Vroom 1964 Expectancy Theory Pdf Creator

• Victor Vroom Expectancy Theory Pdf
• Victor Vroom Expectancy Theory 1964
• Vroom's Model Of Expectancy Theory

Expectancy Theory OverviewThe Expectancy Theory of Motivation is best described as a process theory. With research pioneered by Edward C. Tolman and continued by Victor H. Vroom, Expectancy Theory provides an explanation of why individuals choose one behavioral option over others. The idea with this theory is that people are motivated to do something because they think their actions will lead to their desired outcome (Redmond, 2009).

'Expectancy theory proposes that work motivation is dependent upon the perceived association between performance and outcomes and individuals modify their behavior based on their calculation of anticipated outcomes' (Chen & Fang, 2008). In other words, it can help explain why a person performs at a particular level. This has a practical and positive potential of improving motivation because it can, and has, helped leaders create motivational programs in the workplace. This theory provides the idea that an individual's motivation comes from believing they will get what they desire in the form of a reward. 'Although the theory is not 'all inclusive' of individual motivation factors, it provides leaders with a foundation on which to build a better understanding of ways to motivate subordinates' (AETC, 2008). Expectancy theory is classified as a process theory of motivation because it emphasizes individual perceptions of the environment and subsequent interactions arising as a consequence of personal expectations.The theory states that individuals have different sets of goals and can be motivated if they believe that:.

Victor Vroom Expectancy Theory Pdf

There is a positive correlation between efforts and performance. Favorable performance will result in a desirable reward. The reward will satisfy an important need.The desire to satisfy the need is strong enough to make the effort worthwhile (Lawler, Porter. L., Vroom, 2009). Tolman's Behavior and Motivation TheoryEdward C. Tolman, Professor, University of California, BerkeleyBorn in Newton, Massachusetts in 1886, Edward Tolman was a cognitive behavioral psychologist who studied motivation and learning. While studying Gestalt psychology in Germany, Tolman and his research partner C.H.

Honzik developed a theory on latent learning through their experiments with rats. They found that rats navigated a maze much quicker when they expected a reward for doing so.

C., & Honzik, C. The theory also described learning with no obvious reward for those rats who learned to successfully navigate the maze only to find no food. Tolman later began to develop a theory of behavior and motivation. He theorized that motive drives a person to continuously behave a certain way until some intrinsic need is met.

This idea was the beginning of what would become theories of motivation. Victor Vroom added to Tolman’s work with the Expectancy theory in history (VanderZwaag, 1998). Vroom's Expectancy TheoryVictor H.

Vroom, Professor, Yale UniversityAs an international expert on leadership and decision making, the Expectancy Theory of Motivation was suggested by Victor H. He was named to the original board of officers of the Yale School of Management when it was founded in 1976. Vroom has focused much of his research on dealing with motivation and leadership within an organization. His 1964 book called Work and Motivation became one of the most influential books on the subject of motivation. He has served as a consultant to a number of government agencies, as well as more than 100 major corporations worldwide, including General Electric and American Express. He is currently a professor at the Yale School of Management at Yale University.Vroom's Expectancy Theory addresses motivation and management. The theory suggests that an individual's perceived view of an outcome will determine the level of motivation.

It assumes that choices being made maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This is also seen in the Law of Effect, 'one of the principles of reinforcement theory, which states that people engage in behaviors that have pleasant outcomes and avoid behaviors that have unpleasant outcomes' (Thorndike, 1913).

Vroom suggests that prior belief of the relationship between people's work and their goal as a simple correlation is incorrect. Individual factors including skills, knowledge, experience, personality, and abilities can all have an impact on an employee's performance.Vroom theorized that the source of motivation in Expectancy Theory is a 'multiplicative function of valence, instrumentality and expectancy.' (Stecher & Rosse, 2007). He suggested that 'people consciously chose a particular course of action, based upon perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs as a consequence of their desires to enhance pleasure and avoid pain' (Vroom, 1964).

Vroom's Expectancy Theory is based on these three components:. Expectancy:Expectancy can be described as the belief that higher or increased effort will yield better performance.

This can be explained by the thinking of 'If I work harder, I will make something better'.Conditions that enhance expectancy include having the correct resources available, having the required skill set for the job at hand, and having the necessary support to get the job done correctly. Instrumentality:Instrumentality can be described as the thought that if an individual performs well, then a valued outcome will come to that individual. Some things that help instrumentality are having a clear understanding of the relationship between performance and the outcomes, having trust and respect for people who make the decisions on who gets what reward, and seeing transparency in the process of who gets what reward.

Valence:Valence means 'value' and refers to beliefs about outcome desirability (Redmond, 2010). There are individual differences in the level of value associated with any specific outcome. For instance, a bonus may not increase motivation for an employee who is motivated by formal recognition or by increased status such as promotion. Valence can be thought of as the pressure or importance that a person puts on an expected outcome.Vroom concludes that the force of motivation in an employee can be calculated using the formula: Motivation = Valence.Expectancy.InstrumentalityVroom also believed that increased effort would lead to increased performance, given the person has the right tools to get the job done. The expected outcome is dependent upon whether or not the person has the right resources to get the job done, has the right skills to do the task at hand, and they MUST have the support to get the job done. That support may come from the boss or by just being given the right information or tools to finish the job.Although many people correlate high performance with high rewards, many times the theory is limited because rewards are not always directly correlated with performance in many organizations.

It is also related to other parameters such as position, effort, responsibility, education, etc.It is important to remember that there is a difference between incentives and motivators. Incentives are non-material objects. They are manipulated by managers and leaders in order to get employees to do desired tasks. Incentives may work, if the incentive is something the employee desires, however if the incentive is taken away, the behavior may not sustain.

Motivation theories need to accentuate motivation and not incentives. For this reason, motivation implies that people make decisions about their own behavior and what motivates them.The locus of control is different for incentives and motivation. Motivation is intrinsic control where incentives are extrinsically controlled by people in the organization (Mathibe, 2011). Expectancy Theory ComponentsAs previously described; Expectancy Theory has three major components:. Expectancy.

Instrumentality. ValenceThese components work together to establish our Motivation Force (MF).

The diagram below shows the elements involved in each component of MF; while the second diagram illustrates the relationship of each component.Diagram 1(Scholl, 2002)Diagram 2(Swenson, date unknown) Expectancy (E→ P)'The relationship between Effort and Performance is known as the E-P linkage' (Isaac, 2001). 'The expectancy component of expectancy theory is the belief that one's effort (E) will give the expected performance (P) goal' (Scholl, 2002). Expectancy is slated as the first component of the VIE theory; illustrating that in order for a person to be effectively motivated, the individual needs to perceive that their personal expenditure of effort will result in an acceptable level of performance. The concept of perception is very important throughout this theory, as it concludes that in order for a person to be motivated into putting effort towards a task, they need only to believe that their effort will result in a certain level of performance, or that a certain level of performance is attainable.

An example would be, 'If I salt the sidewalk, will it be safer to walk on?' There are variables that affect an individual's expectancy perception. These variables include self-efficacy (a person's belief in their ability to perform successfully), goal difficulty (how attainable is this goal), and control (does the person actually have control over the expected outcome).Because VIE Theory involves perceptions, and expectancy is a belief about the future rather than a concrete existence in the environment, people's beliefs can vary greatly (Redmond, 2010). This means that while one person perceives their efforts to lead to a great accomplishment, another person may believe their same effort will not lead to much accomplishment at all. This difference in perceptions is due to many factors.

Two factors that can affect expectancy are ability and interest (Redmond, 2010). 'Lack of ability or interest will decrease a person’s expectancy.

With proper training and a high interest level, people will have an increased level of expectancy. Employers, for example, need to keep this in mind as they create ways to help motivate their employees. By encouraging employees and building self-efficacy, managers can increase employee expectancy' (Redmond, 2010). A key question to ask to determine expectancy is:What is the strength of the relationship between the effort I put forth and how well I perform? Additional examples of determinations of expectancy include (Scholl, 2002):. If I spend most of tonight studying, will it improve my grade on tomorrow's math exam?. If I work harder than everyone else in the plant, will I produce more?.

If I practice my foul shot more, will my foul shooting improve in the game?. If I make more sales calls, will I make any more sales?The following video gives great insight in its presentation of the Expectancy Theory. To watch a presentation on Expectancy TheoryAnd, here is another video on Expectancy Theory: Instrumentality (P→ O)The second component in the Expectancy Theory equation is Instrumentality.

Instrumentality is the perception that a given performance level is related to a given outcome. In other words, a person's belief that a given output will facilitate a given reward (outcome). A person will only perform at a certain level if they believe that the performance will lead to a given expressed outcome.

The relationship is represented by the P-O linkage (Isaac, 2001). The instrumentality component of Expectancy Theory is the person's belief that if they can meet performance expectations, they will receive 'a great reward' (Scholl, 2002). An example of instrumentality of Expectancy Theory would be, 'If I complete more work than anyone else, will I get a promotion before they do?' The variables affecting instrumentality are trust (in leaders), control, and policies (how formalized are rewards systems in written policies?) (Scholl, 2002).Something is considered instrumental if it is conditional upon something else, or is believed to directly result into a particular outcome (Redmond, 2010). Remembering the influential element of perceptions and beliefs, what people believe to be an outcome may not be the actual outcome resulting from their performance.

'If people do not see a connection between their performance level and a possible outcome, they are less likely to be motivated' (Redmond, 2010). A key question to ask to determine instrumentality is:What is the strength of the relationship between the things I do and the rewards I get from my actions? Examples of determinations of instrumentality (Scholl, 2002):.

If I get a better grade on tomorrow's math test will I get an 'A' in math?. If I produce more than anyone else in the plant, will I get a bigger raise? A faster promotion?. If my foul shooting improves will I have a shot as a team MVP?.

If I make more sales will I get a bonus? A greater commission?. If I make more sales will I believe that I am the best sales person or be recognized by others as the best sales person?V alence V(R)Valence is the final component of VIE theory. Valence is characterized by the extent to which a person values a given outcome or reward. It is important to note that valence is not the actual level of satisfaction that an individual receives from an outcome, but rather it is the EXPECTED satisfaction a person receives from a particular outcome (Redmond, 2010). This “value” is based in individual differences.

The value a person places on an expected outcome or reward is directly related to who they are; their needs, goals, and values/preferences. For example this could include things such as paid time off, extra cash bonuses, or raises.

This subjective value is based on the individual's perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs. 'The level at which an individual values an outcome is described as it's valence' (Gerhart, Minkoff, Olsen, 1995). Valence can include a range from both a postive to negative outcome. A negative outcome is something that a person percieves as being an outcome that would lead to dissatisfaction. A positive outcome would occur if a person views it as being good and also being more valued than other outcomes like after a promotion.

A key question to ask to determine valence is:How valuable do I perceive the potential reward(s) to be? Examples of determinations of valence (Scholl, 2002):. How much I really want an 'A' in math?.

Do I want a bigger raise? Is it worth the extra effort? Do I want a promotion?. How important is it to me to be team MVP?. Do I need a sales bonus? Is the extra time I spend making extra sales calls worth the extra commission?. Is it important to me that I am the best salesperson?

Valence is a key component when management is faced with motivation issues. If management understands the desired outcomes from their employees, they can design and build a reward system that is perceived to be satisfactory. Conversely, if management ignores the valence component and implements a common “one size fits all” bonus and rewards system, it could lead to a lack of production and motivation. The reward system must be valued by the employee. “When an ambiguous reward structure is in place or where a workplace lacks specific rules and policies, employees have few clues as to what acceptable behavior is and will find it difficult to ascertain what rewards they may obtain for their efforts (Chen and Feng, 2007).” Ambiguity is contrary to VIE Theory. Employees and management must have a clear understanding of what is valued in order to promote and practice high motivation.

Motivational ForceMF= Expecatncy x Instrumentality x Valence (Vroom, n.d.)Motivational Force = Expectancy (Goals) x Instrumentality (Challenges) x Valence (Feedback)The chart above is referenced from Dr. Dennis Nelson (2013). Simply put, the challenges we face and the feedback we get when trying to reach the goals that we have made are the motivational forces that drive us. I'm sure that Vroom would agree, based off his statement, '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' (Vroom, 1964). Basically this states that 'motivational force' occurs when expectancy, instrumentality, and valence are all met. Noticed within our individual case study, all employees except 1 expectancy, instrumentality, and valence were met resulting in 84% retention.

David ultimately left not because of the hold on advances but because in his eyes he was overall not satisfied with his status after 16 years of service to the company. The valence was 0 which had a direct effect on his expectancy and instrumentality.Expectancy Theory or 'VIE Theory' is based on the premise that motivation occurs when three specific conditions are satisfied: effort, performance, and outcome.

Think of motivation as a chain where each link represents a condition, and the intersection of each link represent its components: expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. Within the chain, a person expects their effort to result in some level of performance (expectancy).

The perceived or expected outcome of their performance level will be considered instrumental to the outcome (instrumentality). Finally, a person will place subjective value on their belief about the outcome (valence). This value will determine how satisfactory the outcome is to them.Among the many factors that influence expectancy, such as ability or interest, perception is perhaps the most significant factor. Perception is the engine that drives the belief of effort, performance, and outcome. Thus, if any one condition is perceived that it will be low, motivation will be low - just as the bond between links affects the chain.

Because beliefs can vary, however; a subjective probability formula that is multiplicative in nature is used to more accurately measure expectancy and arrive at a predicted motivational force (represented as a number). The higher the number, the higher the motivation, with each component having its own probability range. VIE FormulaThe VIE formula is represented (within a range) as MF = E(V x I) 3The range is represented in Table 1 below:Table 1: VIE Ranges. ComponentRangeRange DefinitionExpectancy0 to 10 = belief she could not perform successfully1 = firm belief she could perform successfullyInstrumentality0 to 10 = no relationship between performance and outcome1 = outcome dependent on performanceValence-1 to +1- = avoidance of outcome0 = indifference+ = expected outcome would be satisfactoryA motivated employee is thus the product of the perceived level of satisfaction, the confidence to achieve, and the rewards that the employee hopes to receive on achieving the set goals. In other words, valence.

expectancy. instrumentality = motivation (Iyer, 2009). If a promotions are only awarded based on seniority, then a new employee is unlikely to put forth effort that would otherwise get them promoted. Since link between obtaining what they want and what is done is non-existent, instrumentality is low (Redmond, 2010).

Victor Vroom Expectancy Theory 1964

An employee with a postiive level of expectancy believes that exerting effort will result in a positive outcome for them. If the same employee has a high level of instrumentality, they would believe that their rewards (outcome) are based on job performance. Finally, if an organization offers rewards that the employee values (valiance) such as promotions, bonuses, and/or fringe benefits like a company car, then the employee would be considered to be a motivated one.Expectancy is a person's strength of conviction in regards to the ability to attain goals. People who desire the rewards that management is expected to bestow upon them, on account of superior performance, should have strong convictions regarding their ability to deliver. An employee who is not positively oriented with respect to the perceived consequences of the attainment of goals, will have a zero valence. Employees should feel that the efforts that he/she would like to put into work would yield the desired results. It is ultimately a question of how confident one feels about oneself.

A self-proclaimed achiever may be immensely confident of the ability to perform astoundingly high, while a skeptic may have an entirely different perspective. An employee who feels that the efforts will not yield the desired results, in terms of achieving the set targets, will have a low probability of expectancy. Probability of an event can assume values between 0 and 1. How well an employee scores on this scale of confidence will have a direct bearing on the employee's level of motivation (Iyer, 2009).Motivational Force (MF)= Expectancy x Instrumentality x ValanceWhen deciding among behavioral options, individuals select the option with the greatest motivational forces (MF).In terms of the above Motivational Force equation, when anyone of these products are zero then the whole equation becomes zero. If a person does not have one of the three products, then overall motivation is lacking.To conclude this section, let's consider the following example which highlights the understanding that thought process towards motivation is based on individual factors, and perceptions.

Example 1Sales Department ExampleLet's consider one initiative to motivate staff, the offer of promotion within a sales department if certain sales targets are met. For one member of staff this is highly attractive (Valence = + 0.9), but due to their portfolio of clients, and unsuccessful past sales performance, they perceive achievement of the outcome, e.g. The sales target, almost impossible (Expectancy = 0.1). By applying the formula we see that the motivational force will be:F = V x EF = 0.9 x 0.1 = 0.09Alternatively, another member of staff finds the possibility of promotion reasonably attractive (Valence = + 0.6), and based on their portfolio of clients, and successful past sales performance, they feel reasonably confident that they will achieve the sales target set (Expectancy = 0.8). Here we see that the motivational force is far stronger in comparison:F = V x EF = 0.6 x 0.8 = 0.48Example Source: Research on Expectancy Theory'Since it is a popular motivational theory in I/O Psychology, many studies have been conducted in the United States, as well as other countries' (Matsui & Terai, 1975), to test the efficacy of the Expectancy Theory using between-subjects design and within-subjects design.

In between-subjects design studies, groups of people are asked questions about their expectancies, instrumentalities, and valences with a motivational force score computed for each person. The motivational force score is combined with performance ratings given by supervisors for a total force score.

'This type of study distinguishes between the most motivated, and the least motivated employees' (Redmond, 2009).Within-subjects design, by contrast, studies how one individual is motivated by different tasks. In this study, a person is given different tasks and is provided a force score for each to determine which task the person is more highly motivated in.

Because Vroom developed the Expectancy Theory to account for varying motivation across tasks, the within-subjects design studies are considered better suited for testing the theory (Redmond, 2009). For each person, a correlation is computed between predictions of effort made by the theory and actual amounts of effort expended on tasks (Redmond, 2009).From the research that has been conducted to test the theory, overall results suggest that the theory can be useful as a predictor of the choices people will make when given different tasks, and remains a popular theory in the workplace. The strongest support in favor of this research was shown for valence, instrumentality, and expectancy as individual components, which showed higher correlations and predictions resulting for within-subject design studies, rather than the motivational force score or the total force score (Redmond, 2009).Jay Caulfield, from Marquette University, used Expectancy Theory as a framework for his research study. This study was to investigate the motivational factors that may contribute to students providing anonymous feedback to teachers. “Expectancy theory has been more effective in predicting motivation when the subject being studied had more discretion in performing a task” (Caulfield, 2007). Since the evaluation process is completely anonymous, it makes sense that Expectancy Theory is a good choice for predicting student’s motivation for filling out the evaluations in the first place.

The purpose of using Vroom’s Expectancy Theory now, was to determine the outcome the students believed would be attained by providing these evaluations (Caulfield, 2007). The results of the study indicated that “students’ motivation was dependent upon the importance to them of improving the value of the class and of future classes, and the expectation that their formative feedback would lead to increased value for them, their peers in the classroom and for students in future classes” (Caulfield, 2007). The findings conclude that it is important that the teachers stress that the evaluations are very important tools for improving the learning and teaching experiences in the present, and the future.Another research example involves business students nearing their masters’ degree certifications at Carnegie-Mellon University. The purpose of the study was to predict the appeal of potential employers using a questionnaire to evaluate which goals people believed to be most important. Goals included “chance to benefit society, freedom from supervision, and high salary”. After establishing the rank of individual goal preferences, the individuals evaluated three companies of interest to determine the degree to which each student believed they would be able to satisfy his or her goals.

After combining these two variables, an instrumentality-goal index was calculated for each company and was given an attractiveness rating. The results of the study noticeably indicate that companies seen as providing a means towards attaining important goals were most attractive. This study showed that 76 percent of students chose the company that had the highest instrumentality score. This study exemplifies how Vroom’s research results are consistent with his theory. Years later, after following the actual employment, similar supporting evidence was also found (Miner, 2005).Another research study in expectancy tested the hypotheses that the behavior of some individuals are determined by personal expectancies while the behavior of other individuals are determined by social norms. The researchers took two groups of people and gave one group personal expectations about their behavior.

The other group was given information on what the social norms were for the time being. The researchers found that strong expectancy behavior correspondence was given for those individuals who were aware of personal expectancies but who were not knowledgeable about social norms. For those individuals who were attuned to social norms, their behavior corresponded with such (Miller & Grush, 1988).During 2009 another research study was conducted by Richard Johnson at the University of Toledo’s Criminal Justice Department in order to explain patrol officer drug arrest activity and find ways to influence work output. (Johnson, 2009) The researcher developed four hypothesis based on the expectancy, instrumentality, valence, and overall motivation described in the Expectancy Theory. The first hypothesis was officers will make more drug arrests if they are given direct expectations to do so. Second, officers who have the proper capabilities through sufficient training and equipment will make more arrests.

Thirdly, officers who have the opportunity by way of their shift or time between calls will make more arrests. And finally, officers who perceive that their department and supervisors will provide more rewards if they make more drug arrests will more likely be more productive. (Johnson, 2009) The data was collected through self reporting surveys with various response rates. The dependent variable in the study was the individual drug arrest rate of each respondent. The independent variables were drawn from and grouped based on the results of the survey. They included, management priority for expectancy, having adequate equipment for capability, opportunities, and for valence either rewarded or not rewarded because of the variety of what an officer perceives as a reward.

(Johnson, 2009) The data was input into a correlational analysis with varying results. There was a significant effect between management’s expectations and the number of drug arrests.

Under capability, there was significant effect between perceptions of being properly equipped and arrests but the correlation was negative and therefore unexpected. Opportunity did show a significant effect as well but the single greatest predictor of drug arrest rate related to the rewards perceived to be available. (Johnson, 2009) The overall purpose of the study was to explain the variation in arrest rate between officers by relying on evaluating organizational factors.

The results seem to indicate that each part of the Expectancy Theory plays a role, but the overall best predictor was the end rewards or valence of the overall expectancy.Expectancy theory has been researched and studied in various ways. According to the Oxford handbook of motivation, expectancy theory is “more often used as an organizing framework for generating and testing context-specific hypotheses. For example, researchers have applied expectancy theory to guide the development of models to explain Work Motivation 4 variations in DUI arrests among police officers (Mastrofski, Ritti, Snipes, 1994), efforts by middle managers to champion issues for senior executives to pursue (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, Dutton, 1998), home runs hit by major league baseball players (Harder, 1991), and strategic decisions in competitive markets (Chen & Miller, 1994)” (Grant & Shin, 2011).Current research has been done from the theoretical perspective.

Expectancy theory has been useful in explaining that initiating new behaviors depends on the values the individual has received by a particular outcome or goal (Wood, Logar, & Riley, 2015). Organizations and the people in them are motivated to engage in behaviors that will lead to attainable goals, not ones they believe to be unattainable (Wood, et al, 2015). If people are provided the proper resources to obtain the desired goal, they will have more belief in themselves that they can attain a desired goal. Providing motivation to people along with the proper resource availability is the most successful combination in order to increase activity (Wood, et al, 2015).

The person using these tools or resources may not use them for a few reasons. First, they may have no interest in engaging or accomplishing the task. If the person isn't interested in attaining the desired goal, they will not be motivated to expend any effort. Second, they may be unaware of the usefulness of the tool. If they do not know how to use the tool, or see it's utility in attaining the desired goal, they won't be interested in using it. Finally they may be unable to operate the tool either through lack of knowledge or through lack of capability (Wood, et al, 2015). This can affect their self-efficacy as far as their ability to achieve the desired goal.

It can be detrimental in their overall motivation. From the results of their current research, it was found that simply increasing awareness of resources raises instrumentality, but does not increase of activity (Wood, et al, 2015). This particular outcome shows the importance of incorporating expectancy, instrumentality, and valence into examples of goal behavior at the same time.

The results also tell us that removing things that only block resources does not lead to increases in activity. Making motivation central to the initiation of work activity provides strong theoretical groundwork to explain management operations as they relate to motivating followers (Wood, et al, 2015). Strengths and Weaknesses of Expectancy TheoryExpectancy theory posits that individuals will be motivated when they perceive that their efforts will result in a desirable outcome (PSU, 2014). Penk, Chistiane, Stefan Schipolowski. Is it all about value?

Bringing back the expectancy component of the assessment of test-taking motivation. Learning and Individual Differences. Retrieved from:Penn State World Campus. Lesson 4: Expectancy Theory: Is there a link between my effort and what I really want? Retrieved from Penn State World Campus:Pinder, C.

Work motivation: Theory, issues, and applications. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.Redmond, B.F. Lecture on expectancy theory (Lesson 4). Personal Collection of B.F. Redmond, Penn State University, University Park, PA.Redmond, B. Lesson 4: Expectancy Theory: Is there a link between my effort and what I want?

The Pennsylvania State University Website. Retrieved from class='external-link' rel='nofollow'linktype='raw' wikidestination='originalalias='(R. Motivation: Expectancy theory. The University of Rhode Island Website. Retrieved fromStecher, M., & Rosse, J. (2007). Understanding reactions to workplace injustice trhough process theories of motivation: A teaching module and simulation. Journal of Management Education, 31(6), 781.Steers, R.

M., Mowday, R. T., & Shapiro, D. Introduction to special topic forum The future of work motivation theory. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 379-987.

Retrieved from L. Vroom's Expectancy Theory - Motivation at a Glance: An ISchool Collaborative. Vroom's Expectancy Theory - Motivation at a Glance: An ISchool Collaborative. Retrieved June 15, 2014, from D.

Expectancy and equity theories of motivation. The College of St. Scholastica Website. Retrieved fromThorndike, E.

Educated psychology: The psychology of learning. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.Tolman, E. C., & Honzik, C. Introduction and removal of reward, and maze performance in rats.

University of California Publications in Psychology.Department of the Air Force College for Enlisted Professional Military Education (AETC) (2008). Noncommissioned Officer Academy Student Guide: Unit Manager Attribute, Volume 1: UM03SG-8VanderZwaag, L., (1998), Edward C. Tolman, Muskingum University. Retrieved from.Vroom, V. Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.Vroom, V.

Expectancy Theory of Motivation - Victor Vroom. Retrieved June 8, 2014, from M. Expectancy theory in work and motivation: Some logical and methodological issues. The Tavistock Institute Website. Retrieved fromWalker, J.

Self Realization Approach. SR Consulting, Performance & Sport Psychology Website.

Retrieved February 9, 2010, from!story5.jpg!Werner, A. In: Nel, P.S., Gerber, P.D., Van Dyk, P.S., Haasbroek, G.D.Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 131-134.Wood, Andy, Cyril M. Logar, Wililam B.

Initiating Exporting: The Role of Managerial Motivation in Small and Medium Enterprises. Journal of Business Research. Pg 2358-2365.

Retrieved from.

By on. ( )Expectancy Theory was proposed by Victor Vroom in his 1964 paper “Work and Motivation.” It differs slightly from other motivational theories (Like and ‘s theories) in that it doesn’t attempt to explain what motivates people but instead focuses on the related thought processes that can motivate people (Luneneburg, F.C.,2011).Expectancy Theory attempts to explain the thought process behind what an employee may be thinking when they work to complete a task and how it relates to their own motivation towards the completion of that task. The employee may wonder how this task helps them to achieve their own goals, with the level of motivation being tied to what they personally hope to achieve by completing the task. Basic Expectancy Theory ModelAccording to Expectancy Theory, employees need to see a direct relationship between their work and the attainment of their personal goals. If employees believe that those who perform above minimum levels or put in more effort do not gain any advantage towards achieving personal goals, the employees may only perform at a barely acceptable level or put in the minimum amount of required effort.99 Cent Book From AmazonEffort and ExpectancyIs the work worth it? Expectancy is the assessment of the work needed to complete a job or task. Individuals will estimate the amount of effort that is required to meet the goals or the acceptable outcome of the task and its relationship to their personal goals. If the employee believes that work assigned to them is not worth the effort they may not lose motivation (impacting performance) or not fully complete the task.

Vroom's Model Of Expectancy Theory

The employee may even choose a different job that they believe may meet their personal goals better.Expectancy of task completion can be shown as a probability ranging from 0 to 1. The probability of 0 means the employee does not believe the effort will lead to an acceptable outcome; the employee can see no relationship between the task and their personal goals (Luneneburg, F.C.,2011).

A probability of 1 means that the employee believes that an acceptable outcome is almost certain to be met and the employee sees a relationship between their level of effort and their personal goals. Performance and InstrumentalityWith instrumentality, the employee makes estimates about how much their task performance relates to their personal goals. If an employee believes that below performing employees receive the same rewards, the employee may not perform as well. The employee should be able to see a relationship between how well they perform and the personal rewards they receive in order to increase their motivation.Instrumentality can also be viewed as a probability between 0 and 1. If an employee perceives that a relationship between their performance always exists, the probability of it existing on new tasks is nearly certain and would be a 1 (Luneneburg, F.C.,2011).

With 0, the employee sees no such relationship. Reward and ValenceValence is how much an employee prefers certain rewards over other rewards. The reward needs to be more desirable than alternatives. If I gain more rewards by reducing my effort, the outcome could be a reduction of effort. The employee will choose the outcome most associated with their own goals.Valence can be shown on a scale that ranges from -1 to 1 (Luneneburg, F.C.,2011).

A 0 level of valence shows that the employee is indifferent to an award. They could receive the award or not receive the award, they don’t really care.

Anything above a 0 is more desirable to an employee, while below a 0 is less desirable to an employee. Motivation and Vroom’s Expectancy EquationUsing the probabilities for expectancy, instrumentality, and valence, Victor Vroom believed that it is possible to calculate how motivated employees are (Luneneburg, F.C.,2011).Vroom’s Expectancy Equation:Motivation = Expectancy X Instrumentality X ValenceORM = E x I x VThe higher the probability of the factors, the higher the motivation. Interesting to note in this equation is that if any of the factors are 0, the resulting motivation is predicted to be 0.