Expectancy theory

2 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 specic
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 dierent 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 satises their need enough to make the eort
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 dened: eort-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 rst 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: Eort Performance (EP)

2. Instrumentality: Performance Outcome (PO)
3. Valence: V(R) Outcome Reward

Victor H. Vroom (1964) denes 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 individuals expectancy
that a certain eort 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]

2.1 Expectancy: Eort Performance

(EP)
Expectancy is the belief that ones eort (E) will result in
attainment of desired performance (P) goals.
1. Self ecacy- the persons 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 diculty- when goals are set too high or performance expectations that are made too dicult. 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 inuence, 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

2.2

CURRENT RESEARCH

Instrumentality: Performance Out- low the manager to motivate employees in order to get the
highest result and eectiveness out of the workplace.[8]
come (PO)

Instrumentality is the belief that a person will receive a

reward if the performance expectation is met. This re- 3 Current research
ward may present itself in the form of a pay increase,
promotion, recognition or sense of accomplishment. Instrumentality is low when the reward is the same for all 3.1 Management
performances given.
Victor Vrooms expectancy theory is one such manageAnother way that instrumental outcomes work is com- ment theory focused on motivation. According to Holdmissions. With commissions performance is directly cor- ford and Lovelace-Elmore (2001, p. 8), Vroom asserts,
related with outcome (how much money is made). If intensity of work eort depends on the perception that
performance is high and many goods are sold the more an individuals eort will result in a desired outcome.
money the person will make.
In order to enhance the performance-outcome tie, manFactors associated with the individuals instrumentality agers should use systems that tie rewards very closely
for outcomes are trust, control and policies: Trusting the to performance. Managers also need to ensure that
people who will decide who gets what outcome, based on the rewards provided are deserved and wanted by the
the performance, Control of how the decision is made, recipients.[9] In order to improve the eort-performance
of who gets what outcome, Policies understanding of the tie, managers should engage in training to improve their
correlation between performance and outcomes.
capabilities and improve their belief that added eort will
in fact lead to better performance.[9]

2.3

Valence V(R)

Valence:[6] the value an individual places on the rewards

of an outcome, which is based on their needs, goals, values and Sources of Motivation. Inuential factors include
ones values, needs, goals, preferences and sources that
strengthen their motivation for a particular outcome.

- Emphasizes self-interest in the alignment of rewards

with employees wants.
- Emphasizes the connections among expected behaviors,
rewards and organizational goals
Expectancy Theory, though well known in work motivation literature, is not as familiar to scholars or practitioners outside that eld.

Valence is characterized by the extent to which a person

values a given outcome or reward. This is not an actual
level of satisfaction rather the expected satisfaction of a 3.2 Computer users
particular outcome.[7]
The valence refers to the value the individual personally Lori Baker-Eveleth and Robert Stone, University of
Idaho, conducted an empirical study on 154 faculty memplaces on the rewards. 1 0 +1
bers behavioral intentions/responses to use of new soft1= avoiding the outcome 0 = indierent to the out- ware. The antecedents with previous computer expericome +1 = welcomes the outcome
ence ease of the system, and administrator support for
In order for the valence to be positive, the person must they are linked to behavioral intentions to use the software through self-ecacy and outcome expectancy. Selfprefer attaining the outcome to not attaining it.
ecacy and outcome expectancy impacts a persons efValence is one behavioral alternative, where the decision fect and behavior separately. Self-ecacy is the belief
is measured on the value of the reward. The model be- a person has that they possess the skills and abilities to
low shows the direction of motivation, when behavior is
successfully accomplish something.
energized:
Outcome expectancy is the belief a person has when they
Motivational Force (MF) = Expectancy x Instrumen- accomplish the task, a desired outcome is attained. Selftality x Valence
ecacy has a direct impact on outcome expectancy and
When deciding among behavioral options, individuals se- has a larger eect than outcome expectancy.[10] Employlect the option with the greatest amount of motivational ees will accept technology if they believe the technology
force (MF). Expectancy and instrumentality are attitudes is a benet to them. If an employee is mandated to use
(cognitions), whereas valence is rooted in an individuals the technology, the employees will use it but may feel it
value system.
is not useful. On the other hand, when an employee is
Examples of valued outcomes in the workplace include, not mandated, the employee may be inuenced by other
pay increases and bonuses, promotions, time o, new as- factors that it should be used.
signments, recognition, etc. If management can eec- The self-ecacy theory can be applied to predicting and
tively determine what their employee values, this will al- perceiving an employees belief for computer use (Ban-

3
dura, 1986; Bates & Khasawneh, 2007). This theory associates an individuals cognitive state aective behavioral outcomes (Staples, Hulland, & Higgins, 1998). Motivation, performance, and feelings of failure are examples of self-ecacy theory expectations. The following
constructs of the self-ecacy theory that impact attitudes
and intentions to perform: past experience or mastery
with the task, vicarious experience performing the task,
emotional or physiological arousal regarding the task, and
social persuasion to perform the task.

about childrens intelligence showed that expectancy effects were stronger in Grades 1 and 2 than in Grades 3
through Grade 6, especially when the information was
given to teachers during the rst few weeks of school.
These ndings are particularly relevant because they show
a form of the expectancy theory: how teachers have certain expectations of students, and how they treat the students dierently because of those expectations.[13]

4 Criticisms
3.3

Models of Teacher Expectancy Eects

[11][12]

Jere Brophy and Thomas Good

provided a comprehensive model of how teacher expectations could inuence childrens achievement. Their model posits that
teachers expectations indirectly aect childrens achievement: teacher expectations could also aect student outcomes indirectly by leading to dierential teacher treatment of students that would condition student attitudes,
expectations, and behavior (Brophy, 1983, p. 639). The
model includes the following sequence. Teachers form
dierential expectations for students early in the school
year. Based on these expectations, they behave dierently toward dierent students, and as a result of these behaviors the students begin to understand what the teacher
expects from them. If students accept the teachers expectations and behavior toward them then they will be
more likely to act in ways that conrm the teachers initial expectations. This process will ultimately aect student achievement so that teachers initial expectancies are
conrmed.[13]
In discussing work related to this model, Brophy (1983)
made several important observations about teacher expectation eects. First and foremost, he argued that
most of the beliefs teachers hold about student are accurate, and so their expectations usually reect students
actual performance levels. As a result, Brophy contended
that selullling prophecy eects have relatively weak
eects on student achievement, changing achievement
5% to 10%, although he did note that such eects usually are negative expectation eects rather than positive eects. Second, he pointed out that various situational and individual dierence factors inuence the extent to which teacher expectations will act as self-fullling
prophecies. For instance, Brophy stated that expectancy
eects may be larger in the early elementary grades, because teachers have more one-on-one interactions with
students then, as they attempt to socialize children into
the student role. In the upper elementary grades more
whole-class teaching methods are used, which may minimize expectation eects. Some evidence supports this
claim; expectancy eects in Rosenthal and Jacobsons
(1968) study were strongest during the earlier grades.
Raudenbushs (1984) meta-analysis of ndings from different teacher expectancy studies in which expectancies
were induced by giving teachers articial information

Critics of the expectancy model include Graen (1969)

Lawler (1971), Lawler and Porter (1967), and Porter and
Lawler (1968).[14] Their criticisms of the theory were
based upon the expectancy model being too simplistic
in nature; these critics started making adjustments to
Vrooms model.
Edward Lawler claims that the simplicity of expectancy
theory is deceptive because it assumes that if an employer
makes a reward, such as a nancial bonus or promotion,
enticing enough, employees will increase their productivity to obtain the reward.[15] However, this only works if
the employees believe the reward is benecial to their immediate needs. For example, 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, which is actually impossible in the United
States with marginal tax brackets. Similarly, 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.
In addition to that, if anyone in the armed forces or security agencies is promoted, there is a must condition for
such promotions, that they he/she will be transferred to
other locations. In such cases, if the new place is far from
their permanent residence, where their family is residing,
they will not be motivated by such promotions, and the
results will be other way round. Because, the outcome,
which this reward (promotion) will yield, may not be valued by those who are receiving it.
Lawlers new proposal for expectancy theory is not
against Vrooms theory. Lawler argues that since there
have been a variety of developments of expectancy theory since its creation in 1964; the expectancy model needs
to be updated. Lawlers new model is based on four
claims.[16] First, whenever there are a number of outcomes, individuals will usually have a preference among
those outcomes. Two, there is a belief on the part of that
individual that their action(s) will achieve the outcome
they desire. Three, any desired outcome was generated
by the individuals behavior. Finally, the actions generated by the individual were generated by the preferred
outcome and expectation of the individual.
Instead of just looking at expectancy and instrumentality, W.F. Maloney and J.M. McFillen [16] found that ex-

7 FURTHER READING

pectancy theory could explain the motivation of those [8]

individuals who were employed by the construction industry. For instance, they used worker expectancy and
worker instrumentality. Worker expectancy is when supervisors create an equal match between the worker and [9]
their job. Worker instrumentality is when an employee
knows that any increase in their performance leads to
achieving their goal.
[10]
In the chapter entitled On the Origins of Expectancy
Theory published in Great Minds in Management by Ken
[11]
G. Smith and Michael A. Hitt, 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.
[12]

Schmidt, Charles. Motivation: Expectancy Theory.

Richard Scholl. Retrieved 12/04/2013. Check date values
in: |access-date= (help)
Montana, Patrick J; Charnov, Bruce H, Management - 4th
edition; (2008) - Barrons Educational Series, Inc. ISBN
978-0-7641-3931-4
http://www1.fee.uva.nl/pp/bin/
refereedjournalpublication2031fulltext.pdf
Jere Brophy, Thomas Good (1974) Teacher-Student Relationships: Causes and Consequences New York, Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Jere Brophy, Thomas Good (1987)Looking in classrooms
(4th ed.), New York, Harper and Row

[13] Schunk, Dale H.; Meece, Judith L.. Student Perceptions

in the Classroom. Mahwah: Routledge, 2012. Ebook Library. pp. 96-97.

Related theories

Motivation Theory is a theory that attempts to explain how

[14] http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/33872/
and why individuals are able to achieve their goals.[6]
1/0000133.pdf

Expectancy Violations Theory (EVT) is a theory that

predicts communication outcomes of non-verbal [15] http://ceo.usc.edu/pdf/T922205.pdf
communication.[17]
[16] http://web.dcp.ufl.edu/hinze/Expectancy.htm

Self-Actualization Theory (Maslow, 1954) [6]

[17] http://www.antalhaans.nl/files/deNood2006.pdf

Maslows hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1954) [6]

Two-factor theory (Herzberg, 1959) [18]
Theory X and theory Y (Douglas McGregor, 1960)

[18] Herzberg & Snyderman, 1959. The Motivation to Work.

[19]

[19] McGregor, D., 1960. The Human Side of Enterprise,

New York, McGraw-Hill.

Notes

[1] Oliver, R. (August, 1974). Expectancy is the probability

that the individual assigns to work eort being followed by
a given level of achieved task performance. Expectancy
Theory Predictions of Salesmens Performance. Journal
of Marketing Research 11, 243-253.

7 Further reading
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-ecacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

[2] Montana, Patrick J; Charnov, Bruce H, Management 4th

edition; (2008) Barrons Educational Series, Inc. ISBN
978-0-7641-3931-4

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Ecacy mechanism in

human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122147.

[3] (S.E. Condrey, 2005, p. 482)

[4] School of Management. (1988). Yale University. [Online], Available: http://www.som.yale.edu/Faculty/vhv1/

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought

and action: A social cognitive theory. New Jersey:
Prentice- Hall

[5] P. Subba Rao, Personnel and Human Resource Management Text and cases; (2000) Himalaya Publishing
House ISBN 81-7493-777-3

Droar, D. (2006). Expectancy theory of motivation.

Retrieved October 2, 2010, from http://www.arrod.
co.uk/archive/concept_vroom.php

[6] MaslowMove Aside! A Heuristical Motivation Model

for Leaders in Career and Technical Education Pg. 10
11 http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v44n2/pdf/
kroth.pdf

Holdford DA, Lovelace-Elmore B. Applying the

principles of human motivation to pharmaceutical
education. J Pharm Teach. 2001;8:18.

[7] Redmond, Brian. Expectancy Theory. Shaun Miller.

Retrieved 12/04/2013. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. 1968. Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Homewood, IL: Richard
D. Irwin, Inc.

5
Staples, D. S., Hulland, J. S., & Higgins, C.
A. (1998). A self-ecacy theory explanation
for the management of remote workers in virtual organizations. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3(4). Retrieved January
19, 2008, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vo13/
issue4/wiesenfeld.html
Stone, R. W. & Henry, J. W. (1998). Computer
self-ecacy and outcome expectations and their impacts on behavioral intentions to use computers in
non-volitional settings. Journal of Business and
Management, (1), 45-58.
Stone, R. W. & Henry, J. W. (2003). The roles
of computer self-ecacy and outcome expectancy
in inuencing the computer end-users organizational commitment. Journal of End User Computing, 15(1), 38-53.
University of Rhode Island: Charles T. Schmidt, Jr.
Labor Research Center

8 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

8.1

Text

Expectancy theory Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectancy_theory?oldid=694660288 Contributors:
NathanBeach,
FQuist~enwiki, TonyClarke, INyar, Btphelps, Neilc, Klemen Kocjancic, Alperen, D6, Discospinster, Jeodesic, Bootstoots, Goetz,
Satishvarmas, SmackBot, Philosopher, MartinPoulter, Sadads, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, JorisvS, Doczilla, Eliezerappleton, Mattisse,
Tremilux, Jsgladstone, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Funandtrvl, X!, Timotab, SueHay, Rahulchic, Lova Falk, Uzbekjamey, YonaBot, MarkBolton, Flyer22 Reborn, Vilashini88, Vilashini888, Karavan-LP, B A Thuriaux, Elavana~enwiki, NuclearWarfare, Nisrec, UnCatBot, Bit
Lordy, MatthewVanitas, Addbot, Ak44, Isderion, Mmiszka, Yobot, Adelpine, AnomieBOT, Jim1138, DirlBot, Xqbot, Nasnema, Loveless,
Omnipaedista, Aaron Kauppi, Kamron.Batman, Denisetritt9962, UTMaster, MastiBot, , Boku2000, RA0808,
A930913, ClueBot NG, KDSSAT, Delusion23, Abellio~enwiki, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, MusikAnimal, BattyBot, Mrt3366, Khazar2,
Fiduciaj, SistaSu, MsSGL1022, Bchr88 and Anonymous: 120

8.2

Images

File:Ambox_important.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Ambox_important.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work, based o of Image:Ambox scales.svg Original artist: Dsmurat (talk contribs)
File:Ambox_wikify.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Ambox_wikify.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Own work Original artist: penubag
File:Edit-clear.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Edit-clear.svg License: Public domain Contributors: The
Tango! Desktop Project. Original artist:
The people from the Tango! project. And according to the meta-data in the le, specically: Andreas Nilsson, and Jakub Steiner (although
minimally).
File:Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Text_document_
with_red_question_mark.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Created by bdesham with Inkscape; based upon Text-x-generic.svg
from the Tango project. Original artist: Benjamin D. Esham (bdesham)

8.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0