Expectancy Theory of Motivation

The expectancy theory was proposed by Victor Vroom of Yale School of Management in
1964. Vroom stresses and focuses on outcomes, and not on needs unlike Maslow and
Herzberg. The theory states that the intensity of a tendency to perform in a particular
manner is dependent on the intensity of an expectation that the performance will be
followed by a definite outcome and on the appeal of the outcome to the individual.

The Expectancy theory states that employee’s motivation is an outcome of how much an
individual wants a reward (Valence), the assessment that the likelihood that the effort will
lead to expected performance (Expectancy) and the belief that the performance will lead to
reward (Instrumentality). In short, Valence is the significance associated by an individual
about the expected outcome. It is an expected and not the actual satisfaction that an
employee expects to receive after achieving the goals. Expectancy is the faith that better
efforts will result in better performance. Expectancy is influenced by factors such as
possession of appropriate skills for performing the job, availability of right resources,
availability of crucial information and getting the required support for completing the job.

Instrumentality is the faith that if you perform well, then a valid outcome will be there.
Instrumentality is affected by factors such as believe in the people who decide who receives
what outcome, the simplicity of the process deciding who gets what outcome, and clarity of
relationship between performance and outcomes. Thus, the expectancy theory
concentrates on the following three relationships:

Effort-performance relationship: What is the likelihood that the individual’s effort be

Performance-reward relationship: It talks about the extent to which the employee believes
that getting a good performance appraisal leads to organizational rewards.

Rewards-personal goals relationship: It is all about the attractiveness or appeal of the

Vroom was of view that employees consciously decide whether to perform or not at the job.
This decision solely depended on the employee’s motivation level which in turn depends on
three factors of expectancy, valence and instrumentality.

Advantages of the Expectancy Theory

It is based on self-interest individual who want to achieve maximum satisfaction and who
wants to minimize dissatisfaction.

This theory stresses upon the expectations and perception; what is real and actual is
immaterial.

It emphasizes on rewards or pay-offs.

Limitations of the Expectancy Theory

The expectancy theory seems to be idealistic because quite a few individuals perceive high
degree correlation between performance and rewards.

The application of this theory is limited as reward is not directly correlated with
performance in many organizations. It is related to other parameters also such as position,
effort, responsibility, education, etc.

Implications of the Expectancy Theory

The managers can correlate the preferred outcomes to the aimed performance levels.

The managers must ensure that the employees can achieve the aimed performance
levels.

The deserving employees must be rewarded for their exceptional performance.

The reward system must be fair and just in an organization.

Organizations must design interesting, dynamic and challenging jobs.

The employee’s motivation level should be continually assessed through various

Expectancy: effort → performance (E→P)[edit]

1. Self efficacy – the person's belief about their ability to successfully perform
a particular behavior. The individual will assess whether they have the
required skills or knowledge desired to achieve their goals.
2. Goal difficulty – when goals are set too high or performance expectations
that are made too difficult. This will most likely lead to low expectancy.
This occurs when the individual believes that their desired results are
unattainable.
3. Perceived control – Individuals must believe that they have some degree
of control over the expected outcome. When individuals perceive that the
outcome is beyond their ability to influence, expectancy, and thus
 motivation, is low.

Criticisms[edit]

Critics of the expectancy model include Graen (1969), Lawler (1971), Lawler and Porter
(1967), and Porter and Lawler (1968).[14] Their criticisms of the theory were based upon the
expectancy model being too simplistic in nature; these critics started making adjustments to
Vroom's model.

Edward Lawler claims that the simplicity of expectancy theory is deceptive because it
assumes that if an employer makes a reward, such as a financial bonus or promotion,
enticing enough, employees will increase their productivity to obtain the
reward.[15] However, this only works if the employees believe the reward is beneficial to
their immediate needs. For example, a $2 increase in salary may not be desirable to an
employee if the increase pushes her into a tax bracket in which she believes her net pay is
actually reduced, which is actually impossible in the United States with marginal tax
brackets. Similarly, a promotion that provides 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 promoted, there is a
must condition for such promotions, that he/she will be transferred to other locations. In
such cases, if the new place is far from their permanent residence, where their family is
residing, they will not be motivated by 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 receiving it.

Lawler's new proposal for expectancy theory is not against Vroom's theory. Lawler argues
that since there have been a variety of developments of expectancy theory since its creation
in 1964; the expectancy model needs to be updated. Lawler's new model is based on four
claims.[16] First, whenever there are a number of outcomes, individuals will usually have a
preference among those outcomes. Two, there is 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 individual's 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[16] found that expectancy theory could explain the motivation of those individuals
who were employed by the construction industry. For instance, they used worker
expectancy and worker instrumentality. Worker expectancy is when supervisors create an
equal match between the worker and their job. Worker instrumentality is when an
employee knows that any increase in their performance leads to achieving their goal.
In the chapter entitled "On the Origins of Expectancy Theory" published in Great Minds in
Management by Ken G. Smith and Michael A. Hitt, Vroom himself agreed with some of
these criticisms and stated that he felt that the theory should be expanded to include
research conducted since the original publication of his book.