Motivation - 2

Assignment

Submitted To: Mr. Zia-ul-Haq

Submitted By: Mr. Abdul Lateef

Submitted On: February 8, 2011

Assignment: Expectancy Theory of Motivation

 Expectancy Theory of Motivation

EXPECTANCY THEORY OF MOTIVATION

Overview
Expectancy Theory proposes that a person 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. In essence, the motivation of the
behavior selection is determined by the desirability of the outcome. However, at the core of
the theory is the cognitive process of how an individual processes the different motivational
elements. This is done before making the ultimate choice. The outcome is not the sole
determining factor in making the decision of how to behave.

About Expectancy Theory

Expectancy theory is about the mental processes regarding choice, or choosing. It explains
the processes that an individual undergoes to make choices. In the study of organizational
behavior, expectancy theory is a motivation theory first proposed by Victor Vroom of
the Yale School of Management.

"This theory emphasizes the needs for organizations to relate rewards directly to
performance and to ensure that the rewards provided are those rewards deserved and
wanted by the recipients."

Victor H. Vroom (1964) defines motivation as a process governing choices among alternative
forms of voluntary activities, a process controlled by the individual. The individual makes
choices based on estimates of how well the expected results of a given behavior are going
to match up with or eventually lead to the desired results. Motivation is a product of the
individual’s expectancy that a certain effort will lead to the intended performance, the
instrumentality of this performance to achieving a certain result, and the desirability of this
result for the individual, known as valence.

About Theory Developer

In 1964, Victor H. Vroom developed the Expectancy theory through his study of the
motivations behind decision making. He wanted to better understand why people chose to
behave in a certain way. Vroom’s theory is relevant to the study of management and has
become even more important as managers try to gain a better understanding of what
motivates their employees to behave in certain ways. Vroom has written nine books,
however his book Work and Motivation (1964) is regarded as a breakthrough in the study of
leadership and decision making within organizations. Currently, Vroom is a John G. Searle
Professor of Organization and Management at the Yale University School of Management.

| Page 2 of 6
 Expectancy Theory of Motivation

Key Elements of Expectancy Theory

The Expectancy Theory of Motivation explains the behavioral process of why individuals
choose one behavioral option over another. It also explains how they make decisions to
achieve the end they value. Vroom introduces three variables within the expectancy theory
which are as follows:
 Valence (V)
 Expectancy (E)
 Instrumentality (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).

Three components of Expectancy theory: Expectancy, Instrumentality, and Valence

 Expectancy: Effort → Performance (E→P)
 Instrumentality: Performance → Outcome (P→O)
 Valence: V(R)

Expectancy – Probability (E→P)

Expectancy is the belief that one's effort (E) will result in attainment of desired performance
(P) goals. Usually based on an individual's past experience, self confidence (self efficacy),
and the perceived difficulty of the performance standard or goal.

Factors associated with the individual's Expectancy perception are self efficacy, goal
difficulty, and control. Self efficacy is the person’s belief about their ability to successfully
perform a particular behavior. Goal difficulty happens when goals are set too high or
performance expectations that are made too difficult are most likely to lead to low
expectancy perceptions. Control is one's perceived control over performance. In order for
expectancy to be high, individuals must believe that they have some degree of control over
the expected outcome.

Instrumentality – Probability (P→R)

Instrumentality is the belief that a person will receive a reward if the performance
expectation is met. This reward may come in the form of a pay increase, promotion,
recognition or sense of accomplishment. Instrumentality is low when the reward is given for
all performances given.

Factors associated with the individual's valence for outcomes are trust, control and policies.
If individuals trust their superiors, they are more likely to believe their leaders promises.
When there is a lack of trust on leadership, people often attempt to control the reward
system. When individuals believe they have some kind of control over how, when, and why
rewards are distributed, Instrumentality tends to increase. Formalized written policies
impact the individuals' instrumentality perceptions. Instrumentality is increased when
formalized policies associates rewards to performance.

| Page 3 of 6
 Expectancy Theory of Motivation

Merits of Vroom’s Theory

The merits of Vroom’s theory are as follows:

1. Basic Framework
The Vroom’s model provides a basic framework for interpreting work motivation as Keith
Davis put it. According to Fred Luthans, “the expectancy model is like marginal analysis in
economics. Business people do not actually calculate the point where marginal ost equals
marginal revenue, but it is still a useful concept for the theory of the firm. The expectancy
model attempts to mirror the complex motivational process. From the theoretical
standpoint it seems to be a step in the right direction. It is of value in understanding
organizational behavior.

2. Appreciation of Individual Differences

It serves as a pathfinder because for the first time in a systematic way it draws attention to
individual differences in motivation. As Koontz, O. Donnell and Weihrich pointed out: “one
of the great attractions of the Vroom model is that it recognizes the importance of various
individual needs and motivations. It does seem more realistic”.

3. Clue to Harmonization of Individual and Organization Goals

It clarifies the relationship between individual goals and organizational objectives and thus
points to the way how the two can be harmonized. It is thus a step further from
management by objectives. Instead of assuming that satisfaction of a specific need is likely
to influence organizational objectives in a certain way we can find out how important to the
employee are: the various first-level outcomes (organizational objectives) for their
attainment, and the expectancies that are held with respect to the employees ability to
influence the first-level outcome.

For instance, suppose the organization sets a certain standard for production (first-level
outcome of organizational goal) for the purpose of incentive pay, promotion, etc. (second-
level outcome). If the workers do not put forth adequate efforts to achieve the
organizational goal, it may be assumed that either (a) they do not place much value on the
second-level outcomes (incentive, promotion); (b) they feel that their efforts will not lead to
the production standard; and (c) they may not believe that if they achieve the standard, it
will be instrumental in getting them higher remuneration or promotion.

4. Contingency Approach
Indirectly, Broom draws attention to an all-important fact that there is no one set formula
for the motivation of individuals. He looked at effective motivation not in terms of either a
fixed set of human needs or as a uniform configuration of external motivations. His is the
contingency approach, so to speak. In other words, if any method of motivation is found to
be productive, managers should continue it, on the other hand, if it does not produce the
desired results, it should be given up for something better. By measuring and analyzing the
workers’ output managers can get clues to their motivation, identify some of the important
variables and formulate their reward plans accordingly.

| Page 4 of 6
 Expectancy Theory of Motivation

5. Practical Utility
According to R.J. House and M.A. Wahba, the Broom model has been used to predict a wide
variety of work-related variables in a number of studies. These include job effort and
performance, organizational practices, managerial motivation, occupational choice,
importance of pay and pay effectiveness, leadership behavior and leadership effectiveness.

In the opinion of Leon Reinharth and M.A. Wahba, “the expectancy theory has served as the
basis for research in such diverse areas such as decision-making, learning theory, verbal
conditioning, attitudes and organizational behavior. All these impart a certain amount of
generality and practical utility to the model.

6. Popular Support
It is said that since the model had been proposed, at least one issue of every journal in
organizational behavior reported some result on its application in practice. Alan C. Filley,
Robert J. House and Steven Kerr analyzed the numerous studies, more than 32, from 1962
to 1974 and came to the general conclusion that there was empirical support to the
expectancy theory.

Similarly, some of its propositions were confirmed by studies made by T.R. Mitchell and A.
Biglan, who reviewed six cases in the area of industrial psychology; H. G. Heinemann, III and
D. P. Schwab who investigated nine field enquiries in managerial settings and further M.
Wahba and R. House who apprised fourteen investigations also confirmed the propositions.
However, most researchers suggested the need for further study to test some of the
principal variables, on which the model is based.

| Page 5 of 6
 Expectancy Theory of Motivation

Demerits of Vroom’s Theory

The demerits of Vroom’s theory are as follows:

1. Lack of Concreteness
The generality of the model constitutes its principal weakness. As Luthans pointed out, “it
does not attempt to describe what the content (of motivation) is or what the individual
differences are. Ti indicates only the conceptual determinants of motivation and how they
are related.”
Further, it does not provide specific suggestions on what motivates organization members
as the Maslow, Harzberg and Alderfer models do.

2. Neglect of Values
Even as a general theory it has been condemned in some quarters as ‘nothing more than a
theory of cognitive hedonism which propose that the individual cognitively chooses the
course of action that leads to the greatest degree of pleasure or the smallest degree of
pain’. “Hedonistic cognitions are insufficient to determine a person’s value system.”

3. Little Impact on Management

Apart from the fact that it is a highly complex model and difficult to understand, its
practicability is also open to question. As Lyman Porter, Edward E. Lawler, III and J. Richard
Heckman pointed out; the expectancy model is just a model and no more. People rarely
actually sit down and list their expected outcomes for a contemplated behavior, estimate
expectancies and valences, multiply and add up the total, unless of course they are asked to
do so by a researcher.

That is why its impact on job-settings has been negligible and influence on managerial
action, not much. It has been rightly remarked by Hamner and organ “the predictive
potential of this theory is still largely untested.” A fully developed test incorporating force,
expectancy and instrumentality measures as well as ability assessment has not yet been
offered.

4. Weak Empirical Support

The empirical support for the Vroom model is insignificant and lacks consistency.

| Page 6 of 6