characteristics hence classifying the behavior of an individual. Personality affects conduct, insight, and attitude of a person, therefore knowing one’s personality is the prerequisite step in ensuring maximum delivery at any given level in the organization.

Similarly, one can evaluate the strength in term of such aspects as conscience, adjustment, sergency, openness to experience and agreeableness. These are often referred to as the big five models of personality. Sergency entails extraversion and leadership traits from which the need for power compares (Ledlow & Coppola, 2010). When people possess a high desire for power, they often strive to control situations and enjoy competition with the aim of achieving victory. This is so because they are repugnant to failure, and their concern is anchored more on ambition than on affiliation and public opinion.

On the other hand, extraversion is the extent that a person goes in expressing oneself, mingling, and making new contacts. People possessing this attribute are very influential and would communicate ideas effectively to employees such that they will be motivated to implement the desired changes.

In addition to that, the aspect of agreeableness is featured as a vital trait in someone as much it encourages rapport with others. Agreeableness is defined by such behaviors as cooperation, forgiveness, compassion, understanding and trust. In relation to the five aspects, the dimension of agreeableness is the need for affiliation. It shows that employees of any organization are always socially motivated and hence will seek secure associations no matter the social cluster. This depicts that they are more particular about public opinion than merely influencing others.

Moreover, adjustment as a trait that depicts calmness, security, and people’s wellbeing, is popularly referred to as emotional stability, which is the key to the general wellbeing of the employees as well the organization at large. Equally significant is the aspect of conscience that involves traits related to achievement. It shows that people take necessary responsibility for tackling challenges depending on the degree of need to achieve specific outcomes. Where the level of need is high, employees remain goal-oriented and can therefore confront challenges as they emerge. They also strive for excellence by working hard and desiring concrete feedback on their performance. Such people also excel in non-routine, competitive and challenging circumstances, as they demonstrate responsibility, persistence and dependability.

In summary, these theories (transactional and transformational) depict the leadership where people are motivated by either reward or punishment. Also, when people are contracted to do a job, ceding all authority to their manager, who is always part of the deal. They also articulate the loyalty of the subordinate to the manager. The theories also emphasize the need for leaders to create clear structures which explicitly reveal work requirements, but rewards and punishments are never the subject of discussion, though they are well comprehended by the staff and formal systems of discipline are usually in place.

It is very necessary for organizations to embrace the scientific methods in leadership not only for purposes of increasing productivity, but also to nurture abilities of workers in order to foster bidirectional benefits for the organizations and individuals. Through the research, leaders will acquire new skills, sharpen their potential, and remain dynamic in dealing with the ever arising challenges in managerial responsibilities.