Claude Fabinyi
Psych 484 Case Study Assignment
crf5233@psu.edu
March 21, 2015
Why did Robert Princeton quit his job?
The first motivational theory I’ll be applying is Expectancy Theory, which may also be
referred to as VIE Theory. This theory is comprised of three elements: expectancy,
instrumentality, and valence. Expectancy is the perceived link between an individual’s efforts
and a specific level of performance. Instrumentality is the perceived link between the level of
performance and a specific outcome. Valence is the value attached to a particular stimulus. This
theory is a multiplicative model that assumes motivation to be the function of valence,
instrumentality, and expectancy. If any of these components is zero, the motivation of the
individual will also be zero. In Robert’s situation, he believed that his efforts would lead to high
performance. This link was clear. The link between his performance and an outcome was also
quite strong. Robert was given feedback from Mario promptly after he made his
recommendations and implemented his other initiatives. However, this outcome was strongly
negative. Mario reacted extremely harshly and caused Robert to have an incredibly low, if at all
existent, valence factor. This ‘zero’ valence factor will have caused Robert’s motivational force
to become zero, therefore prompting his resignation.
Alternatively, the outcome may also be the level of value the organization places on
Robert (according to his perception). Robert sought to make himself a valuable asset to the
company, which would have been a highly salient outcome with high valence. However, when
his efforts resulted in him being ostracized from Momma Valencia, the outcome was strongly
demotivating (because of its negative valence).
My application of this theory assumes that a low motivation level will have led to
Robert’s resignation. With this in mind, Robert’s determination to succeed further reinforces his
perception that the link between his efforts and his performance was strong. Additionally, there
was a constant link between his performance and outcomes (operationalized as his interactions
with Mario and Momma Valencia). With these factors in mind, expectancy theory is strongly
applicable to this case.
The second motivational theory I’ll be applying is Organizational Justice. There are three
categories of organizational justice. The first of which is distributive justice. This component
focuses on the fair compensation of employees. This is also the major focus of Equity Theory.
The second component is procedural justice. For lack of a better definition, this aspect of
organizational justice focuses on the systematic functions of business. For example, a
company’s complaint process would qualify as a procedure. The third component of
organizational justice is interactional justice. This is comprised of two subcomponents. The first
of which is interpersonal justice, which is the most applicable to this case. This focuses on the
interactions and exchanges between employees and their supervisors or vice versa. The second
subcomponent is informational justice. This focuses on the fair and adequate accessibility to
relevant information in an organization. The Greenburg (1990) study explored this in a factory
setting.
According to distributive justice, Robert would have been content. According to the case
study, Robert was making an above average salary for his credentials. This means that he would
be much less likely to be discontent in his position. As far as procedural justice goes, things
become less desirable. Robert was not readily able to voice his opinions in a proper setting. For
example, when Mario requested that Robert get any scheduling changes approved by him first,
Robert simply agreed in his embarrassment. In an ideal situation, Robert would have been able
to engage in a proper dialogue regarding his informal censure. Informational justice is not
applicable in this case because I do not have enough evidence to assume that Robert was kept
from important information. Because of informational justice’s irrelevance, I’m going to discuss
interpersonal justice. This is the weakest point in Robert’s work experience. Each and every
time Robert had an interaction with his superiors, he was belittled and patronized. In each
circumstance, Robert was unable to effectively interact with Momma Valencia and Mario.
Mario even went as far as to use expletives toward Robert when Robert had done far more than
his job required of him.
Because of the incredibly low level of interactional (specifically interpersonal) justice,
Robert Princeton felt no reason to remain in this organization. The organization should have felt
fortunate that Robert was not particularly litigious. Research suggests that even if one
component of organizational justice is high, like likelihood that an employee will seek legal
recourse is significantly lowered.
Recommendations
In this situation, I believe that Robert Princeton was mostly correct in his actions.
Despite his motivation and well-informed ideas, management, specifically Mario, was not
receptive and even felt the need to punish him for his innovation. However, rather than persist in
his methodology of logical applications of his knowledge regarding organizational behavior,
Robert could have preserved his relationship with Momma Valencia and Mario if he had let go
of his persistence. While I do not believe that this would be an ideal solution, I do believe that
this could have at least allowed Robert to maintain a positive working relationship with his
superiors. Alternatively, Robert could have been more thorough in his investigation of the
organization’s climate. Had Robert been aware that this organization prioritized family’s
opinions (even when they are incorrect), he may have been able to avoid this situation. Robert
was also fairly hasty in his resignation. Rather than seek a compromise with Momma Valencia
regarding any potential application of his experiences, he decided to resign. While I do not
necessarily disagree with Robert’s course of action, I can assume that he may still be employed
(even if unhappily) if he had been more willing to negotiate his position.
The Valencia’s are clearly the party at fault in this case. They managed to cause a
qualified and motivated employee to resign despite his lack of error. No feedback was given to
Robert throughout the course of his employment until his ‘final days’. This is the fault of the
Valencia’s, specifically Momma and Poppa Valencia. There was little to no interaction between
them and Robert during Robert’s tenure. Had they been engaging in a more consistent flow of
information (as informational justice proposes is necessary), Robert may have been able to adjust
his working style to accommodate the expectations of his superiors. Also, the nature of a family
business is that those who are in the family are weighted much more heavily than outsider
employees. Mario was far from qualified to be dictating Robert’s actions. Mario was also in
error to assume he was able to have an authoritarian approach toward Robert. Momma Valencia
hired Robert to handle Mario’s shortcomings. This is nonsensical because Robert was eventually
punished for doing what he was hired to do. Rather than provide Robert with any valuable
reinforcement, the Valencia’s consistently punished him, specifically Mario. If the Valencia’s
had utilized more organizational justice, especially procedural and interactional justice, Robert
would have had more adequate avenues to express his discontent and vice versa.
Robert Princeton was correct in his decision to leave his position. However, I don’t
believe that he should have quit so hastily; he should have had a new job arranged prior to his
resignation. Also, his sudden resignation most likely caused any potential former employer
recommendation to be lost. Robert was right to leave because there was clearly a personenvironment fit error. Robert was, in my opinion, meant to be in a more formal organization
rather than a small, family run company. Additionally, his resignation may have given him
impetus to pursue a graduate degree, which will allow him to have many more future
opportunities and further his intrinsic motivation to perform well.