Expectancy theory2 Key elements Expectancy theory (AKA Expectancy theory of motivation) proposes an individual will behave or act in a certain way because they are motivated to select a specific behavior over other behaviors due to what they expect the result of that selected behavior will be.[1] In essence, the motivation of the behavior selection is determined by the desirability of the outcome. However, at the core of the theory is the cognitive process of how an individual processes the different motivational elements. This is done before making the ultimate choice. The outcome is not the sole determining factor in making the decision of how to behave.[1] The Expectancy Theory of Motivation explains the behavioral process of why individuals choose one behavioral option over another. The theory explains that individuals can be motivated towards goals if they believe that: there is a positive correlation between efforts and performance, the outcome of a favorable performance will result in a desirable reward, a reward from a performance will satisfy an important need, and/or the outcome satisfies their need enough to make the effort worthwhile. Vroom introduces three variables within the expectancy theory which are valence (V), expectancy (E) and instrumentality (I). The three elements are important behind choosing one element over another because they are clearly defined: effort-performance expectancy (E>P expectancy), performance-outcome expectancy (P>O expectancy).[5] Expectancy theory is about the mental processes regarding choice, or choosing. It explains the processes that an individual undergoes to make choices. In the study of organizational behavior, expectancy theory is a motivation theory first proposed by Victor Vroom of the Yale School of Management. Three components of Expectancy theory: Expectancy, Instrumentality, and Valence “This theory emphasizes the needs for organizations to relate rewards directly to performance and to ensure that the rewards provided are those rewards deserved and wanted by the recipients.” [2] 1. Expectancy: Effort → Performance (E→P) 2. Instrumentality: Performance → Outcome (P→O) 3. Valence: V(R) Outcome → Reward Victor H. Vroom (1964) defines motivation as a process governing choices among alternative forms of voluntary activities, a process controlled by the individual. The individual makes choices based on estimates of how well the expected results of a given behavior are going to match up with or eventually lead to the desired results. Motivation is a product of the individual’s expectancy that a certain effort will lead to the intended performance, the instrumentality of this performance to achieving a certain result, and the desirability of this result for the individual, known as valence.[3] 1 2.1 Expectancy: Effort → Performance (E→P) Expectancy is the belief that one’s effort (E) will result in attainment of desired performance (P) goals. 1. Self efficacy- the person’s belief about their ability to successfully perform a particular behavior. The individual will assess whether they have the required skills or knowledge desired to achieve their goals. 2. Goal difficulty- when goals are set too high or performance expectations that are made too difficult. This will most likely lead to low expectancy. This occurs when the individual believes that their desired results are unattainable. 3. Perceived control - Individuals must believe that they have some degree of control over the expected outcome. When individuals perceive that the outcome is beyond their ability to influence, expectancy, and thus motivation, is low. Author In 1964, Vroom developed the Expectancy theory through his study of the motivations behind decision making. His theory is relevant to the study of management. Currently, Vroom is a John G. Searle Professor of Organization and Management at the Yale University School of Management.[4] 1 [9] 2. signments.3 Current research ward may present itself in the form of a pay increase. This re. is not useful. energized: Outcome expectancy is the belief a person has when they Motivational Force (MF) = Expectancy x Instrumen.accomplish the task. though well known in work motivation literature. 8). values and Sources of Motivation. According to Holdmissions.1 Management performances given. the employee may be influenced by other pay increases and bonuses. where the decision fect and behavior separately. whereas valence is rooted in an individual’s the technology. rewards and organizational goals Expectancy Theory. recipients. Selfprefer attaining the outcome to not attaining it. Self-efficacy is the belief is measured on the value of the reward. etc. is not as familiar to scholars or practitioners outside that field. In order to enhance the performance-outcome tie.[8] come (P→O) Instrumentality is the belief that a person will receive a reward if the performance expectation is met. −1 →0→ +1 bers’ behavioral intentions/responses to use of new soft−1= avoiding the outcome 0 = indifferent to the out. If an employee is mandated to use (cognitions). related with outcome (how much money is made). . Instrumentality is low when the reward is the same for all 3. goals.2 Computer users particular outcome. capabilities and improve their belief that added effort will in fact lead to better performance.[7] The valence refers to the value the individual personally Lori Baker-Eveleth and Robert Stone. individuals se. based on the rewards provided are deserved and wanted by the the performance. recognition.Emphasizes the connections among expected behaviors.ware. Valence is characterized by the extent to which a person values a given outcome or reward.low the manager to motivate employees in order to get the highest result and effectiveness out of the workplace. p. when an employee is Examples of valued outcomes in the workplace include. Managers also need to ensure that people who will decide who gets what outcome.has a larger effect than outcome expectancy. manFactors associated with the individual’s instrumentality agers should use systems that tie rewards very closely for outcomes are trust. which is based on their needs.Emphasizes self-interest in the alignment of rewards with employee’s wants.3 Valence V(R) Valence:[6] the value an individual places on the rewards of an outcome.ment theory focused on motivation. .2 3 CURRENT RESEARCH Instrumentality: Performance → Out.perceiving an employee’s belief for computer use (Ban- .The self-efficacy theory can be applied to predicting and tively determine what their employee values. conducted an empirical study on 154 faculty memplaces on the rewards. Expectancy and instrumentality are attitudes is a benefit to them. goals. promotions.2 2.factors that it should be used. this will al. With commissions performance is directly cor. efficacy and outcome expectancy impacts a person’s efValence is one behavioral alternative. •Control of how the decision is made. control and policies: •Trusting the to performance.ford and Lovelace-Elmore (2001. time off. Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory is one such manageAnother way that instrumental outcomes work is com. This is not an actual level of satisfaction rather the expected satisfaction of a 3. Vroom asserts. a desired outcome is attained. new as. University of Idaho. not mandated. promotion. the employees will use it but may feel it value system. •Policies understanding of the tie. Influential factors include one’s values.[9] In order to improve the effort-performance of who gets what outcome. needs. On the other hand. Selftality x Valence efficacy has a direct impact on outcome expectancy and When deciding among behavioral options.[10] Employlect the option with the greatest amount of motivational ees will accept technology if they believe the technology force (MF). recognition or sense of accomplishment. The model be. If management can effec. The antecedents with previous computer expericome +1 = welcomes the outcome ence ease of the system.a person has that they possess the skills and abilities to low shows the direction of motivation. If “intensity of work effort depends on the perception that performance is high and many goods are sold the more an individual’s effort will result in a desired outcome”. managers should engage in training to improve their correlation between performance and outcomes. and administrator support for In order for the valence to be positive. when behavior is successfully accomplish something. the person must they are linked to behavioral intentions to use the software through self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. money the person will make. preferences and sources that strengthen their motivation for a particular outcome. Edward Lawler claims that the simplicity of expectancy theory is deceptive because it assumes that if an employer makes a reward. Brophy (1983) made several important observations about teacher expectation effects. These findings are particularly relevant because they show a form of the expectancy theory: how teachers have certain expectations of students. 639). W. they will not be motivated by such promotions. First and foremost. the outcome. Teachers form differential expectations for students early in the school year. any desired outcome was generated by the individual’s behavior.[13] In discussing work related to this model. 1983. and feelings of failure are examples of self-efficacy theory expectations. Maloney and J.[15] However. Brophy stated that expectancy effects may be larger in the early elementary grades.[14] Their criticisms of the theory were based upon the expectancy model being too simplistic in nature. he pointed out that various situational and individual difference factors influence the extent to which teacher expectations will act as self-fulfilling prophecies. Brophy contended that selffulfilling prophecy effects have relatively weak effects on student achievement. changing achievement 5% to 10%. This process will ultimately affect student achievement so that teachers’ initial expectancies are confirmed. Lawler’s new proposal for expectancy theory is not against Vroom’s theory. As a result. This theory associates an individual’s cognitive state affective behavioral outcomes (Staples. and Porter and Lawler (1968). especially when the information was given to teachers during the first few weeks of school.[13] 4 Criticisms 3. which this reward (promotion) will yield. and social persuasion to perform the task. 1986. enticing enough. they behave differently toward different students. Because. Based on these expectations. he argued that most of the beliefs teachers hold about student are accurate. vicarious experience performing the task. Lawler argues that since there have been a variety of developments of expectancy theory since its creation in 1964. emotional or physiological arousal regarding the task. Three. In addition to that. Hulland. which is actually impossible in the United States with marginal tax brackets. and as a result of these behaviors the students begin to understand what the teacher expects from them. where their family is residing. there is a belief on the part of that individual that their action(s) will achieve the outcome they desire. The model includes the following sequence. Similarly. In the upper elementary grades more whole-class teaching methods are used. may not be valued by those who are receiving it. such as a financial bonus or promotion. Raudenbush’s (1984) meta-analysis of findings from different teacher expectancy studies in which expectancies were induced by giving teachers artificial information Critics of the expectancy model include Graen (1969) Lawler (1971).[16] First. the expectancy model needs to be updated. If students accept the teachers’ expectations and behavior toward them then they will be more likely to act in ways that confirm the teacher’s initial expectations. although he did note that such effects usually are negative expectation effects rather than positive effects. as they attempt to socialize children into the student role. there is a must condition for such promotions. Lawler and Porter (1967). whenever there are a number of outcomes. individuals will usually have a preference among those outcomes. Second. employees will increase their productivity to obtain the reward. and how they treat the students differently because of those expectations. expectations. and so their expectations usually reflect students’ actual performance levels. Their model posits that teachers’ expectations indirectly affect children’s achievement: “teacher expectations could also affect student outcomes indirectly by leading to differential teacher treatment of students that would condition student attitudes.3 Models of Teacher Expectancy Effects [11][12] Jere Brophy and Thomas Good provided a comprehensive model of how teacher expectations could influence children’s achievement. about children’s intelligence showed that expectancy effects were stronger in Grades 1 and 2 than in Grades 3 through Grade 6. For example. which may minimize expectation effects. Two. The following constructs of the self-efficacy theory that impact attitudes and intentions to perform: past experience or mastery with the task. if anyone in the armed forces or security agencies is promoted. For instance. Bates & Khasawneh. if the new place is far from their permanent residence.M. and the results will be other way round. Lawler’s new model is based on four claims. 1998). this only works if the employees believe the reward is beneficial to their immediate needs. that they he/she will be transferred to other locations. because teachers have more one-on-one interactions with students then. Some evidence supports this claim. expectancy effects in Rosenthal and Jacobson’s (1968) study were strongest during the earlier grades. a promotion that provides higher status but requires longer hours may be a deterrent to an employee who values evening and weekend time with their children. these critics started making adjustments to Vroom’s model. p.3 dura. 2007). the actions generated by the individual were generated by the preferred outcome and expectation of the individual. performance. and behavior” (Brophy. McFillen [16] found that ex- . Instead of just looking at expectancy and instrumentality. & Higgins. In such cases. Motivation.F. Finally. a $2 increase in salary may not be desirable to an employee if the increase pushes her into a tax bracket in which she believes her net pay is actually reduced. 1959) [18] Theory X and theory Y (Douglas McGregor. A. 2010.arrod. Richard Scholl.php [6] Maslow—Move Aside! A Heuristical Motivation Model for Leaders in Career and Technical Education Pg.edu/hinze/Expectancy. “Motivation: Expectancy Theory”.4 7 FURTHER READING pectancy theory could explain the motivation of those [8] individuals who were employed by the construction industry. 243-253. 482) [4] School of Management. Management – 4th edition. Bruce H. Personnel and Human Resource Management – Text and cases. Available: http://www. American Psychologist.pdf communication. A. 2001.Hall [5] P. p. Mahwah: Routledge. Retrieved October 2. (1977).yale.lib.edu/Faculty/vhv1/ • Bandura. 1968. (August. from http://www. [2] Montana. D. 2005. New Jersey: Prentice. & Lawler. [19] [19] McGregor. Jere Brophy. they used worker expectancy and worker instrumentality. New York. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.).som. E. The Motivation to Work. 1974). (2000) – Himalaya Publishing House ISBN 81-7493-777-3 • Droar. Patrick J. [7] Redmond. A. Charnov. Lovelace-Elmore B. Expectancy is the probability that the individual assigns to work effort being followed by a given level of achieved task performance.antalhaans. Psychological Review. Applying the principles of human motivation to pharmaceutical education. Rinehart and Winston. Student Perceptions in the Classroom.fee. Related theories Motivation Theory is a theory that attempts to explain how [14] http://deepblue.edu/pdf/T922205. 2012.htm Self-Actualization Theory (Maslow.usc.pdf Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow. pp. J Pharm Teach.dcp. co. (2006). D. Thomas Good (1974) Teacher-Student Relationships: Causes and Consequences New York. (2008) . Charnov. For instance. Irwin. Ebook Library. W. Meece. 37.edu/bitstream/2027. 1959. 96-97. Inc. (1988).8:18.lib. Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.uk/archive/concept_vroom.edu/ejournals/JITE/v44n2/pdf/ kroth. 1960) 6 [18] Herzberg & Snyderman. Management . [Online]. Bruce H. Patrick J. E. Worker expectancy is when supervisors create an equal match between the worker and [9] their job. R. 1954) [6] Two-factor theory (Herzberg. 7 Further reading • Bandura. (2008) – Barron’s Educational Series. Subba Rao. 10 – 11 http://scholar.umich.nl/pp/bin/ refereedjournalpublication2031fulltext. Dale H.pdf • Holdford DA. New York. Thomas Good (1987)Looking in classrooms (4th ed. Retrieved 12/04/2013. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) • Porter. Self-Efficacy mechanism in human agency. L. Charles. (1986).. Expectancy theory of motivation. [3] (S. Worker instrumentality is when an employee knows that any increase in their performance leads to achieving their goal. . Yale University.uva. Notes [1] Oliver. Brian. The Human Side of Enterprise. 1954) [6] [17] http://www.. (1982). Journal of Marketing Research 11. 84(2). Hitt. Judith L. McGraw-Hill. “Expectancy Theory”. IL: Richard D. Check date values in: |access-date= (help) Montana.Barron’s Educational Series. [12] 5 Schmidt..4th edition. 191-215. Holt. Condrey.nl/files/deNood2006.42/33872/ and why individuals are able to achieve their goals.[6] 1/0000133.ufl. Expectancy Theory Predictions of Salesmen’s Performance. Inc. ISBN 978-0-7641-3931-4 http://www1.pdf Jere Brophy. Inc. Smith and Michael A.. Managerial Attitudes and Performance.vt. Vroom himself agreed with some of these criticisms and stated that he felt that the theory should be expanded to include research conducted since the original publication of his book.[17] [16] http://web. 1960. ISBN 978-0-7641-3931-4 • Bandura. 122147. Homewood. [10] In the chapter entitled “On the Origins of Expectancy Theory” published in Great Minds in Management by Ken [11] G.E. Shaun Miller. Retrieved 12/04/2013.pdf Expectancy Violations Theory (EVT) is a theory that predicts communication outcomes of non-verbal [15] http://ceo. Harper and Row [13] Schunk. A self-efficacy theory explanation for the management of remote workers in virtual organizations. R. • Stone. & Higgins. D. & Henry. W.html • Stone. R. 3(4). 45-58. W. from http://www. The roles of computer self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in influencing the computer end-user’s organizational commitment. A. 15(1). Schmidt. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. Computer self-efficacy and outcome expectations and their impacts on behavioral intentions to use computers in non-volitional settings. Retrieved January 19. • University of Rhode Island: Charles T. Journal of Business and Management.. Journal of End User Computing. S.org/jcmc/vo13/ issue4/wiesenfeld. Labor Research Center . (2003). J. W. W. 2008. (1998).ascusc. 38-53.. Hulland. & Henry. (1998). Jr.5 • Staples. (1). J. J. C. S. Satishvarmas. DirlBot. NuclearWarfare. Neilc. Tremilux.wikipedia. A930913. And according to the meta-data in the file. Uzbekjamey. Can't sleep. Дмитрий Кошелев.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Ambox_important. Mrt3366.org/wiki/Expectancy_theory?oldid=694660288 Contributors: NathanBeach. Bootstoots. Addbot. Jsgladstone. BattyBot. Khazar2.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Edit-clear. Omnipaedista. Doczilla.wikimedia.svg Original artist: Dsmurat (talk · contribs) • File:Ambox_wikify. Pharaoh of the Wizards. and Jakub Steiner (although minimally).org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Text_document_ with_red_question_mark. Rahulchic. Mattisse. Fiduciaj. X!. Xqbot. Original artist: Benjamin D. KDSSAT. Jim1138. contributors.6 8 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES. BG19bot. ClueBot NG. Kamron.svg Source: https://upload. Isderion. Timotab. MusikAnimal. specifically: “Andreas Nilsson. Philosopher.3 Content license • Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3. Nisrec. UTMaster. Ak44. Funandtrvl.wikimedia. Bit Lordy. Alperen. Yobot.wikimedia. B A Thuriaux.0 . Lova Falk. JorisvS.wikimedia. Abellio~enwiki. MarkBolton. Helpful Pixie Bot.svg Source: https://upload. Karavan-LP.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: penubag • File:Edit-clear. Mmiszka. Loveless. YonaBot. Sadads. Original artist: The people from the Tango! project. Vilashini88. Adelpine. TonyClarke.” • File:Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Created by bdesham with Inkscape. MartinPoulter. FQuist~enwiki. SistaSu.svg Source: https://upload. Esham (bdesham) 8. Eliezerappleton. Boku2000. RA0808.Batman. Nasnema. SueHay.svg License: Public domain Contributors: The Tango! Desktop Project. D6. Btphelps.2 Images • File:Ambox_important. MatthewVanitas.svg from the Tango project. Discospinster.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work. and licenses 8. Denisetritt9962. Vilashini888. INyar. AnomieBOT.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Ambox_wikify. AND LICENSES 8 Text and image sources. Aaron Kauppi. Goetz. Delusion23. Bchr88 and Anonymous: 120 8. based off of Image:Ambox scales. SmackBot. UnCatBot. MsSGL1022. based upon Text-x-generic. CONTRIBUTORS. clown will eat me. Jeodesic.1 Text • Expectancy theory Source: https://en. Klemen Kocjancic. Elavana~enwiki. MastiBot.svg Source: https://upload. Flyer22 Reborn.