notes for presentation.docx

7/23/2019 NOTES for presentation.docx

1/23

4. Expectancy Theory

Skip to end of metadata

Created byBRIAN FRANCIS RED!ND" #a$t modified by STACE% ARIE SERRAN! onFeb &'" (&)*

+o to $tart of metadata

Expectancy Theory !,er,ie-

The Expectancy Theory of oti,ation i$ be$t de$cribed a$ a proce$$ theory. It pro,ide$ an

exp#anation of -hy indi,ida#$ choo$e one beha,iora# option o,er other$. /The ba$ic idea behind the

theory i$ that peop#e -i## be moti,ated beca$e they be#ie,e that their deci$ion -i## #ead to their

de$ired otcome/ 0Redmond" (&&12. /Expectancy theory propo$e$ that -ork moti,ation i$ dependent

pon the percei,ed a$$ociation bet-een performance and otcome$ and indi,ida#$ modify their

beha,ior ba$ed on their ca#c#ation of anticipated otcome$/ 0Chen 3 Fan" (&&'2. Thi$ ha$ a

practica# and po$iti,e benefit of impro,in moti,ation beca$e it can" and ha$" he#ped #eader$ create

moti,ationa# proram$ in the -orkp#ace. /Thi$ theory i$ bi#t pon the idea that moti,ation come$

from a per$on be#ie,in they -i## et -hat they -ant in the form of performance or re-ard$. A#thoh

the theory i$ not /a## inc#$i,e/ of individualmoti,ation factor$" it pro,ide$ #eader$ -ith a fondation

on -hich to bi#d a better nder$tandin of -ay$ to moti,ate $bordinate$/ 0AETC" (&&'2.

Expectancy theory i$ c#a$$ified a$ a proce$$ theory of moti,ation beca$e it empha$i5e$ indi,ida#

perception$ of the en,ironment and $b$e6ent interaction$ ari$in a$ a con$e6ence of per$ona#

expectation$.

The theory $tate$ that indi,ida#$ ha,e different $et$ of oa#$ and can be moti,ated if they be#ie,e

that7

There i$ a po$iti,e corre#ation bet-een effort$ and performance.

Fa,orab#e performance -i## re$#t in a de$irab#e re-ard.

The re-ard -i## $ati$fy an important need.

The de$ire to $ati$fy the need i$ $tron enoh to make the effort -orth-hi#e 08a-#er" 9orter. 8."

:room" (&&12.

To#man;$ Beha,ior and oti,ation Theory

Ed-ard To#man -a$ a coniti,e beha,iora# p$ycho#oi$t -ho $tdied moti,ation and #earnin.


2/23

$tdyin in +ermany. To#man $ed rat$ for hi$ experiment$ on #earnin. !ne of the$e experiment$

#ed to the theory of #atent #earnin. Thi$ theory de$cribe$ #earnin -ith no ob,io$ re-ard for the

#earner. To#man a#$o bean to de,e#op the theory of beha,ior and moti,ation. nti# the need i$ met

the per$on -i## contine to beha,e in the $ame manner. Thi$ -a$ the $tart of moti,ation theorie$.

:room -o#d add to To#man?$ -ork -ith the Expectancy theory #ater in hi$tory 0:ander@-aa" )11'2.

:room;$ Expectancy Theory

Victor H. Vroom, Professor, Yale University

The Expectancy Theory of oti,ation -a$ $e$ted by :ictor


3/23

In$trmenta#ity7

In$trmenta#ity can be de$cribed a$ the thoht that if an indi,ida# perform$ -e##" then a ,a#ed

otcome -i## come to that indi,ida#. Some thin$ that he#p in$trmenta#ity are ha,in a c#ear

nder$tandin of the re#ation$hip bet-een performance and the otcome$" ha,in tr$t and re$pect

for peop#e -ho make the deci$ion$ on -ho et$ -hat re-ard" and $eein tran$parency in the

proce$$ of -ho et$ -hat re-ard.

:a#ence7

:a#ence mean$ /,a#e/ and refer$ to be#ief$ abot otcome de$irabi#ity 0Redmond" (&)&2. There are

indi,ida# difference$ in the #e,e# of ,a#e a$$ociated -ith any $pecific otcome. For in$tance"

a bon$ may not increa$e moti,ation for an emp#oyee -ho i$ moti,ated by forma# reconition or by

increa$ed $tat$ $ch a$ promotion. :a#ence can be thoht of a$ the pre$$re or importance that a

per$on pt$ on an expected otcome.

:room conc#de$ that the force of moti,ation in an emp#oyee can be ca#c#ated $in the

form#a7 Motivation = Valence*Expectancy*Instrumentality


4/23

Valence of outcome x Expectancy act will be result in outcome (Instrumentality) = Motivation

Force 0So$a" n.d.2.

"First Order Outcome is the behavior that results directly from the the effort an employee expends

on the !ob. Second Order Outcome is anythin" "ood or bad that results from a first#order outcome$

%&ousa, n.d.

0So$a" n.d.2

VARIA!E"

/Expectancy Theory i$ ba$ed on an emp#oyee?$ be#ief$7

:a#ence refer$ to emotiona# orientation$ -hich peop#e ho#d -ith re$pect to otcome$

0re-ard$2 the ,a#e the per$on attache$ to fir$t and $econd order otcome$


5/23

Expectancy refer$ to emp#oyee$? different expectation$ and #e,e#$ of confidence abot

-hat they are capab#e of doin the be#ief that effort -i## #ead to fir$t order otcome$

In$trmenta#ity refer$ to the perception of emp#oyee$ -hether they -i## acta##y recei,e

-hat they de$ire" e,en if it ha$ been promi$ed by a manaer the percei,ed #ink bet-een fir$t order

and $econd order otcome$/

0So$a" n.d.2.

In other -ord$" in term$ of expectancy theory or )$t $et of action$ re$#t from or

moti,ation$. If -e are pttin in effort to be better or et to meet a $pecific oa# or beha,ior$ -i## be

a ref#ection of thi$. For examp#e7 Gerry -ant$ a promotion. 8ate#y he ha$ noticed that the emp#oyee$

at -ork are a #itt#e too re#axed and the manaer ha$ noticed. Their CE! ha$ $tre$$ed thi$ concern

throh emp#oyee meetin$" etc. hopin that $omeone -o#d et the hint and $tep p. Gerry fina##y

noticed that he i$ #ookin for $omeone to take the initia# $tep to chane their attitde. Gerry

nder$tandin that he i$ the on#y one that ha$ fired thi$ ot at the moment $tart$ ettin to -ork

ear#y" knockin ot a$$inment$" and attemptin to increa$e $ection proficiency. A$ a re$#t" the CE!take$ notice and promote$ Gerry to office manaer. The fir$t order otcome i$ hi$ bein moti,ated to

et promoted and the a#terin of hi$ beha,ior. The $econd order otcome -a$ the promotion he

recei,ed.

Scaffo#din pon $ome of :room;$ oriina# -ork" 9orter and 8a-#er de,e#oped a theoretica#

mode# $e$tin that the expenditre or an indi,ida#;$ enery or effort$ -i## be determined by the

#e,e# of expectation$ that a $pecific otcome may be obtained and the deree to -hich that otcome

i$ ,a#ed by $omeone 09inder" )1'42. Thi$ theory became kno-n a$ Expectancy Theory" or :IE

theory 0,a#ence" in$trmenta#ity" and expectancy2. The fo##o-in information i$ concerned -ith

exp#orin the component$ of Expectancy Theory" ana#y5in the re$earch dedicated to the theory"identifyin $trenth$ and -eakne$$e$" and di$c$$in the factor$ that exp#ain moti,ationa# beha,ior

in the -orkp#ace. It -i## be examined to demon$trate the app#ication of Expectancy Theory in

practica# term$. Each of the$e e#ement$ -i## be in$trmenta# in better nder$tandin one of the more

pop#ar theorie$ for exp#ainin and inf#encin moti,ationa# beha,ior" partic#ar#y in the -orkp#ace.

:room a#$o be#ie,ed that increa$ed effort -i## #ead to increa$ed performance" i,en the per$on ha$

the riht too#$ to et the ob done. The expected otcome i$ dependent pon -hether or not the

per$on ha$ the riht re$orce$ to et the ob done" ha$ the riht $ki##$ to do the ta$k at hand" and

they >ST ha,e the $pport to et the ob done. That $pport may come from the bo$$" or $t

bein i,en the riht information or too#$ to fini$h the ob.

A#thoh many peop#e corre#ate hih performance -ith hih re-ard$" many time$ the theory i$

#imited beca$e re-ard$ are not a#-ay$ direct#y corre#ated -ith performance in many orani5ation$.

It i$ re#ated to other parameter$ a#$o $ch a$ po$ition" effort" re$pon$ibi#ity" edcation" etc.

It i$ important to remember that there i$ a difference bet-een incenti,e$ and moti,ator$. Incenti,e$

are nonmateria# obect$. They are manip#ated by manaer$ and #eader$ to et emp#oyee$ to do


6/23

de$ired ta$k$. Incenti,e$ may -ork" if the incenti,e i$ $omethin the emp#oyee de$ire$ to -ork

to-ard$. Bt if the incenti,e i$ taken a-ay the beha,ior may not $$tain. oti,ation theorie$ need to

accentate moti,ation and not incenti,e$. For thi$ rea$on" oti,ation imp#ie$ that peop#e make

deci$ion$ abot their o-n beha,ior and -hat moti,ate$ them.

The #oc$ of contro# i$ different for incenti,e$ and moti,ation. oti,ation i$ intrin$ic contro# -here

incenti,e$ are extrin$ica##y contro##ed by peop#e in the orani5ation 0athibe" (&))2.

Expectancy Theory Component$

A$ pre,io$#y de$cribedH Expectancy Theory ha$ three maor component$7

). Expectancy

(. In$trmenta#ity

. :a#ence

The$e component$ -ork toether to e$tab#i$h or oti,ation Force 0F2. The diaram be#o- $ho-$

the e#ement$ in,o#,ed in each component of FH -hi#e the $econd diaram i##$trate$ the

re#ation$hip of each component.

#ia$ram %

%&choll, ())(

#ia$ram &


7/23

%&*enson, date un+no*n

Expectancy (E')

/The re#ation$hip bet-een Effort and 9erformance i$ kno-n a$ the E9 #inkae/ 0I$aac" (&&)2. /The

expectancy component of expectancy theory i$ the be#ief that one;$ effort 0E2" -i## i,e the expected

performance 092 oa#/ 0Scho##" (&&(2. Expectancy i$ $#ated a$ the fir$t component of the :IE theoryH

i##$tratin that in order for a per$on to be effecti,e#y moti,ated" the indi,ida# need$ to percei,e that

their per$ona# expenditre of effort -i## re$#t in an acceptab#e #e,e# of performance. The concept of

perception i$ ,ery important throhot thi$ theory" a$ it conc#de$ that in order for a per$on to be

moti,ated into pttin effort to-ard$ a ta$k" they need on#y to be#ie,e that their effort -i## re$#t in a

certain #e,e# of performance" or that a certain #e,e# of performance i$ attainab#e. An examp#e -o#d

be" /If I $a#t the $ide-a#k" -i## it be $afer to -a#k onJ/ There are ,ariab#e$ that affect an indi,ida#;$expectancy perception. The$e ,ariab#e$ inc#de $e#fefficacy 0a per$on;$ be#ief in their abi#ity to

perform $cce$$f##y2" oa# diffic#ty 0ho- attainab#e i$ thi$ oa#2" and contro# 0doe$ the per$on

acta##y ha,e contro# o,er the expected otcome2.

Beca$e :IE Theory in,o#,e$ perception$" and expectancy i$ a be#ief abot the ftre rather than a

concrete exi$tence in the en,ironment" peop#e;$ be#ief$ can ,ary reat#y 0Redmond" (&)&2. Thi$

mean$ that -hi#e one per$on percei,e$ their effort$ to #ead to a reat accomp#i$hment" another

per$on may be#ie,e their $ame effort -i## not #ead to mch accomp#i$hment at a##. Thi$ difference in

perception$ i$ de to many factor$. T-o factor$ that can affect expectancy are abi#ity and intere$t

0Redmond" (&)&2. /8ack of abi#ity or intere$t -i## decrea$e a per$on?$ expectancy. ith propertrainin and a hih intere$t #e,e#" peop#e -i## ha,e an increa$ed #e,e# of expectancy. Emp#oyer$" for

examp#e" need to keep thi$ in mind a$ they create idea$ to moti,ate their emp#oyee$. By

encorain emp#oyee$ and bi#din $e#fefficacy" manaer$ can increa$e emp#oyee expectancy/

0Redmond" (&)&2.


8/23

+ey -uestion to as+ to determine expectancy is

hat i$ the $trenth of the re#ation$hip bet-een the effort I pt forth and ho- -e## I performJ

dditional examples of determinations of expectancy include %&choll, ())(

If I $pend mo$t of toniht $tdyin" -i## it impro,e my rade on tomorro-;$ math examJ

If I -ork harder than e,eryone e#$e in the p#ant" -i## I prodce moreJ

If I practice my fo# $hot more" -i## my fo# $hootin impro,e in the ameJ

If I make more $a#e$ ca##$" -i## I make any more $a#e$J

The follo*in" video "ives "reat insi"ht in its presentation of the Expectancy Theory.

C8ICK


9/23

+ey -uestion to as+ to determine instrumentality is

hat i$ the $trenth of the re#ation$hip bet-een the thin$ I do and the re-ard$ I et from my

action$J

Examples of determinations of instrumentality %&choll, ())(

If I et a better rade on tomorro-;$ math te$t -i## I et an /A/ in mathJ

If I prodce more than anyone e#$e in the p#ant" -i## I et a bier rai$eJ A fa$ter promotionJ

If my fo# $hootin impro,e$ -i## I ha,e a $hot a$ a team :9J

If I make more $a#e$ -i## I et a bon$J A reater commi$$ionJ

If I make more $a#e$ -i## I be#ie,e that I am the be$t $a#e$ per$on or be reconi5ed by other$

a$ the be$t $a#e$ per$onJ

Valence V(R)

:a#ence i$ the fina# component of :IE theory. :a#ence i$ characteri5ed by the extent to -hich a

per$on ,a#e$ a i,en otcome or re-ard. It i$ important to note that ,a#ence i$ not the acta# #e,e#

of $ati$faction that an indi,ida# recei,e$ from an otcome" bt rather it i$ the EL9ECTED

$ati$faction a per$on recei,e$ from a partic#ar otcome 0Redmond" (&)&2. Thi$ M,a#e i$ ba$ed in

indi,ida# difference$. The ,a#e a per$on p#ace$ on an expected otcome or re-ard i$ direct#y

re#ated to -ho they areH their need$" oa#$" and ,a#e$Opreference$. For examp#e thi$ co#d inc#de

thin$ $ch a$ paid time off" extra ca$h bon$e$" or rai$e$. Thi$ $becti,e ,a#e i$ ba$ed on the

indi,ida#;$ perception$" attitde$" and be#ief$. /The #e,e# at -hich an indi,ida# ,a#e$ an otcome i$

de$cribed a$ it;$ ,a#ence/ 0+erhart" inkoff" !#$en" )11*2. :a#ence can inc#de a rane from both a

po$ti,e to neati,e otcome. A neati,e otcome i$ $omethin that a per$on percie,e$ a$ bein an

otcome that -o#d #ead to di$$ati$faction. A p$oti,e otcome -o#d occr if a per$on ,ie-$ it a$

bein ood and a#$o bein on more ,a#ed otcome$ after #ike a promotion.

+ey -uestion to as+ to determine valence is


10/23


11/23

The chart abo,e i$ referenced from Dr. Denni$ Ne#$on 0(&)2. Simp#y pt" the cha##ene$ -e faceand the feedback -e et -hen tryin to reach the oa#$ that -e ha,e made are the moti,ationa#force$ that dri,e $. I;m $re that :room -o#d aree" ba$ed off hi$ $tatement" /A$ the oti,ationa#

Force 0F2 i$ the m#tip#ication of the expectancy by the in$trmenta#ity it i$ then by the ,a#ence that

any of the perception ha,in a ,a#e of 5ero or the indi,ida#;$ fee#in that /it;$ not oin to happen/"

-i## re$#t in a moti,ationa# force of 5ero/ 0:room" )1=42. Ba$ica##y thi$ $tate$ thatmotivational

force occr$ -hen expectancy" in$trmenta#ity" and ,a#ence are a## met. Noticed -ithin or

indi,ida# ca$e $tdy" a## emp#oyee$ except ) expectancy" in$trmenta#ity" and ,a#ence -ere met

re$#tin in '4Q retention. Da,id #timate#y #eft not beca$e of the ho#d on ad,ance$ bt beca$e inhi$ eye$ he -a$ o,era## not $ati$fied -ith hi$ $tat$ after )= year$ of $er,ice to the company. The

,a#ence -a$ & -hich had a direct effect on hi$ expectancy and in$trmenta#ity.

Expectancy Theory or /:IE Theory/ i$ ba$ed on the premi$e that moti,ation occr$ -hen three

$pecific condition$ are $ati$fied7 effort" performance" and otcome. Think of moti,ation a$ a chain

-here each #ink repre$ent$ a condition" and the inter$ection of each #ink repre$ent it$ component$7


12/23

expectancy" in$trmenta#ity" and ,a#ence. ithin the chain" a per$on expectstheir effort to re$#t in

$ome #e,e# of performance 0expectancy2. The percei,ed or expected otcome of their performance

#e,e# -i## be con$idered instrumentalto the otcome 0in$trmenta#ity2. Fina##y" a per$on -i## p#ace

$becti,e valueon their be#ief abot the otcome 0,a#ence2. Thi$ ,a#e -i## determine ho-

$ati$factory the otcome i$ to them.

Amon the many factor$ that inf#ence expectancy" $ch a$ abi#ity or intere$t" perception i$ perhap$

the mo$t $inificant factor. 9erception i$ the enine that dri,e$ the be#ief of effort" performance" and

otcome. Th$" if any one condition i$ percei,ed that it -i## be #o-" moti,ation -i## be #o- $t a$ the

bond bet-een #ink$ affect$ the chain. Beca$e be#ief$ can ,ary" ho-e,erH a $becti,e probabi#ity

form#a that i$ m#tip#icati,e in natre i$ $ed to more accrate#y mea$re expectancy and arri,e at

a predicted moti,ationa# force 0repre$ented a$ a nmber2. The hiher the nmber" the hiher the

moti,ation" -ith each component ha,in it$ o-n probabi#ity rane.

VE /ormula

The :IE form#a i$ repre$ented 0-ithin a rane2 a$ F P E0: x I2

The rane i$ repre$ented in Tab#e ) be#o-7

able %+ VIE Ran$es

Component Range Range Definition

Expectancy 0 to 1 0 = belief she could not perform successfully

1 = firm belief she could perform successfully

Instrumentality 0 to 1 0 = no relationship between performance and outcome

1 = outcome dependent on performance

Valence -1 to +1 - = avoidance of outcome

0 = indifference

+ = expected outcome would be satisfactory

A motivate, employee is t-us t-e pro,uct of t-e perceive, level of satisfaction. t-e

confi,ence to ac-ieve. an, t-e rewar,s t-at t-e employee -opes to receive on ac-ievin$ t-e


13/23

set $oals/ In ot-er wor,s. valence * expectancy * instrumentality = motivation0Iyer" (&&12. If a

promotion$ are on#y a-arded ba$ed on $eniority" then a ne- emp#oyee i$ n#ike#y to pt forth effort

that -o#d other-i$e et them promoted. Since #ink bet-een obtainin -hat they -ant and -hat i$

done i$ nonexi$tent" in$trmenta#ity i$ #o- 0Redmond" (&)&2. An emp#oyee -ith a po$tii,e #e,e# of

expectancy be#ie,e$ that exertin effort -i## re$#t in a po$iti,e otcome for them. If the $ame

emp#oyee ha$ a hih #e,e# of in$trmenta#ity" they -o#d be#ie,e that their re-ard$ 0otcome2 are

ba$ed on ob performance. Fina##y" if an orani5ation offer$ re-ard$ that the emp#oyee ,a#e$

0,a#iance2 $ch a$ promotion$" bon$e$" andOor frine benefit$ #ike a company car" then the

emp#oyee -o#d be con$idered to be a moti,ated one.

Expectancy i$ a per$on;$ $trenth of con,iction in reard$ to the abi#ity to attain oa#$. 9eop#e -ho

de$ire the re-ard$ that manaement i$ expected to be$to- pon them" on accont of $perior

performance" $ho#d ha,e $tron con,iction$ reardin their abi#ity to de#i,er. An emp#oyee -ho i$

not po$iti,e#y oriented -ith re$pect to the percei,ed con$e6ence$ of the attainment of oa#$" -i##

ha,e a 5ero ,a#ence. Emp#oyee$ $ho#d fee# that the effort$ that heO$he -o#d #ike to pt into -ork

-o#d yie#d the de$ired re$#t$. It i$ #timate#y a 6e$tion of ho- confident one fee#$ abot one$e#f. A$e#fproc#aimed achie,er may be immen$e#y confident of the abi#ity to perform a$tondin#y hih"

-hi#e a $keptic may ha,e an entire#y different per$pecti,e. An emp#oyee -ho fee#$ that the effort$ -i##

not yie#d the de$ired re$#t$" in term$ of achie,in the $et taret$" -i## ha,e a #o- probabi#ity of

expectancy. 9robabi#ity of an e,ent can a$$me ,a#e$ bet-een & and ).


14/23

attractive 'Valence = + 0%()# but due to their portfolio of clients# and unsuccessful

past sales performance# they perceive achievement of the outcome# e%$% the sales

tar$et# almost impossible 'Expectancy = 0%1)% *y applyin$ the formula we see that

the motivational force will be & = V x E

& = 0%( x 0%1 = 0%0(

,lternatively# another member of staff finds the possibility of promotion

reasonably attractive 'Valence = + 0%)# and based on their portfolio of clients#

and successful past sales performance# they feel reasonably confident that they

will achieve the sales tar$et set 'Expectancy = 0%.)% /ere we see that the

motivational force is far stron$er in comparison

& = V x E

& = 0% x 0%. = 0%.

Examp#e

Sorce7 http7OO---.exam$ttor.comOb$ine$$Ore$orce$O$tdyroomOpeop#eUandUorani$ation$Omoti,

ationUtheoryO*,room$expectancytheory.php

"tren$t-s

hen $in the expectancy theory -ithin orani5ation$Oin$tittion$" an e,a#ation can be made inreard to t-o factor$ that #ead to ,a#ence 0the re-ard27 the expectation$ of the indi,ida# and the

be#ief that their action$ -i## #ead to the re-ard. To ti#i5e the expectancy theory accrate#y" the

-ithin$bect re$earch method i$ $ed to e,a#ate the moti,ation$ of the emp#oyee. Thi$ method of

the expectancy theory ca#c#ate$ the difference in moti,ationa# #e,e#$ bet-een ta$k$ of one

indi,ida#" and that of another.

To $e -ithin$bect de$in$" participant$ are i,en many different ta$k$ to comp#ete. For each ta$k

the re$earcher compte$ a force $core. Thi$ $core i$ $ed to predict the choice$ that indi,ida#$

make amon the different ta$k$. >$in the$e prediction$ of effort" re$earcher$ compte corre#ation$

ba$ed on the prediction$ and the acta# amont of effort exerted by indi,ida#$ 0Redmond" (&)&2.

The $trenth of the -ithin$bect de$in$ ref#ect$ the fact that :room de,e#oped the :IE theory to

determine different moti,ationa# #e,e#$ acro$$ ,ario$ ta$k$ performed by an indi,ida#" rather than

#ookin at difference$ in moti,ation bet-een different $bect$0Redmond" (&)&2. :a#idity $tdie$

$ho- that the a,erae ,a#idity coefficient$ for -ithin$bect$ de$in$ rane$ in the .*&?$ and .=&?$

0Redmond" (&)&2.
http://www.examstutor.com/business/resources/studyroom/people_and_organisations/motivation_theory/5-vroomsexpectancytheory.phphttp://www.examstutor.com/business/resources/studyroom/people_and_organisations/motivation_theory/5-vroomsexpectancytheory.phphttp://www.examstutor.com/business/resources/studyroom/people_and_organisations/motivation_theory/5-vroomsexpectancytheory.phphttp://www.examstutor.com/business/resources/studyroom/people_and_organisations/motivation_theory/5-vroomsexpectancytheory.php


15/23

Expectation$ are inf#enced by incenti,e$ and re-ard$. ith proper oa#$ $et" thi$ -i## trier a

moti,ationa# proce$$ that impro,e$ performance. Accordin to :room 0)11*2" a per$on?$

moti,ationa# force can be e6ated to the #e,e# of expectancy m#tip#ied by the in$trmenta#ity

m#tip#ied by the ,a#ance. If any one of the$e factor$ i$ $cored a$ a 5ero" then the moti,ationa# $core

-i## a#$o be 5ero 09enn State or#d Camp$" (&))2. Thi$ can ea$i#y be $een in $itation$ -here a

per$on be#ie,e$ the amont of effort exerted on a ta$k -i## not re$#t in the de$ired re-ard" in ca$e$

-here the #e,e# of performance -i## not yie#d the de$ired re$#t$ or that the re-ard -i## not ha,e the

de$ired ,a#e a$ expected" the indi,ida#?$ moti,ationa# #e,e# -i## be 5ero 09enn State or#d

Camp$" (&))2. !n the other hand" -hen a## the component$ of the e6ation are hih" the

moti,ationa# force -i## a#$o be hih 09enn State or#d Camp$" (&))2.

By ti#i5in expectancy theory" orani5ation$ are ab#e to nder$tand the importance of demon$tratin

appreciation for their emp#oyee$; -ork" and a$ a re$#t" their emp#oyee$ -i## perform $troner" and

$ho- more #oya#ty to-ard$ the orani5ation.

0ea1nesses

A maor -eakne$$ of expectancy theory i$ $in bet-een$bect$ de$in$. Beca$e :IE theory -a$

de,e#oped to accont for difference$ -ithin the indi,ida# and not acro$$ different $bect$" #ookin at

the$e difference$ doe$ not i,e ,a#id re$#t$. :a#idation $tdie$ ha,e $ho-n that bet-een$bect$

de$in$ re$#t in #o-er prediction ,a#iditie$. The a,erae ,a#idity coefficient$ for bet-een$bect$

de$in$ rane$ in the .&?$ and .4&?$ 0Redmond" (&)&2. Thi$ i$ c#ear#y #o-er than ,a#idity coefficient$

for -ithin$bect$ de$in$.

The -eakne$$e$ of bet-een$bect de$in can be $een in the difference$ each per$on p#ace$ on

the effort" performance and ,a#e of re-ard$. Beca$e thi$ de$in i$ 6antitati,e" the compari$on$

bet-een indi,ida#$ are hard to mea$re. Another -eakne$$ can be $een in the orani5ationa#

app#ication$ of the theory. In $ome company?$ the re-ard$ $ome emp#oyee$ recei,e miht not be

$een a$ attracti,e a$ many peop#e chane their idea of a de$ired re-ard. hat may ha,e been a

ood incenti,e at one point in time" may no #oner ho#d it$ ,a#e to that indi,ida# anymore 0 9enn

State or#d Camp$" (&))2.

Expectancy theory" by natre" on#y foc$e$ on the extrin$ic moti,ationa# factor$ and the con$cio$

deci$ion$ emp#oyee$ make abot their performance. any emp#oyee$ and #eader$ are not

moti,ated $o#e#y by extrin$ic factor$" $ch a$ a paycheck" bon$" or pb#ic reconition. A$ a re$#t"

/the concept of in$trmenta#ity i$ fond to be ambio$ and diffic#t to operationa#i5e/ 0abba 3


16/23

Empirica# re$earch $tdie$ ha,e been condcted that demon$trate that expectancy theory /inore$

the rationa#ity a$$mption$ nder#yin thi$ choice beha,ior/ 0abba 3


17/23

reconi5e that fo##o-er$ differ reat#y reardin their #e,e#$ of $e#fe$teem in reard$ to comp#etin a

ta$k. Confidence -i## p#ay a $inificant ro#e in the fo##o-er?$ abi#ity to percei,e their effort a$ capab#e

of reachin a de$ired performance otpt. Forth" a #eader need$ to determine and $pecify -hich

otcome$ con$titte acceptab#e performance" and -hich do not. The otcome$ need to be

commnicated c#ear#y -ith preci$ed oa#$ that need to be accomp#i$hed. Both the fo##o-er and the

#eader need to reach a mta# areement on the beha,ior that repre$ent$ a $cce$$f# otcome for

each of them. Concrete #e,e#$ of performance a##o- the fo##o-er an accrate a$$e$$ment of the

$trenth a$$ociated -ith the E9 #inkae. Fifth" a #eader $ho#d reconi5e that expenditre of effort

for many fo##o-er$ #ead$ to $ati$faction on the ob 0Bro-n 3 9eter$on" )1142. o$t indi,ida#$ -ant

to fee# $ef#" competent" in,o#,ed and prodcti,e. The -orkp#ace pro,ide$ a ,ehic#e to f#fi## the$e

need$. A #eader that i$ a-are of the$e di$tinct a$pect$ of hman perception$" a$ they re#ate to

expectancy" can effecti,e#y nder$tand and faci#itate the E9 #inkae for each of their emp#oyee$

0I$aac" (&&)2. anain the$e e#ement$ effecti,e#y a##o-$ a #eader to $trenthen the expectancy of

each of their fo##o-er$.

r$ani2ational Applications+ Instrumentality

The $trenth performance otpt 0in$trmenta#ity2 #inkae -i## be continent pon three be#ief$ of the

fo##o-er. Fir$t" a fo##o-er need$ to be ab#e to tr$t that a #eader -i## be ab#e to de#i,er the otcome

promi$ed. It i$ the otcome 0i,en that the otcome i$ ,a#ed by the indi,ida#2 that dri,e$ the

moti,ationa# $tate accordin to the expectancy theory. A fo##o-er$ abi#ity to tr$t that a #eader can

and -i## fo##o- throh -ith an otcome reat#y effect$ the 9! #inkae. In$trmenta#ity i$ rooted in

the beliefthat the performance rendered -i## re$#t in the otcome promi$ed. Second" #eader$ need

to make $re fo##o-er$ recei,e fair treatment in a predictab#e manner. Thi$ i$ not to $e$t that

peop#e $ho#d be treated exact#y the $ame. A$ -e kno- from thi$ theory" peop#e ,ary ba$ed on

indi,ida# difference$.


18/23

are a$$imi#ated into the oa#$ of the orani5ation. The pairin of the$e oa#$ i$ crcia# to -orkp#ace

moti,ation. If the fo##o-er percei,e$ that their oa#$ are conrent -ith the oa#$ of the orani5ation"

the fo##o-er;$ moti,ationa# force a$$ociated -ith recei,in otcome$ of hih ,a#ence are a#ined -ith

the frtherin of orani5ationa# intere$t$. A #eader?$ abi#ity to do thi$ -i## reat#y enhance both their

nder$tandin of ,a#ence" a$ it pertain$ to indi,ida# fo##o-er$" a$ -e## a$ i,e them the abi#ity to $e

thi$ nder$tandin to moti,ate -orker$ on the ob.

Application of Expectancy -eory in t-e 3lassroom

Expectancy theory a#$o app#ie$ to the c#a$$room and $tdent #earnin. ch re$earch ha$ been

condcted on the ,a#idity of expectancy theory in the c#a$$room bt ha$ not offered mch in the -ay

in -hich teacher$ can $e expectancy theory in the c#a$$room 0


19/23

or obtainin a ood ob. Commnication of $tdent?$ prore$$ i$ a#$o important to increa$in their

moti,ation to #earn accordin to


20/23

a"tally re!arded individals or peror#an"e rather than seniority( e*ort( s'ill

level( and ,ob di-"lty( expe"tan"y theory #ight be #"h #ore valid$ Ho!ever(

rather than invalidating it( this "riti"is# "an explain !hy a signif"ant seg#ent o

the !or'or"e exerts lo! e*ort on the ,ob$. /""ording to 0oontz and 1eihri"h( the

expe"tan"y theory re"ognizes the i#portan"e o varios individal needs and

#otivations$ It ths avoids so#e o the si#plisti" eatres o Maslo! and Herzbergapproa"hes$ It does see# #ore realisti"$ It helps to har#onize individal goal !ith

organizational ob,e"tives$ /nd it is "onsistent !ith the syste# o #anaging by

ob,e"tives$ 23 /nother i#portant aspe"t o this theory is that it nderstands the

sb,e"tive di*eren"es that "ase di*eren"es in #otivation o di*erent individals$

Expe"tan"y theory does not spe"iy exa"tly !hi"h re!ards !ill #otivate parti"lar

grops o !or'ers$ In this sense( the theory allo!s or the a"t that the re!ards and

their lin' !ith peror#an"e are li'ely to be seen as 4ite di*erent in di*erent

"ltres$22 Managers !ho haveapplied this theory have generally been positive

abot the pra"ti"al tility o this theory$ /""ording to 5ole and 0elly( it has led to

i#prove#ents in !or' redesign( !here e#phasis has been laid on intrinsi" ,ob

a"tors( s"h as variety atono#y( tas' identity and eedba"'$26 7It is o vale in

nderstanding organizational behavior$ It "an "lariy the relationship bet!een

individal and organizational goals$ 88$ The 9IE theory re"ognizes the "o#plexities

o #otivation:88882; Expe"tan"y theory allo!s or "ertain dyna#i" eatres o

people


21/23

#ay be la"'ing one or #ore o the above para#eters to ta'e a de"ision o !hat

#otivates a parti"lar e#ployee$ Cantitative #easres o expe"tan"y(

instr#entality and valen"e that are sggested in the theory #ay not at ti#es be

possible or #ay be too di-"lt to "al"late$ /lso !hether the or#la sggested or

#otivation "an in realisti" ter#s "al"late and be applied to #otivation is a sb,e"t

o "ontroversy$ Sher#erhorn and Hnt are o the opinion that althogh the theoryhas re"eived sbstantial spport( spe"if" details( s"h as the operation o the

#ltiplier e*e"t( re#ain sb,e"t to so#e 4estion$2D Experts have also sggested

that reliable #easres o valen"e( expe"tan"y and instr#entality need to be

developed$ 2 So#e "riti"s sggest it has only li#ited se and is #ore valid !here

individals "learly per"eive e*ort peror#an"e and peror#an"ere!ard lin'ages$

Ae"ase e! individals do( the theory tends to be idealisti"$2& IRGAM

!!!$ir,b#$org 9ol#e %o 9II Septe#ber > 632= Isse . Bage J Klobal

1isdo# Resear"h Bbli"ations /ll Rights Reserved$ 7It does not provide spe"if"

soltions to #otivational proble#s$ 8$$the #odel also ass#es888$ that people

are rational and logi"ally "al"lating$ S"h an ass#ption #ay be too idealisti"$

88$$ The expe"tan"y #odel atte#pts only to #irror the "o#plex #otivational

pro"ess$ It does not atte#pt ho! #otivational de"isions are a"tally #ade:8882+

On si#ilar lines it "an also be said that all #otivational de"isions that individals

ta'e are not as exa"t or as "ons"ios as this theory !old li'e s to believe$ The

#odel a"es a proble# !hen the sa#e in"entives are given to di*erent e#ployees

!ho #ay have di*erent reasons or sperior peror#an"e$ The theory also see#s

la"'ing !hen it ails to "o#e to grips !ith the a"t that so#e e#ployees #ay be

#ore interested in intrinsi" re!ards and nor extrinsi" re!ards$ /nother potential

!ea'ness o the expe"tan"y theory is that it ass#es all ne"essities are in pla"e(

!hi"h is not al!ays the "ase$ E#ployeesneed to have the ability( the resor"es and

the opportnity to peror# their ,ob !ell$ /n exa#ple o this !old be the rolegeneti"s "an play as a biologi"al li#iting a"tor o peror#an"e 1al'er( 633;$2.

/""ording to so#e experts this theory !ill not be very ritl in predi"ting the

#otivation o e#ployees in si#pler( typi"al( rotinized and lo!er level ,obs and

e#ployees in organizations$ Other experts believe that this theory #ight !or'

better in so#e "ltres and "ontries than in others$ Resear"h has sggested that

Expe"tan"y Theory is #ore li'ely to explain #otivation in Lnited States than in

other "ontries$ Beople ro# the LS tend to be very goal oriented and tend to thin'

they "an in)en"e their o!n s""ess$ At di*erent patterns #ay exist in di*erent

"ontries$ 63 Cestions have also been raised regarding the hedonisti" ass#ptions

nderlying the Expe"tan"y Theory and their validity and appli"ability$

Vroom's Expectancy Theory is based on these three components

Expectancy7

Expectancy can be de$cribed a$ the be#ief that hiher or increa$ed effort -i## yie#d better


22/23

performance. Thi$ can be exp#ained by the thinkin of /If I -ork harder" I -i## make $omethin better/.

Condition$ that enhance expectancy inc#de ha,in the correct re$orce$ a,ai#ab#e" ha,in

the re6ired $ki## $et for the ob at hand" and ha,in the nece$$ary $pport to et the ob done

correct#y.

In$trmenta#ity7

In$trmenta#ity can be de$cribed a$ the thoht that if an indi,ida# perform$ -e##" then a ,a#ed

otcome -i## come to that indi,ida#. Some thin$ that he#p in$trmenta#ity are ha,in a c#ear

nder$tandin of the re#ation$hip bet-een performance and the otcome$" ha,in tr$t and re$pect

for peop#e -ho make the deci$ion$ on -ho et$ -hat re-ard" and $eein tran$parency in the

proce$$ of -ho et$ -hat re-ard.

:a#ence7

:a#ence mean$ /,a#e/ and refer$ to be#ief$ abot otcome de$irabi#ity 0Redmond" (&)&2. There are

indi,ida# difference$ in the #e,e# of ,a#e a$$ociated -ith any $pecific otcome. For in$tance"

a bon$ may not increa$e moti,ation for an emp#oyee -ho i$ moti,ated by forma# reconition or byincrea$ed $tat$ $ch a$ promotion. :a#ence can be thoht of a$ the pre$$re or importance that a

per$on pt$ on an expected otcome.

:room conc#de$ that the force of moti,ation in an emp#oyee can be ca#c#ated $in the

form#a7 Motivation = Valence*Expectancy*Instrumentality


23/23

notes for presentation.docx

Documents