4.

Expectancy Theory
Created by BRIAN FRANCIS REDMOND, last modified by COLIN FREDRICK PHELPS on Feb 10, 2014

Expectancy Theory Overview

The Expectancy Theory of Motivation is best described as a process theory. It provides an
explanation of why individuals choose one behavioral option over others. "The basic idea behind
the theory is that people will be motivated because they believe that their decision will lead to
their desired outcome" (Redmond, 2009). "Expectancy theory proposes that work motivation is
dependent upon the perceived association between performance and outcomes and individuals
modify their behavior based on their calculation of anticipated outcomes" (Chen & Fang, 2008).
This has a practical and positive benefit of improving motivation because it can, and has, helped
leaders create motivational programs in the workplace. "This theory is built upon the idea that
motivation comes from a person believing they will get what they want in the form of
performance or rewards. Although the theory is not "all inclusive" of individual motivation
factors, it provides leaders with a foundation on which to build a better understanding of ways to
motivate subordinates" (AETC, 2008). Expectancy theory is classified as a process theory of
motivation because it emphasizes individual perceptions of the environment and subsequent
interactions arising as a consequence of personal expectations.

The theory states that individuals have different sets of goals and can be motivated if they believe
that:
 There is a positive correlation between efforts and performance.
 Favorable performance will result in a desirable reward.
 The reward will satisfy an important need.

The desire to satisfy the need is strong enough to make the effort
worthwhile (Lawler, Porter. L., Vroom,
2009).
Tolman's Behavior and Motivation Theory
 Edward Tolman was a cognitive behavioral psychologist who
studied motivation and learning. He was born in Newton,
Massachusetts in 1886. He was introduced to Gestalt
psychology while studying in Germany. Tolman used rats for
his experiments on learning. One of these experiments led to
the theory of latent learning. This theory describes learning
with no obvious reward for the learner. Tolman also began to
develop the theory of behavior and motivation. He theorized
that a motive drives a person to behave a certain way until
some intrinsic need is met. Until the need is met the person will
continue to behave in the same manner. This was the start of
motivation theories. Vroom would add to Tolman’s work with the Expectancy theory later in
history (VanderZwaag, 1998).

1
Vroom's Expectancy Theory
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".
Conditions that enhance expectancy include having the correct resources available, having
the required skill set for the job at hand, and having the necessary support to get the job done
correctly.

 Instrumentality

Instrumentality can be described as the thought that if an individual performs well, then a valued
outcome will come to that individual. Some things that help instrumentality are having a clear
understanding of the relationship between performance and the outcomes, having trust and respect
for people who make the decisions on who gets what reward, and seeing transparency in the
process of who gets what reward.

 Valence
Valence means "value" and refers to beliefs about outcome desirability (Redmond, 2010). There
are individual differences in the level of value associated with any specific outcome. For instance,

2
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

           

 In the workplace, one could view the order in this way:

3
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.

Although many people correlate high performance with high rewards, many times the theory is
limited because rewards are not always directly correlated with performance in many
organizations. It is related to other parameters also such as position, effort, responsibility,
education, etc.

It is important to remember that there is a difference between incentives and motivators.

Incentives are non-material objects. They are manipulated by managers and leaders to get
employees to do desired tasks. Incentives may work, if the incentive is something the employee
desires to work towards. But, if the incentive is taken away, the behavior may not sustain.
Motivation theories need to accentuate motivation and not incentives. For this reason, Motivation
implies that people make decisions about their own behavior and what motivates them.

The locus of control is different for incentives and motivation. Motivation is intrinsic control
where incentives are extrinsically controlled by people in the organization (Mathibe, 2011).

_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
___

4
 Expectancy Theory Components

As previously described; Expectancy Theory has three major components:

1. Expectancy
2. Instrumentality
3. Valence       

These components work together to establish our Motivation Force (MF). The diagram below
shows the elements involved in each component of MF; while the second diagram illustrates the
relationship of each component.

Diagram 1

(Scholl, 2002)

Diagram 2

(Swenson, date unknown)     

Expectancy (E→P)

"The relationship between Effort and Performance is known as the E-P linkage" (Isaac, 2001).
"The expectancy component of expectancy theory is the belief that one's effort (E), will give the

5
 expected performance (P) goal" (Scholl, 2002). Expectancy is slated as the first component of the
VIE theory; illustrating that in order for a person to be effectively motivated, that individual needs
to perceive that their personal expenditure of effort will result in an acceptable level of
performance. The concept of perception is very important throughout this theory, as it concludes
that in order for a person to be motivated into putting effort towards a task, they need only to
believe that their effort will result in a certain level of performance, or that a certain level of
performance is attainable. An example would be, "If I salt the sidewalk, will it be safer to walk
on?" There are variables that affect an individual's expectancy perception. These variables include
self-efficacy (a person's belief in their ability to perform successfully), goal difficulty (how
attainable is this goal), and control (does the person actually have control over the expected
outcome). 

Because VIE Theory involves perceptions, and expectancy is a belief about the future rather than a
concrete existence in the environment, people's beliefs can vary greatly (Redmond, 2010). This
means that while one person perceives their efforts to lead to a great accomplishment, another
person may believe their same effort will not lead to much accomplishment at all. This difference
in perceptions is due to many factors. Two factors that can affect expectancy are ability and
interest (Redmond, 2010). "Lack of ability or interest will decrease a person’s expectancy.  With
proper training and a high interest level, people will have an increased level of expectancy.
Employers, for example, need to keep this in mind as they create ideas to motivate their
employees. By encouraging employees and building self-efficacy, managers can increase
employee expectancy" (Redmond, 2010).

A key question to ask to determine expectancy is:

What is the strength of the relationship between the effort I put forth and how well I perform?

Additional examples of determinations of expectancy include (Scholl, 2002):

 If I spend most of tonight studying, will it improve my grade on tomorrow's math exam?
 If I work harder than everyone else in the plant, will I produce more?
 If I practice my foul shot more, will my foul shooting improve in the game?
 If I make more sales calls, will I make any more sales?

The second component in the Expectancy Theory equation is Instrumentality. Instrumentality is

the perception that a given performance level is related to a given outcome. In other words, a
person's belief that a given output will facilitate a given reward (outcome). A person will only
perform at a certain level if they believe that the performance will lead to a given expressed
outcome. The relationship is represented by the P-O linkage (Isaac, 2001). The instrumentality
component of Expectancy Theory is the person's belief that if they can meet performance
expectations, they will receive "a great reward" (Scholl, 2002). An example of instrumentality of
Expectancy Theory would be, "If I complete more work than anyone else, will I get a promotion
before they do?" The variables affecting instrumentality are trust (in leaders), control, and policies
(how formalized are rewards systems in written policies?) (Scholl, 2002).

6
 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 influential
element of perceptions and beliefs, what people believe to be an outcome may not be the actual
outcome resulting from their performance. "If people do not see a connection between their
performance level and a possible outcome, they are less likely to be motivated" (Redmond, 2010).

A key question to ask to determine instrumentality is:

What is the strength of the relationship between the things I do and the rewards I get from my
actions?

Examples of determinations of instrumentality (Scholl, 2002):

 If I get a better grade on tomorrow's math test will I get an "A" in math?
 If I produce more than anyone else in the plant, will I get a bigger raise? A faster
promotion?
 If my foul shooting improves will I have a shot as a team MVP?
 If I make more sales will I get a bonus? A greater commission?
 If I make more sales will I believe that I am the best sales person or be recognized by
others as the best sales person?

Valence V(R)

Valence is the final component of VIE theory. Valence is characterized by the extent to which a
person values a given outcome or reward. It is important to note that valence is not the actual level
of satisfaction that an individual receives from an outcome, but rather it is the EXPECTED
satisfaction a person receives from a particular outcome (Redmond, 2010). This “value” is based
in individual differences. The value a person places on an expected outcome or reward is directly
related to who they are; their needs, goals, and values/preferences. For example this could include
things such as paid time off, extra cash bonuses, or raises.  This subjective value is based on the
individual's perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs. "The level at which an individual values an
outcome is described as it's valence" (Gerhart, Minkoff, Olsen, 1995).  Valence can include a
range from both a postive to negative outcome.  A negative outcome is something that a person
percieves as being an outcome that would lead to dissatisfaction.  A psotive outcome would occur
if a person views it as being good and also being on more valued outcomes after like a promotion. 

A key question to ask to determine valence is:

How valuable do I perceive the potential reward(s) to be?

Examples of determinations of valence (Scholl, 2002):

 How much I really want an "A" in math?
 Do I want a bigger raise? Is it worth the extra effort? Do I want a promotion?
 How important is it to me to be team MVP?

7
 Do I need a sales bonus? Is the extra time I spend making extra sales calls worth the extra
commission?
 Is it important to me that I am the best salesperson?

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

Motivational 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

8
negative or low, then motivation will also be negative or low. The outcome also depends on  how
the person values the reward. For instance, a billionaire is likely to be less motivated by a  $100
bonus compared to someone making minimum wage (Redmond, 2010). For each action,
expectancy, instrumentality, and valence can be assessed and a motivational force computed
(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.

Among the many factors that influence expectancy, such as ability or interest, perception is
perhaps the most significant factor. Perception is the engine that drives the belief of effort,
performance, and outcome. Thus, if any one condition is perceived that it will be low, motivation
will be low - just as the bond between links affects the chain. Because beliefs can vary, however; a
subjective probability formula that is multiplicative in nature is used to more accurately
measure expectancy and arrive at a predicted motivational force (represented as a number). The
higher the number, the higher the motivation, with each component having its own probability
range.

VIE Formula

The VIE formula is represented (within a range) as MF = E(V x I) [3]

The range is represented in Table 1 below:

Table 1: VIE Ranges

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 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

9
set goals.  In other words, valence * expectancy * instrumentality = motivation (Iyer, 2009). If
a promotions are only awarded based on seniority, then a new employee is unlikely to put forth
effort that would otherwise get them promoted. Since link between obtaining what they want and
what is done is non-existent, instrumentality is low (Redmond, 2010). An employee with a
postiive level of expectancy believes that exerting effort will result in a positive outcome for them.
If the same employee has a high level of instrumentality, they would believe that their rewards
(outcome) are based on job performance. Finally, if an organization offers rewards that the
employee values (valiance) such as promotions, bonuses, and/or fringe benefits like a company
car, then the employee would be considered to be a motivated one.

Expectancy is a person's strength of conviction in regards to the ability to attain goals. People who
desire the rewards that management is expected to bestow upon them, on account of superior
performance, should have strong convictions regarding their ability to deliver. An employee who
is not positively oriented with respect to the perceived consequences of the attainment of goals,
will have a zero valence. Employees should feel that the efforts that he/she would like to put into
work would yield the desired results. It is ultimately a question of how confident one feels about
oneself. A self-proclaimed achiever may be immensely confident of the ability to perform
astoundingly high, while a skeptic may have an entirely different perspective. An employee who
feels that the efforts will not yield the desired results, in terms of achieving the set targets, will
have a low probability of expectancy. Probability of an event can assume values between 0 and 1.
How well an employee scores on this scale of confidence will have a direct bearing on the
employee's level of motivation (Iyer, 2009).

*Motivational Force (MF)= Expectancy x Instrumentality x 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 equation becomes zero. If a person does not have one of the three products, then overall
motivation is lacking.

To conclude this section, let's consider the following example which

highlights the understanding that thought process towards motivation
is based on individual factors, and perceptions:
Example  
1

  Sales Department Example 

Let's consider one initiative to motivate staff, the offer of promotion within a
sales department if certain sales targets are met. For one member of staff this
is highly attractive (Valence = + 0.9), but due to their portfolio of clients,
and unsuccessful past sales performance, they perceive achievement of the
outcome, e.g. the sales target, almost impossible (Expectancy = 0.1). By
applying the formula we see that the motivational force will be : 
F = V x E 

10
 F = 0.9 x 0.1 = 0.09 
Alternatively, another member of staff finds the possibility of promotion
reasonably attractive (Valence = + 0.6), and based on their portfolio of
clients, and successful past sales performance, they feel reasonably
confident that they will achieve the sales target set (Expectancy = 0.8). Here
we see that the motivational force is far stronger in comparison: 
F = V x E 
F = 0.6 x 0.8 = 0.48

Example
Source:http://www.examstutor.com/business/resources/studyroom/people_and_organisations/moti
vation_theory/5-vroomsexpectancytheory.php

References:

Hancock, D. R. (1995).  What Teachers May Do to Influence Student Motivation: An Application

of Expectancy Theory.  The Journal of General Education, 44(3), 171-179.    

 
  

11