The expectancy theory of motivation was suggested by Victor H. Vroom, an international expert on leadership and decision making. 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. One of the most influential books on the subject of motivation was written by Vroom in 1964, called Work and 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 in 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 the choices being made are to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, as 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). He 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”.
Some things that help expectancy are having the correct resources available, having the right skill set for the job at hand, and having the right 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*Instrumentality
Scaffolding upon some of Vroom’s original work, Porter and Lawler developed a theoretical model suggesting that the expenditure or an individual’s energy or efforts will be determined by the level of expectations that a specific outcome may be obtained and the degree to which that outcome is valued by someone (Pinder, 1984). This theory became known as expectancy theory, or VIE theory (valence, instrumentality, and expectancy). The following information is concerned with exploring the components of expectancy theory, analyzing the research dedicated to the theory, identifying strengths and weaknesses, and discussing the factors that explain motivational behavior in the workplace. It will be examined to demonstrate the application of expectancy theory in practical terms. Each of these elements will be instrumental in better understanding one of the more popular theories for explaining and influencing motivational behavior, particularly in the workplace.
Vroom also believed that increased effort will 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, have 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 just being given the right information or tools to finish the job.
Expectancy Theory Components
Expectancy Theory has three major components: expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. These components work together to establish our motivation force. The diagram below shows the relationship of each component. (Swenson, date unknown)
Expectancy
Expectancy is slated as the first component of VIE theory. In order for a person to be properly motivated, that individual needs to perceive that their personal expenditure of effort will result in an acceptable level of performance. This is to say that in order for a person to be motivated to exert effort they need to believe that their effort will result in a certain level of performance, or that a certain level of performance is attainable. “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). 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 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, peoples’ 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 ideas to motivate their employees. By encouraging employees and building self-efficacy, managers can increase employee expectancy” (Redmond, 2010).
Key question to ask to determine expectancy:
What is the strength of the relationship between the effort I put forth and how well I perform?
Examples of determinations of expectancy (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?
Instrumentality
Instrumentality is the second component in the equation of expectancy theory. 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 to be instrumental if it is conditional upon something else, or is believed to directly result into a particular outcome (Redmond, 2010). Remembering the idea 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).
Key question to ask to determine instrumentality:
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 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?
Valence
Valence is the final component of VIE theory. Valence is characterized by the extent to which a person values a given outcome. This “value” is based in individual differences. The value a person places on an outcome is directly related to who they are and their needs, goals, and values. 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).
Key question to ask to determine valence:
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 to me is it 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?
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).
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.
Motivational Force
When expectancy, instrumentality and valence are met, a “motivational force” occurs. This force exerts internal pressure on an individual to be motivated. The larger the force, the more a person will be motivated to obtain the outcomes of the job (Redmond, 2010). In order for motivational force to be high, valence, instrumentality and expectancy must also be high. If any one of those is low, motivation will be low (Redmond, 2009).
For example, “if a person is indifferent to the outcomes or perceives them as negatively valent, there is no reason to work hard to attain them ” (Redmond, 2010). Therefore, since valence is negative or low, then motivation will also be negative or low. For each action, expectancy, instrumentality and valence can be assessed and a motivational force computed (Redmond, 2010).
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.
The VIE formula is represented (within a range) as MF = E(V x I)
A 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).
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 Valance
When 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 equations becomes zero. If a person does not have one of the three products, then overall motivation is lacking.
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).
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).
Strengths and Weaknesses of Expectancy Theory
Strengths
When using the expectancy theory within organizations/institutions, an evaluation can be made in regard to two factors that lead to valence (the reward): the expectations of the individual and the belief that their actions will lead to the reward. To utilize the expectancy theory accurately, the research method that is used to evaluate the motivations of the employee is the within-subject design. A key factor of expectancy theory is that it calculates the difference in motivational levels between tasks of one individual, and that of another. This is done with the use of the within-subject design research method.
To use within-subject designs, participants are given many different tasks to complete. For each task the researcher computes a force score. This score is used to predict the choices that individuals make among the different tasks. Using these predictions of effort, researchers compute correlations based on the predictions and the actual amount of effort exerted by individuals (Redmond, 2010). The strength of the within-subject designs reflects the fact that Vroom developed the VIE theory to determine different motivational levels across various tasks performed by an individual, rather than looking at differences in motivation between different subjects(Redmond, 2010). Validity studies show that the average validity coefficients for within-subjects designs ranges in the .50’s and .60’s (Redmond, 2010).
Expectations are influenced by incentives and rewards. With proper goals set, this will trigger a motivational process that improves performance.
By utilizing expectancy theory, organizations are able to understand the importance of demonstrating appreciation for their employees’ work, and as a result, their employees will perform stronger, and show more loyalty towards the organization.
Weaknesses
A major weakness of expectancy theory is using between-subjects designs. Because VIE theory was developed to account for difference within the individual and not across different subjects, looking at these differences does not give valid results. Validation studies have shown that between-subjects designs result in lower prediction validities. The average validity coefficients for between-subjects designs ranges in the .30’s and .40’s (Redmond, 2010). This is clearly lower than validity coefficients for within-subjects designs.
Empirical research studies have been conducted that demonstrate that expectancy theory “ignores the rationality assumptions underlying this choice behavior” (Wabba & House, 1974). The assumptions that are made within this theory show that individuals’ motivations are consciously chosen. The concept of this assumption is that people contemplate their actions to achieve the rewards, or in other words, it assumes that people consciously know what rewards are in their own best interest. It is also assumed that the contemplation is designed to capitalize on rewards and evade losses. Along these lines, an argument can be made that many individuals might demand a reward system that is based on a short-term time horizon, while forgoing a long-term reward system, even though the long-term system might deliver more valence. Due to the fact that not all motivations are derived consciously, this theory cannot apply to all individuals.
Expectancy theory, by nature, only focuses on the extrinsic motivational factors and the conscious decisions employees make about their performance. Many employees and leaders are not motivated solely by extrinsic factors, such as a paycheck, bonus, or public recognition. As a result, “the concept of instrumentality is found to be ambiguous and difficult to operationalize” (Wabba & House, 1974). Therefore, it is critical for managers and leaders in an organization to really understand what motivates their employees before attempting to utilize the expectancy theory model. The model might best be used in conjunction with other models of motivation, such as the Hierarchy of Needs and Reinforcement Theory, in order to ensure leaders are able to effectively motivate their employees to achieve a higher level of performance.
Another weakness of the expectancy theory is that it is not as helpful unless certain needs are met. Everyone needs to have the ability, the resources and the opportunity to perform their job well. An example of this would be the role genetics can play as a biological limiting factor of performance (Walker, 2003). Just as an athlete might lack the genetic potential to perform at an income producing level, so to an employee might lack the genetics required to reach a desired level of performance. In this case, knowing what will motivate the employee may not help since the scarcity of available resources makes it difficult to complete their job.
Another weakness of the expectancy theory is that it “falls short of explaining how employees update and change their beliefs over time (Mitchell & Biglan, 1971). For example, valence beliefs can change as employees realize that their actual satisfaction with an outcome is different (e.g., lower or higher) than the satisfaction that they anticipated (e.g., Wilson & Gilbert, 2005)” (Grant & Shin, 2011).
Application of Expectancy Theory in the Workplace
Organizational Applications: Expectancy
A leaders’ ability to understand expectancy as related to the E-P linkage can be extremely useful in the workplace. There are five distinct components for a leader to keep in mind concerning this linkage. First, a leader needs to do is present a reasonably challenging assignment to the employee. It has been shown that unchallenging work leads to boredom, frustration and marginal performance. Challenging work allows for self-confidence, education, ability development, training, skills and experience, among other things. Second, a leader must consider the follower’s ability. Because people differ on experience, knowledge, training, skill, educational level and so forth, tasks need to be assigned based on the individual’s level of competence. If an individual feels they are not capable to complete the tasks assigned, the E-P linkage will be weak. Third, leaders must recognize that followers differ greatly regarding their levels of self-esteem in regards to completing a task. Confidence will play a significant role in the follower’s ability to perceive their effort as capable of reaching a desired performance output. Fourth, a leader needs to determine and specify which outcomes constitute acceptable performance, and which do not. Both the follower and the leader need to reach a mutual agreement on the behavior that represents a successful outcome for each of them. Concrete levels of performance allow the follower an accurate assessment of the strength associated with the E-P linkage. Fifth, a leader should recognize that expenditure of effort for many followers leads to satisfaction on the job (Brown & Peterson, 1994). Most individuals want to feel useful, competent, involved and productive. The workplace provides a vehicle to fulfill these needs. A leader that is aware of these distinct aspects of human perceptions, as they relate to expectancy, can effectively understand and facilitate the E-P linkage for each of their employees (Isaac, 2001). Managing these elements effectively allows a leader to strengthen the expectancy of each of their followers.
Organizational Applications: Instrumentality
The strength performance output (instrumentality) linkage will be contingent upon three beliefs of the follower. First, a follower needs to be able to trust that a leader will be able to deliver the outcome promised. It is the outcome (given that the outcome is valued by the individual) that drives the motivational state according to the expectancy theory. A followers ability to trust that a leader can and will follow through with an outcome greatly effects the P-O linkage. Instrumentality is rooted in the belief that the performance rendered will result in the outcome promised. Second, leaders need to make sure followers receive fair treatment in a predictable manner. This is not to suggest that people should be treated exactly the same. As we know from this theory, people vary based on individual differences. However, this factor does suggest that treatment needs to be considered fair. The outcome of treatment a follower receives from a specific performance needs to be consistently applied. A follower should come to understand that a particular action is associated with a particular type of treatment. This understanding reinforces the P-O linkage (Isaac, 2001). A leader’s ability to manage the behavior associated with these beliefs will determine how his workers perceive Instrumentality.
Organizational Applications: Valence
With valence, there are two issues a leader should concern himself with. First, the attractiveness or value of outcomes differs amongst individuals. A leader needs to be able to identify the value of each outcome from the perspective of the follower. There are several types of rewards that can induce heightened motivational states for individuals. These rewards range from money, to praise, to appreciation, to time off, and so on. Many motivational outcomes are of little or no cost to a company, and these types of rewards become highly valuable motivational tools (Gerhart, Minkoff, Olsen, 1995). Once a valuable outcome is identified, the motivational force equation can be established. Second, leaders must put a lot of effort into the alignment of the followers’ personal goals and those of the organization. It is extremely important that the goals of the individual worker are assimilated into the goals of the organization. The pairing of these goals is crucial to workplace motivation. If the follower perceives that their goals are congruent with the goals of the organization, the follower’s motivational force associated with receiving outcomes of high valence are aligned with the furthering of organizational interests. A leader’s ability to do this will greatly enhance both their understanding of valence, as it pertains to individual followers, as well as give them the ability to use this understanding to motivate workers on the job.
Knowing what factors motivate employees can have positive implications for businesses. Some of these include reduced employee turnover, improved morale and higher productivity. The expectancy theory suggests, however, that people are motivated by different things. Some people are motivated by external rewards, such as a paycheck, paid vacation, or a great benefits package, while others may have more intrinsic motivators, such as recognition, or a sense of belonging. A few simple ways to discover what motivates an individual would be to either ask them directly, or through a less confrontational method of administering a questionnaire, or survey. When the questionnaire method is selected, it can be administered to all company employees and can better facilitate isolating certain variables within the company overall. These isolated variables will bring about improved desired outcomes, such as improved morale and higher productivity. One example of this may include certain external rewards, such as an increase in pay, or some type of monetary bonus. Some other examples might include: providing specialized training for an employee who feels they are lacking the ability and confidence to complete a function in a satisfactory manner, or acquiring a piece of equipment that would improve the efficiency of the employees production. By isolating selected variables, a reward system can be more effectively designed, and can make it possible to determine whether or not the rewards implemented are effecting positive change.
Utilizing the VIE formula will also allow leaders to set motivating objectives for employees (e.g., a high achiever might not be motivated to work hard if the work he/she is performing is mundane. Giving the person harder work, or additional responsibilities might motivate him/her to achieve a higher level of performance). The company will be better off, as more and more employees are motivated to achieve a higher level of performance.
Additionally, the workplace can involve more participants than company and employee alone. Labor unions are sometimes considered participants, and can also play an important role in the workplace. Many of such unions have looked into forms of expectancy and expectancy-value theory to build and understand their membership. Much like a company wants to learn what motivates their employees (whether it be intrinsic or extrinsic factors), unions want to know what draws workers to join unions or to vote them out (decertify). Over time, workers ideas of unions change, based on different situations and adjustments in work environment. Unions can benefit from understanding what drives these changes, and can learn how to make adjustments to the workers perceptions and expectations of unions. If a worker perceives that joining a union will be of low cost to them (low effort), then the worker might decide that they have the means to join. For instance, if a union is already in place (instrumentality), and what the union offers in pay and/or benefits is perceived as valuable (valence), the worker will be more motivated to join or remain a member of a union (Barling, Fullagar, Kelloway, 1992).