Final answer:
Determining the least useful theory for the study and application of Organizational Behavior depends on context and specific objectives. Maslow's hierarchy of needs and Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory have limitations, while Expectancy and Goal-Setting theories offer more precision. Providing a definitive answer requires a critical assessment of how each theory aligns with organizational practices.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of which theory is the least useful to the study and application of Organizational Behavior (OB) does not have a definitive answer, as the utility of a theory can vary depending on the context and specific situation in which it is applied. The theories mentioned, such as expectancy theory, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, two-factor theory, and goal-setting theory, all provide valuable insights into human behavior within organizations. However, it might be argued that some theories are less comprehensive or have certain limitations when compared to others, but each theory still has its strengths and can be useful in understanding and influencing employee behavior. To determine the least useful theory, one would have to critically assess how each aligns with current organizational practices and the specific objectives of the study or application.
For example, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, while seminal and widely recognized, has been criticized for its lack of empirical support and its assumption of a fixed sequence of needs. Similarly, Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory (also known as the Motivation-Hygiene Theory), though influential in highlighting the role of job satisfaction, may not account for individual differences in what motivates employees. Expectancy theory and goal-setting theory are more contemporary and offer more precise frameworks that link specific motivational factors with behavioral outcomes. However, in stating which theory is least useful, one must be cautious as each theory offers unique insights that may be relevant to different aspects of OB.