Expectancy theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these
issues on the talk page.
This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the en
cyclopedia. (November 2012)
This article has an unclear citation style. (February 2012)
This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear becau
se it has insufficient inline citations. (February 2012)
Expectancy theory proposes that an individual will decide to behave or act in a
certain way because they are motivated to select a specific behavior over other
behaviors due to what they expect the result of that selected behavior will be.[
1] In essence, the motivation of the behavior selection is determined by the des
irability of the outcome. However, at the core of the theory is the cognitive pr
ocess of how an individual processes the different motivational elements. This i
s done before making the ultimate choice. The outcome is not the sole determinin
g factor in making the decision of how to behave.[1]
Expectancy theory is about the mental processes regarding choice, or choosing. I
t explains the processes that an individual undergoes to make choices. In the st
udy of organizational behavior, expectancy theory is a motivation theory first p
roposed by Victor Vroom of the Yale School of Management.
"This theory emphasizes the needs for organizations to relate rewards directly t
o performance and to ensure that the rewards provided are those rewards deserved
and wanted by the recipients." [2]
Victor H. Vroom (1964) defines motivation as a process governing choices among a
lternative forms of voluntary activities, a process controlled by the individual
. The individual makes choices based on estimates of how well the expected resul
ts of a given behavior are going to match up with or eventually lead to the desi
red results. Motivation is a product of the individuals expectancy that a certain
effort will lead to the intended performance, the instrumentality of this perfo
rmance to achieving a certain result, and the desirability of this result for th
e individual, known as valence.[3]
Contents [hide]
1 Author
2 Key elements
2.1 Expectancy: Effort ? Performance (E?P)
2.2 Instrumentality: Performance ? Outcome (P?O)
2.3 Valence V(R)
3 Current research
3.1 Management
3.2 Computer users
3.3 Models of Teacher Expectancy Effects
4 Criticisms
5 Related theories
6 Notes
7 Further reading
Author[edit]
In 1964, Vroom developed the Expectancy theory through his study of the motivati
ons behind decision making. His theory is relevant to the study of management. C
urrently, Vroom is a John G. Searle Professor of Organization and Management at
the Yale University School of Management.[4]
Key elements[edit]
The Expectancy Theory of Motivation explains the behavioral process of why indiv
iduals choose one behavioral option over another. It also explains how they make
decisions to achieve the end they value. Vroom introduces three variables withi
n the expectancy theory which are valence (V), expectancy (E) and instrumentalit
y (I). The three elements are important behind choosing one element over another
because they are clearly defined: effort-performance expectancy (E>P expectancy
), performance-outcome expectancy (P>O expectancy).[5]
Three components of Expectancy theory: Expectancy, Instrumentality, and Valence
1. Expectancy: Effort ? Performance (E?P)
2. Instrumentality: Performance ? Outcome (P?O)
3. Valence- V(R)
Expectancy: Effort ? Performance (E?P)[edit]
Expectancy is the belief that one's effort (E) will result in attainment of desi
red performance (P) goals. Usually based on an individual's past experience, sel
f-confidence (self efficacy), and the perceived difficulty of the performance st
andard or goal. This will effect how the individual's decision making process be
cause they will ultimately chose behaviors that will insure their desired goals.
There are 3 components associated with the individual's Expectancy perception.
They are self efficacy, goal difficulty, and perceived control.
1. Self efficacy- the persons belief about their ability to successfully perform
a particular behavior. The individual will access whether they have the required
skills or knowledge desired to achieved their goals.
2. Goal difficulty- when goals are set too high or performance expectations that
are made too difficult. This will most likely to lead to low expectancy. This o
ccurs when the individual believes that their desired results are unattainable.
3. Perceived Control- is one's belief in their control over their performance. I
n order for expectancy to be high, individuals must believe that they have some
degree of control over the expected outcome. If an individual does not believed
they have any control over the outcome the motivation to increase effort will be
low.
Some examples of expectancy include:
If I study tonight for an exam it will improve my grade tomorrow
If I practice my swing in the batting cages I will perform better in the game
Instrumentality: Performance ? Outcome (P?O)[edit]
Instrumentality is the belief that a person will receive a reward if the perform
ance expectation is met. This reward may come in the form of a pay increase, pro
motion, recognition or sense of accomplishment. Instrumentality is low when the
reward is the same for all performances given.
Factors associated with the individual's instrumentality for outcomes are trust,
control and policies. If individuals trust their superiors, they are more likel
y to believe their leaders promises. When there is a lack of trust in leadership
, people often attempt to control the reward system. When individuals believe th
ey have some kind of control over how, when, and why rewards are distributed, In
strumentality tends to increase. Formalized written policies impact the individu
als' instrumentality perceptions. Instrumentality is increased when formalized p
olicies associate rewards to performance.
Valence V(R)[edit]
Valence:[6] the value an individual places on the rewards of an outcome, which i
s based on their needs, goals, values and Sources of Motivation. Influential fac
tors include one's values, needs, goals, preferences and sources that strengthen
their motivation for a particular outcome.
Valence is characterized by the extent to which a person values a given outcome
or reward. This is not an actual level of satisfaction rather the expected satis
faction of a particular outcome.[7]
The valence refers to the value the individual personally places on the rewards.
-1 ?0? +1
-1= avoiding the outcome 0 = indifferent to the outcome +1 = welcomes the outcom
e
In order for the valence to be positive, the person must prefer attaining the ou
tcome to not attaining it.
The Expectancy Theory of motivation can help managers understand how individuals
make decisions regarding various behavioral alternatives, and why they pursue t
hese decisions. Valence is one behavioral alternative, where the decision is mea
sured on the value of the reward. If management understands the desired outcomes
from their employees, the can design and build a reward system that is satisfac
tory. The model below shows the direction of motivation, when behavior is energi
zed:
Motivational Force (MF) = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valence
When deciding among behavioral options, individuals select the option with the g
reatest amount of motivational force (MF). Expectancy and instrumentality are at
titudes (cognitions), whereas valence is rooted in an individuals value system.
Examples of valued outcomes in the workplace include, pay increases and bonuses,
promotions, time off, new assignments, recognition, etc. If management can effe
ctively determine what their employee values, this will allow the manager to mot
ivate employees in order to get the highest result and effectiveness out of the
workplace.[8]
Current research[edit]
Management[edit]
Victor Vrooms expectancy theory is one such management theory focused on motivati
on. According to Holdford and Lovelace-Elmore (2001, p. 8), Vroom asserts, intens
ity of work effort depends on the perception that an individuals effort will resu
lt in a desired outcome. Vroom suggests that for a person to be motivated, effort,
performance and motivation must be linked (Droar, 2006, p. 2). Three factors dir
ect the intensity of effort put forth by an individual, according to Vroom; expe
ctancy, instrumentality, and preferences (Holdford and Lovelace-Elmore, 2001).
In order to enhance the performance-outcome tie, managers should use systems tha
t tie rewards very closely to performance. Managers also need to ensure that the
rewards provided are deserved and wanted by the recipients.[9] In order to impr
ove the effort-performance tie, managers should engage in training to improve th
eir capabilities and improve their belief that added effort will in fact lead to
better performance.[9]
- Emphasizes self-interest in the alignment of rewards with employee's wants.
- Emphasizes the connections among expected behaviors, rewards and organizationa
l goals
Expectancy Theory, though well known in work motivation literature, is not as fa
miliar to scholars or practitioners outside that field.
Computer users[edit]
Lori Baker-Eveleth and Robert Stone, University of Idaho, conducted an empirical
study on 154 faculty members behavioral intentions/responses to use of new softw
are. The antecedents with previous computer experience ease of the system, and a
dministrator support for they are linked to behavioral intentions to use the sof
tware through self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Self-efficacy and outcome ex
pectancy impacts a persons effect and behavior separately. Self-efficacy is the b
elief a person has that they possess the skills and abilities to successfully ac
complish something.
Outcome expectancy is the belief a person has when they accomplish the task, a d
esired outcome is attained. Self-efficacy has a direct impact on outcome expecta
ncy and has a larger effect than outcome expectancy.[10] Employees will accept t
echnology if they believe the technology is a benefit to them. If an employee is
mandated to use the technology, the employees will use it but may feel it is no
t useful. On the other hand, when an employee is not mandated, the employee may
be influenced by other factors that it should be used.
The self-efficacy theory can be applied to predicting and perceiving an employees
belief for computer use (Bandura, 1986; Bates & Khasawneh, 2007). This theory a
ssociates an individuals cognitive state affective behavioral outcomes (Staples,
Hulland, & Higgins, 1998). Motivation, performance, and feelings of failure are
examples of self-efficacy theory expectations. The following constructs of the s
elf-efficacy theory that impact attitudes and intentions to perform: past experi
ence or mastery with the task, vicarious experience performing the task, emotion
al or physiological arousal regarding the task, and social persuasion to perform
the task.
Models of Teacher Expectancy Effects[edit]
Jere Brophy and Thomas Good (1970, 1974) provided a comprehensive model of how t
eacher expectations could influence children's achievement. Their model posits t
hat teachers' expectations indirectly affect children's achievement: "teacher ex
pectations could also affect student outcomes indirectly by leading to different
ial teacher treatment of students that would condition student attitudes, expect
ations, and behavior" (Brophy, 1983, p. 639). The model includes the following s
equence. Teachers form differential expectations for students early in the schoo
l year. Based on these expectations, they behave differently toward different st
udents, and as a result of these behaviors the students begin to understand what
the teacher expects from them. If students accept the teachers' expectations an
d behavior toward them then they will be more likely to act in ways that confirm
the teacher's initial expectations. This process will ultimately affect student
achievement so that teachers' initial expectancies are confirmed.[11]
In discussing work related to this model, Brophy (1983) made several important o
bservations about teacher expectation effects. First and foremost, he argued tha
t most of the beliefs teachers hold about student are accurate, and so their exp
ectations usually reflect students' actual performance levels. As a result, Brop
hy contended that selffulfilling prophecy effects have relatively weak effects o
n student achievement, changing achievement 5% to 10%, although he did note that
such effects usually are negative expectation effects rather than positive effe
cts. Second, he pointed out that various situational and individual difference f
actors influence the extent to which teacher expectations will act as self-fulfi
lling prophecies. For instance, Brophy stated that expectancy effects may be lar
ger in the early elementary grades, because teachers have more one-on-one intera
ctions with students then, as they attempt to socialize children into the studen
t role. In the upper elementary grades more whole-class teaching methods are use
d, which may minimize expectation effects. Some evidence supports this claim; ex
pectancy effects in Rosenthal and Jacobson's (1968) study were strongest during
the earlier grades. Raudenbush's (1984) meta-analysis of findings from different
teacher expectancy studies in which expectancies were induced by giving teacher
s artificial information about children's intelligence showed that expectancy ef
fects were stronger in Grades 1 and 2 than in Grades 3 through Grade 6, especial
ly when the information was given to teachers during the first few weeks of scho
ol. These findings are particularly relevant because they show a form of the exp
ectancy theory and how teachers have certain expectations of students and how th
ey treat the students differently because of those expectations.[11]
Criticisms[edit]
Some of the critics of the expectancy model were Graen (1969) Lawler (1971), Law
ler and Porter (1967), and Porter and Lawler (1968).[12] Their criticisms of the
theory were based upon the expectancy model being too simplistic in nature; the
se critics started making adjustments to Vrooms model.
Edward Lawler claims that the simplicity of expectancy theory is deceptive becau
se it assumes that if an employer makes a reward, such as a financial bonus or p
romotion, enticing enough, employees will increase their productivity to obtain
the reward.[13] However, this only works if the employees believe the reward is
beneficial to their immediate needs. For example, a $2 increase in salary may no
t be desirable to an employee if the increase pushes her into a tax bracket in w
hich she believes her net pay is actually reduced, which is actually impossible
in the United States with marginal tax brackets. Similarly, a promotion that pro
vides higher status but requires longer hours may be a deterrent to an employee
who values evening and weekend time with their children.
In addition to that, if anyone in the armed forces or security agencies is promo
ted, there is a must condition for such promotions, that they he/she will be tra
nsferred to other locations. In such cases, if the new place is far from their p
ermanent residence, where their family is residing, they will not be motivated b
y such promotions, and the results will be other way round. Because, the outcome
, which this reward (promotion) will yield, may not be valued by those who are r
eceiving it.
Lawlers new proposal for expectancy theory is not against Vrooms theory. Lawler ar
gues that since there have been a variety of developments of expectancy theory s
ince its creation in 1964; the expectancy model needs to be updated. Lawlers new
model is based on four claims.[14] First, whenever there are a number of outcome
s, individuals will usually have a preference among those outcomes. Two, there i
s a belief on the part of that individual that their action(s) will achieve the
outcome they desire. Three, any desired outcome was generated by the individuals
behavior. Finally, the actions generated by the individual were generated by the
preferred outcome and expectation of the individual.
Instead of just looking at expectancy and instrumentality, W.F. Maloney and J.M.
McFillen [14] found that expectancy theory could explain the motivation of thos
e individuals who were employed by the construction industry. For instance, they
used worker expectancy and worker instrumentality. Worker expectancy is when su
pervisors create an equal match between the worker and their job. Worker instrum
entality is when an employee knows that any increase in their performance leads
to achieving their goal.
In a chapter entitled "On the Origins of Expectancy Theory" published in Great M
inds in Management by Ken G. Smith and Michael A. Hitt, Vroom himself agreed wit
h some of these criticisms and stated that he felt that the theory should be exp
anded to include research conducted since the original publication of his book.
Related theories[edit]
Motivation Theory is a theory that attempts to explain how and why individuals a
re able to achieve their goals.[6]
Expectancy Violations Theory (EVT) is a theory that predicts communication outco
mes of non-verbal communication.[15]
Expectancy Theory of Motivation (Porter & Lawler, 1968; Vroom, 1964) is one of t
he process theories. This theory is a model of behavioral choice, that is, as an
explanation of why individuals choose one behavioral option over others. In doi
ng so, it explains the behavioral direction process. It does not attempt to expl
ain what motivates individuals, but rather how they make decisions to achieve th
e end they value.
Self-Actualization Theory (Maslow, 1954) [6]
Maslows hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1954) [6]
Two-factor theory (Herzberg, 1974, 2003) [6]
Theory X and theory Y (Douglas McGregor, 1985) [6]
Notes[edit]