Vroom (1964) presented the first
systematic formulation of expectancy theory developed specifically for work
situations. His model is based on the assumption that individuals make
conscious and rational choices about their work behavior. This perspective
contrasts sharply with the idea that people are inherently motivated or
unmotivated, as many noncognitive models presume.
According to Vroom (1964), employees rationally evaluate various work behaviors (e.g., working overtime versus leaving work early) and then choose those that they believe will lead to the work-related rewards that they value most (e.g., promotions). Put another way, employees will decide to apply effort to those tasks that they find attractive and that they believe they can perform. The attractiveness of a particular task depends upon the extent to which the employee believes that its accomplishment will lead to valued outcomes (John, 1992). A useful way of viewing the model is presented below.
According to Vroom (1964), employees rationally evaluate various work behaviors (e.g., working overtime versus leaving work early) and then choose those that they believe will lead to the work-related rewards that they value most (e.g., promotions). Put another way, employees will decide to apply effort to those tasks that they find attractive and that they believe they can perform. The attractiveness of a particular task depends upon the extent to which the employee believes that its accomplishment will lead to valued outcomes (John, 1992). A useful way of viewing the model is presented below.
1 Outcomes: These are the anticipated
consequences that are relevant to the individual and that are perceived to
follow certain of his or her work behaviors, such as a pay raise, a sense of
accomplishment, acceptance by peers, fatigue, and so on.
2 Valence: This is the extent to which the anticipated outcomes appear attractive or unattractive
to the individual. The valence of an outcome can range from -1.0 (a highly undesirable
outcome, such as being fired) to +1.0 (a very desirable outcome, such as a
promotion). Work-related outcomes, such as good pay, a good job, group support,
being fired, and so forth, vary in their attractiveness from person to person.
Typically, pay raises have high valences for employees. For example, a pay
raise may appear very attractive (e.g., the valence is 1.0) to a particular
salesperson.
3 E -> P Expectancy: This is the effort-performance (E -> P) expectancy (called simply "expectancy" in
Vroom's original work) and is defined as an individual's subjective probability
that effort will actually lead to performance on some job or task. This degree
of belief can vary from 0 (the individual is certain that behavior will not lead to performance) to 1.0 (the
individual is sure that behavior will lead to performance). For example, a
salesperson may feel fairly confident (e.g., an expectancy of 0.8) that working
an extra hour per day will result in a 10% increase in his or her product sales
for the quarter.
4 P -> O Expectancy: This is the
performance-outcome (P -> O) expectancy (also called "instrumentality" in Vroom's work) and is
defined as an individual's belief that a particular level of performance in a
given situation will result in a particular set of outcomes. As with the
effort-performance expectancy, the performance outcome expectancy can range
from 0 to 1.0, and a person may have any number of outcome expectancies regarding
performance. For example, a salesperson may strongly believe (e.g., an
expectancy of 0.9) that a 10% increase in his or her product sales for the
quarter will result in a pay raise. He or she may believe that there is a slim
chance (e.g., an expectancy of 0.1) that this 10% increase in performance will
lead to a promotion.
According to the theory, E -> P expectancies, P -> O expectancies, and the
valences of various outcomes (considered by the employee) influence the
person's level of motivation. Further, these variables are assumed to operate
in a multiplicative fashion. Using the example above, if a pay raise appears
very attractive to a salesperson (e.g., valence = 1.0), if the person is
fairly confident that an increase in effort will lead to an increase in
performance (E -> P = 0.8), and if he or she strongly believes
that an increase in performance will result in a desired outcome (e.g., a pay
raise) (P -> O = 0.9), then the individual appears to have a
relatively high motivational force (1.0 X .8 X .9 = .72). However, if the salesperson does not
believe that an increase in performance will lead to a pay raise (e.g., P -> O = 0.1), then the
motivational force will not be nearly so high (1.0 X .8 X .1 = .08). With this multiplicative model, all three
factors must be high for the motivational level of an individual to be high.