Vroom Expectancy Theory in the workplace
Vroom Expectancy Theory
Figure 1: Vroom Expectancy Theory
Source: (Joy, 2018).
The
Expectancy theory of Victor Vroom describes the internal process of choice of
outcomes between different behaviors (Champoux, 2011). According
to Parijat and Bagga (2014) Vroom’s expectancy theory of motivation,
proposed in the 1960s as an alternative to the content models or theories.
Motivation is a product of three factors:
(1) Expectancy, (2)
instrumentality, and (3) valence. According Parijat and Bagga, (2014), Valence
revolves around how much a person wants a reward, expectancy refers to one’s
estimation of the probability that effort will result in successful
performance, and instrumentality is the estimation of whether one’s
performance will result in receiving the reward. The motivational relationship
can be expressed in below formula:
(Parijat and Bagga, 2014).
According to Lunenburg (2011), the multiplier effect
in the equation is significant. It means that higher levels of motivation will
result when expectancy, instrumentality, and valence are
all high, when they are all low. If any one of the three factors is zero, the
overall level of motivation is zero. Therefore, even if an employee believes
that his effort will result in performance, which will result in reward,
motivation will be zero if the valence of the reward he expects to receive is
zero, for instance if he believes that the reward he will receive for his
effort has no value for him (Lunenburg, 2011).
Valence is strength, personal value and person’s preference for an outcome that the rewards can be received based on performance, as high valence is a guarantee of high motivation. As a process theory of motivation, Vroom’s expectancy theory looks at the cognitive process to study the effects of the motivation of employees working in different organizations (Parijat & Bagga, 2014).
Expectancy theory has showed a well linked and inspiring system from the beginning, but has been denigrated for its assumption that people are as calculating and reasoned in their decision-making. According to Hadebe (2001) theory has limited use, and is more valid for prediction of behavior where effort–performance–rewards connection may be clearly apparent by the individual. It has also been criticized for failing to take adequate account of people’s cognitive boundaries (Baron et al., 2002). Accordingly, there has been mixed levels of support for the theory usefulness in the workplace.
The following Video 1 illustrates the application of Vroom theory in
the workplace.
Video1: Vroom Expectancy theory
Source: (Jiko, 2018).
Application in the workplace
In our Organization Marketing Department Example will
consider one initiative to motivate staff, the offer of promotion within a
Marketing department if certain sales targets are met. For one Marketer 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
F = 0.9 x 0.1 = 0.09
Alternatively, another Marketer 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
Reference
Baron, H., Henley, S., McGibbon, A. and McCarthy, T., 2002. Motivation Questionnaire Manual And User’s Guide. Brighton: Saville and Holdsworth Limited.
Champoux,
J., 2011. Organizational Behavior: Integrating Individuals,
Groups, and Organizations. 4th ed. New York: Routledge Taylor &
Francis Group.
Hadebe, T., 2001. Relationship Between Motivation And Job Satisfaction Of Employees At Vista Information Services. M.A. dissertation. Rand Afrikaans University, Johannesburg.
Lunenburg,
F., 2011. Theory of Motivation: Motivating by Altering Expectations. International
Journal of Management, Business and Administration, 15(1), pp.1-6.
Jiko, A., 2018. Vroom Expectancy Theory 2018. [Video] Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpnzW06shsM&t=1s> [Accessed on 02 May 2021].
Parijat,
P and Bagga, S. (2014) Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation – An
Evaluation. International Research Journal of Business and Management, 7(9), pp.1-8.
Yes Uddika,Vroom suggests that motivation, expectancy, instrumentality, and valence are related to one another by the equation:
ReplyDeleteequation: M = E * I * V -Motivation = Expectancy * Instrumentality * Valence(Simone,2015).
Valid point Sadun, The relationship between how an individual’s performance, results in good outcomes forms Instrumentality. And how the individual values the outcome, in relation to his personal goals and ambition forms the Valence. The Motivation force of an individual is the product of the multiplication of Expectancy, instrumentality and valence (Parijat & Bagga, 2014).
DeleteVroom’s theory is the foundation of the assumption that a person's behavior is caused by his choice of another behavioral pattern associated with the psychological events that coincide. One person's particular behavior over the other, expecting results, that is, the desired results.(Allison, 2012)
ReplyDeleteAgreed and adding more to content, Expectancy theory is based on four assumptions, One assumption is that people join organizations with expectations about their needs, motivations, and past experiences. These influence how individuals react to the organization. A second assumption is that an individual’s behavior is a result of conscious choice. That is, people are free to choose those behaviors suggested by their own expectancy calculations. A third assumption is that people want different things from the organization (e.g., good salary, job security, advancement, and challenge). A fourth assumption is that people will choose among alternatives so as to optimize outcomes for them personally. The expectancy theory based on these assumptions has three key elements: expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. A person is motivated to the degree that he or she believes that (a) effort will lead to acceptable performance (expectancy), (b) performance will be rewarded (instrumentality), and (c) the value of the rewards is highly positive (valence), (Lunenburg, 2011).
DeleteAgreed with you And Adding to that, As professor Eraly (2009)
ReplyDeletestates, the model does not refer to motivation in general, but to the motivation of doing
something (in our case civil servants’ work motivation). According to Luthans (1989)
everyone has a unique combination of valences, instrumentalities and expectancies.
Agreed and adding more to content,In Expectancy Theory; Valence basically refers to the reward for good work, and how desirable the reward is to them. Expectancy represents each employee's own confidence in his capability when it comes to possessing the work skills needed to perform well enough to achieve the reward. The instrumentality variable refers to employees' need to believe that when management offers a reward for good work performance, they actually deliver the rewards constantly (Gaffney, 2018).
DeleteYes Eranga, Vroom's theory is goal oriented approach (Suciu et al., 2013). However, researchers have argued that Vroom's expectancy theory lacks the portrayal of interrelatedness of employees between each other which can easily influence others to change the factors that motivates them therefore it is important to take in to the consideration the social context as well when determining the factors that motivates employees (Llyod and Mertens, 2018).
ReplyDeleteAgreed, Vroom’s Expectancy Theory is based on the assumption that an individual’s behavior results from the choices made by him with respect to the alternative course of action, which is related to the psychological events occurring simultaneously with the behavior. This means an individual selects a certain behavior over the other behaviors with an expectation of getting results, the one desired for (Allison, 2012)
Delete