Which of the following are recommended ways that managers or organizations can implement expectancy theory in the workplace?

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Victor Harold Vroom created the Expectancy Theory of Motivation in 1964. His study of psychology has shed light on how people behave in the workplace, particularly when it comes to motivation, leadership and decision-making.

What is Vroom’s Expectancy Theory?

It works on the assumption that people will choose to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. This means that people will behave in a way that results in the best outcome or reward.

The theory is dependent on the idea that the more an employee values the outcome, the more motivated they will be to achieve it. The more effort they put in to succeed, the more certain they are of getting that satisfying reward.

To make the connection between motivation, effort and performance, Expectancy Theory has three variables: Expectancy, Instrumentality and Valence.

What are Expectancy, Instrumentality and Valence?

These are all links in the chain of motivation – if one of these links is weak, then your employee will not be motivated, so you would need to find the problem and resolve it to achieve the outcome.

Expectancy (E)

If an employee puts in the effort, they expect a certain result. If they do not get that result, they will not be motivated to make the effort again and so will not be satisfied with the outcome.

How can managers help employees get the results they expect?

• Make sure the employee has the tools and time
• Assign an employee that already has or will gain useful skills
• Be available to provide support and encouragement

Instrumentality (I)

Your employee might make the effort and get the expected result but if they do not believe that the result is instrumental in getting the reward, they will not be motivated. And so the outcome is not achieved and your employee is not satisfied.

It is important to note though, that the reward might not always be what the employee expected at first.

For example, if they learn new skills in an effort to earn a promotion but that employee is not rewarded with the position they want, they will still have those skills which might result in them getting promoted in the future or recruited for a more senior role in another company.

How can managers help employees understand that the result is instrumental in getting a satisfactory outcome?

• Be clear about what the reward is and how to achieve it
• Give staff an outcome they value so they can trust that their effort is important
• Be open about how rewards are allocated

Valence (V)

Valence is how much the outcome is valued, if at all. The more an employee values a certain reward, the more satisfied they will be with their efforts.

A reward doesn’t have to be a grand gesture, it just has to be meaningful to the employee – whether that’s a bonus, extra time off or simply a bit of recognition.

The Valence can be categorised by:

• -1 Avoiding the outcome/reward
• 0 Apathetic about the outcome/reward
• +1 Desiring the outcome/reward

The Valance can only be motivating if the employee would prefer having the outcome, to not having it.

Say an employee makes the effort, gets the expected result and believes that the result is instrumental in achieving the outcome. But if the value of the reward doesn’t appeal to them – if they aren’t satisfied with the outcome – the employee will not be motivated.

It’s important to make it clear to your employee that their effort will have a satisfying outcome or reward that they value. This establishes trust and paves the way for the rest of the chain of motivation to succeed.

So, the chain (or equation) of Vroom’s Expectancy Theory is as follows:

Motivational Force (MF) = Expectancy (E) x Instrumentality (I) x Valence (V)

If either E, I or V are zero, then the equation fails, and this indicates that motivation is low or non-existent.

For example, it could be that an employee does not believe they have enough time to perform a task well, which means their effort will not result in a satisfactory outcome. After all, who would be motivated to work hard on something that is doomed to fail?

Solving the problem behind the lack of motivation will restore employees’ expectations, prove their instrumentality and/or help managers better understand the value their staff place on the organisation’s rewards.

How to use Vroom’s Expectancy Theory to increase motivation and performance

Managers can assess whether their employees understand what they need to do to get the desired outcome. Clarifying their role can be a way to make sure staff are aligned and understand what they need to do.

For example, say a manager tasked their employee with producing an advertising campaign, which would get them the bonus they wanted as a reward (Valence).

According to Vroom’s Expectancy Theory, the employee must believe the task is achievable, in order for them to put the effort into it. If the task is doable, the employee will be keen to perform well in anticipation of the bonus (Expectancy).

The employee must also believe that the effort they put in will get them the desired outcome (Instrumentality), so the organisation must deliver on the outcomes it promises.

Luckily, our example organisation bestows rewards often, so due to the employee’s trust and hard work, the advertising campaign is engaging and performs well, and so the employee earns that satisfying bonus – and rightly so!

Advantages and disadvantages of using Expectancy Theory

Advantages:

• There is a connection between motivation and satisfaction
• The expectation of a reward increases motivation, even if the outcome differs slightly from the original reward
• The theory focuses on rewards and achieving goals
• It promotes the idea that more effort should lead to increased performance, meaning the desired outcomes are met

Disadvantages:

• It assumes that effort and performance will result in the desired reward
• The theory does not account for factors like an employee’s learning and workload capacity
• If either the task is unachievable, the reward is not delivered or the outcome isn’t valuable, that is enough for employees to lose motivation

While Vroom’s Expectancy Theory allows both the business and staff to meet their objectives by focusing on a meaningful reward or outcome, it shouldn’t be the only theory you lean on.

Learning Outcomes

• Describe the ways in which managers can use expectancy theory to motivate employees

Expectancy theory, initially put forward by Victor Vroom at the Yale School of Management, suggests that behavior is motivated by anticipated results or consequences. Vroom proposed that a person decides to behave in a certain way based on the expected result of the chosen behavior. For example, people will be willing to work harder if they think the extra effort will be rewarded.

In essence, individuals make 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. This process begins in childhood and continues throughout a person’s life. Expectancy theory has three components: expectancy, instrumentality, and valence.

• Expectancy is the individual’s belief that effort will lead to the intended performance goals. Expectancy describes the person’s belief that “I can do this.” Usually, this belief is based on an individual’s past experience, self-confidence, and the perceived difficulty of the performance standard or goal. Factors associated with the individual’s expectancy perception are competence, goal difficulty, and control.
• Instrumentality is the belief that a person will receive a desired outcome if the performance expectation is met. Instrumentality reflects the person’s belief that, “If I accomplish this, I will get that.” The desired outcome may come in the form of a pay increase, promotion, recognition, or sense of accomplishment. Having clear policies in place—preferably spelled out in a contract—guarantees that the reward will be delivered if the agreed-upon performance is met. Instrumentality is low when the outcome is vague or uncertain, or if the outcome is the same for all possible levels of performance.
• Valence is the unique value an individual places on a particular outcome. Valence captures the fact that “I find this particular outcome desirable because I’m me.” Factors associated with the individual’s valence are needs, goals, preferences, values, sources of motivation, and the strength of an individual’s preference for a particular outcome. An outcome that one employee finds motivating and desirable—such as a bonus or pay raise—may not be motivating and desirable to another (who may, for example, prefer greater recognition or more flexible working hours).

Expectancy theory, when properly followed, can help managers understand how individuals are motivated to choose among various behavioral alternatives. To enhance the connection between performance and outcomes, managers should use systems that tie rewards very closely to performance. They can also use training to help employees improve their abilities and believe that added effort will, in fact, lead to better performance.

It’s important to understand that expectancy theory can run aground if managers interpret it too simplistically. Vroom’s theory entails more than just the assumption that people will work harder if they think the effort will be rewarded. The reward needs to be meaningful and take valence into account. Valence has a significant cultural as well as personal dimension, as illustrated by the following case.

When Japanese motor company ASMO opened a plant in the U.S., it brought with it a large Japanese workforce but hired American managers to oversee operations. The managers, thinking to motivate their workers with a reward system, initiated a costly employee-of-the-month program that included free parking and other perks.

However, the program was a huge flop, and participation was disappointingly low. Why?

The program required employees to nominate their coworkers to be considered for the award. Japanese culture values modesty, teamwork, and conformity, and to be put forward or singled out for being special is considered inappropriate and even shameful. To be named Employee of the Month would be a very great embarrassment indeed—not at all the reward that management assumed. Especially as companies become more culturally diverse, the lesson is that managers need to get to know their employees and their needs—their unique valences—if they want to understand what makes them feel motivated, happy, and valued.

Contribute!

Did you have an idea for improving this content? We’d love your input.

Improve this pageLearn More