Technical Details
The expectancy theory has three key elements: expectancy, instrumentality, and valence (Vroom, 1964). A person is motivated to the degree that he or she believes that (a) effort will lead to acceptable performance (expectancy). CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISONS Using Expectancy Theory to Assess Student Motivation Marshall A. Geiger and Elizabeth A. Cooper ABSTRACT: This study uses Vroom's (1964) expectancy theory to assess ac-counting students' motivation to exert academic effort. Using a within-persons decision-modeling approach, the valence model of expectancy theory was found.
Name(s): Expectancy Theory of Motivation also known as Valence-Instrumentality- Expectancy Theory
Author: Victor H. Vroom developed the theory from his study on the motivation behind decision-making.
Classification: Cognitive or Need-to-Know Motivation Theories
Year: 1964, Porter and Lawler provided an extension to the model in 1968
Author: Victor H. Vroom developed the theory from his study on the motivation behind decision-making.
Classification: Cognitive or Need-to-Know Motivation Theories
Year: 1964, Porter and Lawler provided an extension to the model in 1968
Pro's
- Commonly accepted theory for explaining an individual's decision-making process.
- Current research generally supports the decision making concepts proposed by the Expectancy Theory of Motivation.
Con's
- Doesn't take the emotional state of the individual into consideration.
- The individual's personality, abilities, skills, knowledge, as well as past experiences are factors affecting the outcome of the model.
- The expectancy theory of motivation is a 'perception' based model.
- The manager needs to guess the motivational force (the value) of a reward for an employee.
- Can be difficult to implement in the group environment.
Overview
Tips for implementing the Expectancy Theory of Motivation at work and in your life!The expectancy theory of motivation provides an explanation as to why an individual chooses to act out a specific behavior as opposed to another. This cognitive process evaluates the motivational force (MF) of the different behavioral options based on the individual's own perception of the probability of attaining his desired outcome. Thus, the motivational force can be summarized by the following equation:
MF = Expectancy X Instrumentality X ∑ (Valence(s))
Expectancy (E)
Expectancy refers to the 'effort-performance' relation. Thus, the perception of the individual is that the effort that he or she will put forward will actually result in the attainment of the 'performance'. This cognitive evaluation is heavily weighted by an individual's past experiences, personality, self-confidence and emotional state.
The Instrumentality (I)
Instrumentality refers to the 'performance-reward' relation. The individual evaluates the likelihood or probability that achieving the performance level will actually result in the attainment of the reward.
Valance (V)
Valance is the value that the individual associates with the outcome (reward). A positive valance indicates that the individual has a preference for getting the reward as opposed to, vice-versa, a negative valance that is indicative that the individual, based on his perception evaluated that the reward doesn't fill a need or personal goal, thus he or she doesn't place any value towards its attainment.
As the Motivational Force (MF) is the multiplication of the expectancy by the instrumentality it is then by the valence that any of the perception having a value of zero or the individual's feeling that 'it's not going to happen', will result in a motivational force of zero.
Discussion
The expectancy theory of motivation seeks its roots from the University of Michigan where in 1957; Basil Georgopoulos, Gerald Mahoney, and Nyle Jones worked on a research program in organizational behavior. Their study focused on the conscious and rational aspects of employee motivation and the factors associated with levels of high or low productivity.
Their study evaluated the following three variables [1]:
- Individual needs as reflected in the goals sought. Examples of these goals would be making more money or getting along well in the work group.
- Individual perceptions of the relative usefulness of productivity behavior (high or low) as a means of attaining desired goals (in theoretical terms, the instrumentality of various productivity levels or the extent to which they are seen as providing a path to a goal).
- The amount of freedom from restraining factors the individual has in following the desired path. Examples of constraining factors might be supervisory and work group pressures or limitations of ability and knowledge.
The hypothesis is:
'If a worker sees high productivity as a path leading to the attainment of one or more of his personal goals, he will tend to be a high producer. Conversely, if he sees low productivity as a path to the achievement of his goals he will tend to be a low producer.' [2]
In 1964 Even though no formal theory of motivation emerged from this initiative, Vroom based the expectancy theory of motivation largely on the findings of earlier research. If fact, Vroom expanded the ideology to include the individual capacity to not only have a preference towards a certain goal, but to cognitively evaluate and rank them in order of preference. Thus, a particular reward can fulfill multiple outcomes, consequently adding to the sum of the valences.
Therefore even though individuals express high effort and high performance doesn't mean business success as people could be directing their efforts towards a doomed organizational goal. In addition, and contrary to popular belief, the expectancy theory of motivation provides an individual decision model.
Critique
The expectancy theory of motivation has been the target of many critics, Graen (1969), Lawler (1971), Lawler and Porter (1967 & 1968), since it was originally presented by Vroom in 1964. These critics are far more an extension to the original concepts as opposed to a deviation from them. Actually Mr. Vroom admitted himself that the expectancy theory of motivation should be updated with new research findings. [3]
One of the major criticisms of the expectancy theory of motivation decision model was its simplicity. In the sense that it doesn't explain the different levels of efforts acted out by an individual. There is also the assumption that a reward will entice an employee to expand greater efforts in order to obtain the reward, but neglect the fact that the reward in question could have a negative effect for the individual. For example a pay increase might push him or her into a higher tax bracket.
The effectiveness of the expectancy theory of motivation decision model from a managerial perspective relies on the manager to make assumptions on the motivational force of the reward for the employee (s). Thus, the uses of the 'rewards' need to obey to 'The Law of Effect' where:
- Positively rewarded behaviors will have a tendency to augment in frequency.
- Negatively or neutrally rewarded behaviours will have a tendency to diminish in frequency.
- The type of reinforcement and its timing will impact the frequency of the behavior.
Future of theory
The expectancy theory of motivation has prevailed as an acceptably rational explanation for an individual decision-making model. It's without question that the theory which is a predictive value may enable managers to increase the likelihood of an individual acting out the desired behavior. However, the implementation of the theory in an organizational context isn't an easy task! Many sub-cognitive processes are involved in the overall decision that finding the balance between the individual's 'reward' and the cost to be borne by the organization becomes a tedious task. In addition, each trial changes the equation, in the sense that the individual will use that new experience to alter his or her perception of the future probability of attaining the desired outcome.
The evolution of cognitive neuroscience techniques, brain scans being among the major ones, could expand the understanding of the cognitive processes involved in our decision-making process. More specifically they perhaps could shed some light on the 'evaluative' as well as the 'progressive' nature of motivational forces that drive our behaviors.
Share your thoughts
Sharing your motivating thoughts or your motivational tips will benefit every leader. Motivation is what give them the energy to constantly seek to improve their self-motivation as well as motivating other. Consequently increase our leadership influence.
What Other Leaders Have Said
Click below to see contributions from other leaders to this page...
The matter noways Not rated yet
Looking at the theory at its birth time will assure its value, in the sixties until he nineties most workers were having the same background. They have …
Looking at the theory at its birth time will assure its value, in the sixties until he nineties most workers were having the same background. They have …
New! Comments
Have your say about what you just read! Leave me a comment in the box below. (Redirected from Expectancy theory of motivation)
Expectancy theory(16/9) (or expectancy theory of motivation) proposes that an individual will behave or act in a certain way because they are motivated to select a specific behavior over others 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 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.[1]
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.'[2]
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.[3]
- 2Key elements
- 3Current research
Author[edit]
In 1964, Victor H. Vroom developed the expectancy theory through his study of the motivations behind decision making. This theory is relevant to the study of management.
Key elements[edit]
The expectancy theory of motivation explains the behavioral process of why individuals choose one behavioral option over the other. This theory explains that individuals can be motivated towards goals if they believe that there is a positive correlation between efforts and performance, the outcome of a favorable performance will result in a desirable reward, a reward from a performance will satisfy an important need, and/or the outcome satisfies their need enough to make the effort worthwhile.
Vroom introduced three variables within the expectancy theory which are valence (V), expectancy (E) and 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).[4]
Expectancy theory has three components: expectancy, instrumentality, and valence.
- Expectancy: effort → performance (E→P)
- Instrumentality: performance → outcome (P→O)
- Valence: V(R) outcome → reward
Expectancy: effort → performance (E→P)[edit]
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.[5]
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Instrumentality: Performance → Outcome (P→O)[edit]
Instrumentality is the belief that a person will receive a reward if the performance expectation is met. This reward may present itself in the form of a pay increase, promotion, recognition or sense of accomplishment. Instrumentality is low when the reward is the same for all performances given.
Another way that instrumental outcomes work is commissions. With commissions performance is directly correlated with outcome (how much money is made). If performance is high and many goods are sold, the more money the person will make.
Factors associated with the individual's instrumentality for outcomes are trust, control and policies:
- Trusting the people who will decide who gets what outcome, based on the performance,
- Control of how the decision is made, of who gets what outcome, and
- Policies understanding of the correlation between performance and outcomes.
Valence V(R)[edit]
Valence is the value an individual places on the rewards of an outcome, which is based on their needs, goals, values and sources of motivation.[6] Influential factors 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 satisfaction 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 outcome
In order for the valence to be positive, the person must prefer attaining the outcome to not attaining it.
Motivational Force (MF) = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valence
When deciding among behavioral options, individuals select the option with the greatest amount of motivational force (MF).
Expectancy and instrumentality are attitudes (cognitions), whereas valence is rooted in an individual's value system.
Examples of valued outcomes in the workplace include, pay increases and bonuses, promotions, time off, new assignments, recognition, etc. If management can effectively determine what their employee values, this will allow the manager to motivate employees in order to get the highest result and effectiveness out of the workplace.[8]
Current research[edit]
Management[edit]
Victor Vroom's expectancy theory is one such management theory focused on motivation. According to Holdford and Lovelace-Elmore (2001, p. 8), Vroom asserts, 'intensity of work effort depends on the perception that an individual's effort will result in a desired outcome'.
In order to enhance the performance-outcome tie, managers should use systems that 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 improve the effort-performance tie, managers should engage in training to improve their 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 organizational goals
Expectancy Theory, though well known in work motivation literature, is not as familiar to scholars or practitioners outside that field.
Computer users[edit]
Lori Baker-Eveleth and Robert Stone, University of Idaho in 2008 conducted an empirical study on 154 faculty members' reactions to the use of new software.[10] It was found that ease of system use affects both self-efficacy (self-confidence) and anticipated usefulness. These in turn influenced the decision, or anticipated decision, to use the software.
Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy impact a person's affect and behavior separately:
- Self-efficacy is the belief that a person possesses the skills and abilities to successfully accomplish something.
- Outcome expectancy is the belief that when a person accomplishes the task, a desired outcome is attained.
Self-efficacy has a direct impact on outcome expectancy and has a larger effect than outcome expectancy. Employees will accept technology 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 not useful. On the other hand, when an employee is not mandated, the employee may be influenced by these other factors (self-confidence and confidence in outcome) that it should be used.
The self-efficacy theory can be applied to predicting and perceiving an employee's belief for computer use (Bandura, 1986; Bates & Khasawneh, 2007). This theory associates an individual's cognitive state with effective behavioral outcomes (Staples, Hulland, & Higgins, 1998).
Other constructs of the self-efficacy theory that impact attitudes and intentions to perform are:
- past experience or mastery with the task;
- vicarious experience performing the task;
- emotional or physiological arousal regarding the task;
- and social persuasion to perform the task.
Models of teacher expectancy effects[edit]
Jere Brophy and Thomas Good[11][12] provided a comprehensive model of how teacher expectations could influence children's achievement. Their model posits that teachers' expectations indirectly affect children's achievement: 'teacher expectations could also affect student outcomes indirectly by leading to differential teacher treatment of students that would condition student attitudes, expectations, and behavior' (Brophy, 1983, p. 639). The model includes the following sequence. Teachers form differential expectations for students early in the school year. Based on these expectations, they behave differently toward different students, and as a result of these behaviors the students begin to understand what the teacher expects from them. If students accept the teachers' expectations and 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.[13]
In discussing work related to this model, Brophy (1983) made several important observations about teacher expectation effects. First and foremost, he argued that most of the beliefs teachers hold about student are accurate, and so their expectations usually reflect students' actual performance levels. As a result, Brophy contended that self-fulfilling prophecy effects have relatively weak effects on student achievement, changing achievement 5% to 10%, although he did note that such effects usually are negative expectation effects rather than positive effects. Second, he pointed out that various situational and individual difference factors influence the extent to which teacher expectations will act as self-fulfilling prophecies. For instance, Brophy stated that expectancy effects may be larger in the early elementary grades, because teachers have more one-on-one interactions with students then, as they attempt to socialize children into the student role. In the upper elementary grades more whole-class teaching methods are used, which may minimize expectation effects. Some evidence supports this claim; expectancy 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 teachers artificial information about children's intelligence showed that expectancy effects were stronger in Grades 1 and 2 than in Grades 3 through Grade 6, especially when the information was given to teachers during the first few weeks of school. These findings are particularly relevant because they show a form of the expectancy theory: how teachers have certain expectations of students, and how they treat the students differently because of those expectations.[13]
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 (a belief that is typically fallacious, especially in the United States). 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.
As an additional example, if a person in the armed forces or security agencies is promoted, there is the possibility that he or she will be transferred to other locations. In such cases, if the new posting is far from their permanent residence where their family resides, they will not be motivated by such promotions and the results will backfire. As such, the reward is valued negatively to the person receiving it.
Lawler's new proposal for expectancy theory does not contradict Vroom's theory. Lawler argues that since there have been a variety of developments of expectancy theory since its creation in 1964 that 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. Second, there is a belief on the part of that individual that their action(s) will achieve the outcome they desire. Third, any desired outcome was generated by the individual's behavior. Fourth and finally, the actions generated by the individual were generated by the preferred outcome and expectation of the individual.
Instead of simply 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.
Related theories[edit]
- Motivation Theory is a theory that attempts to explain how and why individuals are able to achieve their goals.[6]
- Expectancy Violations Theory (EVT) is a theory that predicts communication outcomes of non-verbal communication.[17]
- Self-Actualization Theory (Maslow, 1954)[6]
- Maslow's hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1954)[6]
- Two-factor theory (Herzberg, 1959)[18]
- Theory X and theory Y (Douglas McGregor, 1960)[19]
References[edit]
- ^ abOliver, R. (August, 1974). Expectancy is the probability that the individual assigns to work effort being followed by a given level of achieved task performance. After mena’s theory Expectancy Theory Predictions of Salesmen's Performance. Journal of Marketing Research 11, 243-253.
- ^Montana, Patrick J; Charnov, Bruce H, Management – 4th edition; (2008) – Barron's Educational Series, Inc. ISBN978-0-7641-3931-4
- ^(S.E. Condrey, 2005, p. 482)
- ^P. Subba Rao, Personnel and Human Resource Management – Text and cases; (2000) – Himalaya Publishing House ISBN81-7493-777-3
- ^Chiang, Chun-Fang; Jang, SooCheong (Shawn) (June 2008). 'An expectancy theory model for hotel employee motivation'. Journal of Hospitality Management. 27 (2): 313–322. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.07.017.
- ^ abcdMaslow—Move Aside! A Heuristical Motivation Model for Leaders in Career and Technical Education Pg. 10 – 11 http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v44n2/pdf/kroth.pdf
- ^Redmond, Brian. 'Expectancy Theory'. Shaun Miller. Retrieved 12/04/2013.Check date values in:
|accessdate=
(help) - ^Schmidt, Charles. 'Motivation: Expectancy Theory'. Richard Scholl. Archived from the original on 2014-10-09. Retrieved 12/04/2013.Check date values in:
|accessdate=
(help) - ^ abMontana, Patrick J; Charnov, Bruce H, Management - 4th edition; (2008) - Barron's Educational Series, Inc. ISBN978-0-7641-3931-4
- ^Baker-Eveleth L., Stone,R.W.(2008) Expectancy theory and behavioral intentions to use computer applications - Interdisciplinary Journal of Information
- ^Jere Brophy, Thomas Good (1974) Teacher-Student Relationships: Causes and Consequences New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
- ^Jere Brophy, Thomas Good (1987)Looking in classrooms (4th ed.), New York, Harper and Row
- ^ abSchunk, Dale H.; Meece, Judith L.. Student Perceptions in the Classroom. Mahwah: Routledge, 2012. Ebook Library. pp. 96-97.
- ^Lawler, Edward E; Suttle, J.Lloyd (1973). 'Expectancy theory and job behavior'(PDF). Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 9 (3): 482. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(73)90066-4.
- ^'Archived copy'(PDF). Archived from the original(PDF) on 2010-06-10. Retrieved 2010-12-02.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
- ^ ab'Archived copy'. Archived from the original on 2010-10-27. Retrieved 2010-12-02.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
- ^'Masters thesis'(PDF). www.antalhaans.nl. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2012-05-03. Retrieved 2010-12-02.
- ^Herzberg & Snyderman, 1959. The Motivation to Work.[page needed]
- ^McGregor, D., 1960. The Human Side of Enterprise, New York, McGraw-Hill.[page needed]
Further reading[edit]
- Bandura, Albert (1977). 'Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change'. Psychological Review. 84 (2): 191–215. CiteSeerX10.1.1.315.4567. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191. PMID847061.
- Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
- Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New Jersey:Prentice- Hall
- Droar, D. (2006). Expectancy theory of motivation. Retrieved October 2, 2010, from https://web.archive.org/web/20101025133032/http://arrod.co.uk/archive/concept_vroom.php
- Holdford DA, Lovelace-Elmore B. Applying the principles of human motivation to pharmaceutical education. J Pharm Teach. 2001;8:18.
- Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. 1968. Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
- Staples, D. Sandy; Hulland, John S; Higgins, Christopher A (2006). 'A Self-Efficacy Theory Explanation for the Management of Remote Workers in Virtual Organizations'. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 3 (4): 0. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1998.tb00085.x.
- Stone, R. W. & Henry, J. W. (1998). Computer self-efficacy and outcome expectations and their impacts on behavioral intentions to use computers in non-volitional settings. Journal of Business and Management, (1), 45-58.
- University of Rhode Island: Charles T. Schmidt, Jr. Labor Research Center
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expectancy_theory&oldid=930506356'