Vroom’s expectancy theory

Vroom‟s expectancy theory (1964) is different from other motivation theories such as Maslow‟s and Alderfer‟s, in the sense that Vroom‟s theory provides the cognitive process of variables according to individual differences in the work place rather than mentioning what exactly motivates members of an organization. Moreover, Vroom (1964) was the first scholar who developed an expectancy theory with direct implications in workplace settings based on employees‟ beliefs. In any work environment, people believe that there is a direct correlation between the effort they put into performing their best at work, the reward they receive from their hard work, and their final performance. As educational leaders who hold administrative positions, Vroom‟s expectancy theory can best explain motivating factors affecting employees by taking into account three main factors of “effort-to-performance expectancy, performance-to reward expectancy, and reward valences” (Lunenburg, 2011a).

More about Vrooms Expectancy Theory simply explain below video

Vrooms Expectancy Theory  (Source: Vrooms Expectancy Theory , 2019)

This practical viewpoint is based on four assumptions. One assumption describes people’s motivation to joining an organization based on how they react to the organization considering their needs, motivations, and past experience. A second assumption focuses on individual conscious choices, which are people’s own expectancy calculations. The third assumption is that each individual demand different things from the organization, such as job security and higher monetary compensation. The last assumption of Vroom is that people have the tenancy to pick alternative choices among available options in order to increase their personal outcomes. Vroom believed that motivation is the amount a person will be driven to do or not to do something depending on the situation they find themselves in. To sum up, Vroom’s Expectancy Theory has three key factors: Expectancy (individual’s estimate of the results of the job-related effort), Instrumentality (the extent an achieved task will lead to expected result(s)), and Valance (the reward of the archived task) (Vroom, 1964) (Figure 4).

Expectancy is the likelihood that a person will succeed on a given task, and it is associated with the risk that is intertwined with carrying out the task. If the task involves higher risk of failure, there will be lower motivation to invest in no chance of accomplishment. Surprisingly, the same will happen if the tasks involve low risk of failure. In this instance, no significant result is foreseen and therefore the task would not be worth investing in. On the other hand, if there is only some risk involved with carrying out a task, there will be optimal motivation since success is likely in such task. In the first two scenarios, the doer of the task will experience failure identity associated with apathy, insecurity, and indifference, whereas in the later situation, the doer of the task will experience self-worth along with feelings of confidence, effort, and interest. At any task, the value that comes with accomplishment is the other important entity. The value may trigger intrinsic (personal) or extrinsic (social) factors. One may find a task worthy of accomplishment because of personal likes and dislikes, needs and drives, or to satisfy social approval, acquire status, power, or recognition. All above factors are intricately related and combined to influence the development of a goal.

In other words, according to Vroom‟s Expectancy Theory, when an individual indicated that he/she can do a task, Ability Beliefs and Expectancy for success will be differentiating factors which determine final achievement of the task (Eccles and Wigfield, 2002). Ability belief refers to “a person‟s current sense of competence in being able to complete a task” and expectancy for success is “how successful an individual believes he or she can continue to be in the future” (Macdonald et al., 2014: 76) which is the “expectancy” section of Vroom‟s Expectancy Theory. Furthermore, each task comes with a value, or as Eccles et al. (1998) categorized the factors of an individual‟s engagement, intrinsic value, utility value, attainment value and cost. The first three types of values influence an individual‟s desire to complete a task positively and has direct relationship between increases value and motivation, whereas the last factor, cost, is the negative aspect of engaging in a task.

There are first and second order outcomes in Vroom‟s Expectancy Theory. First order outcomes refer to results which are directly related to employees‟ behaviors, such as performance at work, showing creativity in doing one‟s job, being punctual and meeting deadlines, and representing oneself as a reliable individual at work. On the other hand, second order outcomes are any positive or negative result of the first order outcomes; e.g. while high performance at work would lead to the boss‟s praise and would result in salary increase; being tardy and not meeting project deadline may result in demotion and losing one‟s job security and acceptance by co-workers (Small et al., 2010).

Components of Vroom’s expectancy theory Expectancy Expectancy is “a person‟s estimate of the probability that job-related effort will result in a given level of performance” (Lunenburg, 2011b: 127). In other words, in a workplace environment, employees‟ expectancy is fulfilled when there is probability that their effort will result in their ideal level of performance and, on the contrary, may not be satisfied if employees know that despite their effort, they will not reach the preferred outcome. It is the perception that “effort will result in performance” (Lunenburg, 2011: 127) and has a direct correlation with performance. Hence, the value of expectancy resonates between 0 and 1. In this study the expectancy for nontenured faculty is to gain tenured status by activity engaged in academic productivity. Efforts in this component will lead to first order outcomes.

Vroom‟s expectancy theory was later expanded and refined by Porter and Lawler (1968) and others (Pinder, 1987) (Lunenburg, 2011: 127). Figure 5 depicts the first and second order outcomes according to Small et al. (2010).

Reference list

Eccles JS, Wigfield A, Schiefele U (1998). Motivation. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, New York: Wiley. 3:1017-1095.

Eccles JS, Wigfield A (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual review of psychology 53(1):109-132.

Lunenburg FC (2011). Expectancy theory of motivation: motivating by altering motivation. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration 5(1):1-5. 

Lunenburg FC (2011). Decision making in organizations. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration 15(1):1-9

MacDonald SK, Williams LM, Lazowski RA, Horst SJ, Barron KE (2014). Faculty Attitudes Toward General Education Assessment: A Qualitative Study about Their Motivation. Research and Practice in Assessment 9:74-90.

Pinder CC (1987). Valence-instrumentality-expectancy theory. Motivation and Work Behavior 4:69-89.

Porter LW, Lawler EE (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance.

Small R, Chauncey S, McKenna P (2010). Motivation at a Glance: An 100 Int. J. Educ. Admin. Pol. Stud. ISchool Collaborative. Retrieved from: http://sites.google.com/site/motivationataglanceischool/

Vroom V (1964). Expectancy theory. Work and motivation.

Vrooms Expectancy Theory (2019) [Video].Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpnzW06shsM [Accessed on 03 December 2022]