the expectancy theory - file · web viewthe original theory of expectancy comes from...

MSM 510: The Expectancy TheoryJamie Angove 1

MSM 510: The Expectancy Theory

Jamie Angove, Dannielle Douglas

Bellevue University

Dr. Farnell


Abstract

In 1964, Victor Vroom proposed that people are more motivated to do a better job if they think a

better job will be done as an outcome of their harder work, creating the expectancy

theory. Vroom further proposed that a person’s expectancy behaviors would be based on three

mental components: valence, instrumentality, and expectancy. Research shows that the

expectancy theory has been tested and proven to be a positive form of employee

motivation. Further research brought light to the idea of combining expectancy behaviors with

other forms of motivation, leading to the conclusion that Vroom’s ideas work best when applied

with other motivational tactics. This paper will provide an overview of Vroom’s original

expectancy theory, contemporary proof of the theory, debate on expectancy theory, and

management decision practices that further employee motivation.


Vroom’s Original Expectancy Theory

The original theory of expectancy comes from Victor Vroom in 1964, stating that of all

the choices a person can make, the one they decide upon will be related to psychological events

occurring at the same time (Ramlall, 2004). Simply stated, Vroom believed people are

motivated to do a better job if they think a better job will be done as an outcome of their harder

work. The theory further states that a person will choose their actions based on their

preconceived notions of the task they are to complete. In the workplace, a person will gauge the

amount of effort a job needs based on the amount of value and satisfaction the person thinks the

outcome will give them (Isaac, Zerbe, & Pitt, 2001). This theory has been widely tested and is

utilized as a means to keep employees engaged and motivated in their jobs, improving

performance and job satisfaction (Miller & Grush, 1988).

In order to test the expectancy theory, Vroom looked to three mental

components: valence, instrumentality and expectancy. Valence is the emotion people place on

the outcome; whether or not they prefer having that specific outcome. The theory includes both

the valance of possible outcomes and the valance of job performance. The valance of possible

outcomes encompasses all possible consequences (both positive and negative). The valance of

job performance is the idea people have that their job performance will result in a positive

outcome. Instrumentality is the probability of achieving the second-level, or ultimate, outcomes

by accomplishing first-level outcomes. It illustrates the relationship between what people think

they have to do in order to get to their end result and the connection they see between the two

outcomes. An example could be an individual wanting a raise; instrumentality could be the need

for that individual to improve their performance rating or take on additional work. Expectancy is

the amount of belief a person has in reaching their ultimate goals. These three components make


up expectancy behaviors and, together, are referred to as the VIE theory (Starke & Behling,

1975).

Contemporary Proof of Expectancy Theory

A study was conducted in 2011 to measure the relation between the expectancy of

bloggers’ outcomes against their motivation for blogging and their intention (Liao, Liu, & Pi,

2011). Specifically, the hypotheses were: motivation for blogging will be positively related to

blogging intention, and blogging intention will be positively related to blogging behavior. The

study was testing the attractiveness or value of the reward measured against the perceived

probability that productive blogging will lead to desirable outcomes. Bloggers were identified as

being more likely to change their blogging services based on satisfaction, sunk costs, and

attractive alternatives; essentially positive versus negative outcomes (Liao, Liu, & Pi, 2011).

The study was conducted on 400 randomly selected bloggers. Bloggers were asked to

rate their preference towards positive attractive rewards and the probability that they would

achieve the rewards by practicing certain behaviors. Lastly, they rated their intention to blog.

177 surveys distributed were returned and usable.

Study analysis showed bloggers with higher motivation for rewards have greater

blogging intention than those with lower motivation for rewards. This leads to the conclusion

that a blogger with high intention will likely spend more time maintaining blogs and posts than a

blogger with low intention, positively proving both hypotheses. Using a contemporary setting to

analyze expectancy theory helps put it into perspective for the technologically savvy world we

live in today. Obtaining proof of expectancy in motivation for bloggers to post and care for their

blogs proves that individuals believe the concept that if they work harder, their outcomes will be


better. For these bloggers, spending more time writing quality blogs would lead to more

successful blogs with more quality followers.

Another study conducted by Malik in 2012 tested the relation between leader behavior

and subordinate job expectancy, using employees from the cellular industry. In this study, 200

employees, 15 middle managers and 35 supervisors were surveyed to research the relation

between leadership styles and employee expectancy. The survey used asked respondents to rank

questions about directive versus participative leader behavior, supportive leaders and

achievement- oriented behavior. They were also asked to rank their expectations of how their

work effort would achieve better outcomes.

Results concluded that leader behavior does affect employee job expectancy and can be

used as a predictor of subordinate job expectancy. There was not a significant relationship found

between subordinate attributes such as age, gender, qualification or length of service and job

expectancy, indicating that the results were standard across all employees except for those

differing in rank or position. Situational factors like locus of control, employee ability, task

structure and stress did account for variation in expectancy, which is predictable given that the

study was testing employee’s expectation that their results would be based on their behavior.

Debate regarding the Expectancy Theory

Although the expectancy theory is widely studied and followed by many, there is some

concern that the theory alone is not adequate when thinking of motivation for adults in either

school or the workplace. There have been thoughts that the personal characteristics of a person

and the environment in which they grew up play a large part in motivation as well (Miller &

Grush, 1988).


In order to gain more insight in this area, a study was conducted by Fredrick A. Starke

and Orland Behling regarding the expectancy theory in which they tested the independence and

transitivity in the theory. The focus of their test fell on the individual ideas that Vroom utilized

with his overall research of the expectancy theory, as opposed to the workings of the theory

itself. Starke and Behling wanted to determine if expectancy, instrumentality, and valence

correlated with each other when put to the test. They wanted to find out if the variables could

stand alone or if they had a relationship between all of them that must be present as Vroom had

thought (Starke & Behling, 1975).

In order to do this, Starke and Behling issued a questionnaire to 54 middle level managers

that were taking a management development course at a Canadian university. The

questionnaires were administered seven times over three months and focused on the expectancy

variables. In order to test instrumentality, students were asked questions centered on the

relationship they perceived between completion of the course and outcomes (both positive and

negative). In order to test valence, students were given a series of outcomes that have been used

in other studies and asked to rank them according to their positive and negative valance. They

were to pick the four that they would like the most and the four that they would like the least. In

order to test expectancy, the students had to state if they thought behaviors would lead to

successfully completing the course. Lastly, participants were also asked questions about the

effort they utilized in the class (Starke, 1975).

The results of this test found that there was not a consistent relationship between

computed effort and reported effort. They also found that people did not always give effort

based on the expected outcome. In many cases, the effort they gave week over week was


different when the outcome did not change. None of the people tested showcased behavior

patterns consistent with all of the postulates of the expectancy theory (Starke, 1975).

It is studies such as this that require further testing be completed on the theory as a

whole. Although the expectancy theory is widely studied and followed by many, there is

concern that the theory alone is not adequate when thinking of motivation for adults in either

school or the workplace. Like the individual variables that were studied before, people wanted

to get evidence that showcased weather the theory worked or not and find ways to perfect

it. There has been debate that the personal characteristics of a person and the environment in

which they grew up play a large part in motivation and can override Vroom’s findings (Miller &

Grush, 1988).

In order to gain further knowledge in this area, a study was conducted on 226 full time

psychology students. The students were split into groups ranging from 6-27 people and

administered a series of questionnaires. The first was a personality assessment that gauged their

self-consciousness and their self-monitoring. Following that, they had their expectancies, norm,

and behaviors tested. In order to complete the questionnaires, students were given an action and

a consequence (both positive and negative depending on the question). The students tested the

valence, the importance, the likelihood of doing it with 10 hours in a week, and the likelihood of

doing it with 30 hours in a week. Once all the questionnaires were completed, they compiled the

results and compared personalities to the responses to scenarios (Miller, 1988).

The results found that people who were aware of their personal expectancies and not

aware of the expectancies of others had a high expectancy behavior and a low norm behavior.

Those that were unaware of their personal expectancies and highly aware of the expectancies of

others had a low expectancy behavior and a high norm behavior. These results showcased that


people will consider the positive consequences they get from doing a task, but the social norms

of the environment play a role in the way they perform as well. In some people, personal

perceptions play a larger role in motivation and performance, while others look more towards the

social aspect around them (Miller & Grush, 1988).

In this study, it was hypothesized that a ‘one size fits all’ approach would not hold up

when considering motivation techniques. The results showed us that the expectancy theory can

work as a great motivator for some, but other people will not be motivated in this way. Like

studies done before, this research showcased that the theory holds value and is accurate, but

other factors need to be considered when looking at ways to motivate a group of people. When

we look to the number of learning styles and personalities we work with on a daily basis, we can

see how people learn and think differently. Different personalities are going to think of all things

differently, including motivation.

The data found in this study expanded on the expectancy theory and how it is utilized for

motivation. It found that some people choose the amount of effort they will put into a task based

on the outcome, while others do not follow that approach as much. It seems that some people

will complete a task based on social norms and what people are doing around them before they

will consider what they get from it on an individual level. These people make up the percentage

of associates working for a company that find satisfaction in fitting in with the rest of the crowd.

Although Vroom’s findings regarding the expectancy theory can be debated based on the

people and circumstances in question, the underlying idea has held to be an interest for many

researchers. As gaps were found in the expectancy theory, many researchers elaborated on the

ideas and worked to find new motivational techniques. (Starke & Behling,

1975). These techniques have been molded into a variety of uses while keeping Vroom’s


underlying ideas intact. One such theory helps managers to make decisions and get buy-in form

their team on decisions. Although research suggested that the expectancy theory can be a great

way to get employees on board in this area, research found that Vroom’s ideas worked in

conjunction with the ideas of Phillip Yetton.

Expectancy Theory and Motivation through Management Decision Practices

Yetton and Vroom teamed up to write Leadership and Decision-Making in 1973, a guide

for the practical manager written based on empirical research. The book focused on solutions for

the following: complexities of leadership and processes involved, confusion about what

leadership actually means, difficulty measuring behavior, and the value that leadership brings.

The premise of the provided leadership solutions is based upon the criticality of problem-solving

decision-making and their ambiguity when it comes to anticipating and controlling human

behavior.

This Vroom-Yetton model was able to assist managers in determining who should be

involved in decision-making based on a case-by-case scenario basis. There are five decision-

making scenarios a from which a manager may select: AI: using authoritative decision-making to

solve the problem individually, AII: obtaining the necessary information from subordinates or

others then making the decision, CI: using a consultative model to discuss the problem with

relevant subordinates or others, getting their ideas and making the decision, CII: sharing the

problem and collectively obtaining ideas before making a decision, and G: sharing the problem

and engaging the group in consensus for a decision (Vroom & Yetton, 1973). This study will

focus on the effects of using the right decision-making process to improve employee

performance and satisfaction.


The study conducted measures two theories: that leaders with high ability to fluctuate and

use the Vroom-Yetton model should have more satisfied subordinates, and these leaders should

also have more productive departments (Paul & Ebadi, 1989). The study was conducted in 47

sites in an owner-operated, non-unionized cleaning industry, all sites having similar operations.

261 salespeople participated in the survey. These individuals were all familiar with their jobs

and generally young (mean age of about 27 years), about 70 percent female, fairly well-educated

and had limited experience in their careers. Job satisfaction was measured by the Job

Description Index, and productivity measured by the ratio of sales revenue to direct material and

payroll.

The first theory that leaders conforming to the Vroom-Yetton model had more satisfied

subordinates was partially proven: subordinates were statistically more satisfied with their

supervisor and work, but did not show a statistical difference in satisfaction with pay or co-

workers. Leaders that highly conformed to the model may be more effective at creating

situations where they are able to use their intelligence and job-related ability to control team

perceptions and evaluations (Paul & Ebadi, 1989). The second theory that these leaders would

have more productive teams was statistically proven: subordinates spent more time on productive

activities and had more productive teams.

Managers able to fluctuate their decision-making style to the specific situation are most

effective, proven through this study. Many managers are expected to be strategic while also

focused on the details of the work that their employees are engaged in, and the study shows that

a flexible decision-making ability best supports the many roles that a middle manager plays.

Managers with the ability to flex decision-making styles also likely leads to higher

employee engagement (Paul & Ebadi, 1989). As the study exhibited, employees were more


satisfied with their supervisor and their work. Bringing them in on decisions where they feel

more closely tied to the outcomes and not engaging them in the decisions that do not matter to

them leads to ensuring that employees feel their manager has their best interest in mind. When

employees feel responsible for the decisions that directly impact them, they buy-in to the

decision. This feeling of manager inclusion also likely leads to the study’s proof that employees

are more productive in this model. When employees feel that they are being cared for, it allows

them to focus on their jobs which leads to higher productivity.

Decision-making style is further researched in Transitioning to Participative

Management (Linski, 2014). As a leader considers what style is best, they should consider the

organization as a whole, soliciting recommendations from supervisors or all levels of employees

(Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1973, pp. 323-324). Participative management brings an enhanced

perception of self-worth and contribution for employees and improves communication between

operating levels (Juechter, 1982, p. 45). Transitioning to participative management can be

difficult if the style is not compatible with the organization, or if is implemented incorrectly or

without proper consideration by the organization’s leadership.

To be effective with transitioning to a participative management style, even following the

Vroom-Yetton model, the organization needs to consider how interdependent individual

functions are, the strategies of the corporate management systems, and how able and willing

managers will be to delegate authority. Strategically considering the effectiveness of decision-

making style, the engagement of all necessary parties, and the expected outcomes from the

decision will ensure managers choose the right style for each situation.


Conclusion

The results from these studies are something that almost anyone can keep in mind when

motivating others. The expectancy theory has been proven to work as a motivator to some

people and it should be utilized accordingly. When working with staff members, we should look

to the amount of effort that they will have to put into a task and relate it to the outcome that will

come from it. This will allow managers to motivate people and give them a desire to perform

well and reach their positive outcome.

If we take the same idea and attribute it to a team of people working together, one should

look to expectancy behaviors and work to raise the overall stats within the company. The

expectancy theory can be used to motivate people that will benefit the company from a positive

outcome being bestowed upon them for their efforts. As you raise the bar for some on the team,

you can start to create a new norm that others will look to as well. If you begin to raise the norm

in the office or the team, those that look to social surroundings will start to form a new norm. In

essence, the expectancy theory will work as a base to motivate people that do not have

expectancy behaviors.

In the event that you are not able to utilize the expectancy theory on all employees with

success, it is still vital to look to the ideas of Victor Vroom. His ideas regarding motivation can

be used in conjunction with other ideas when they do not work on their own. Combining

motivational tactics allows for a broader reach and can motivate more people in many different

ways. The expectancy theory is an effective tool to understand employee motivation and assist

leaders in making decisions that will suit the needs of their teams.


References

Isaac, R. Zerbe, W. J., & Pitt, D. C. (2001). Leadership and motivation: The effective application

of expectancy theory. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(2), 212.

Juechter, W. (1982). The pros and cons of participative management. Management Review,

71(9), 44.

Kerr, S. & Slocum, J. (1981). Controlling the performance of people in organizations. In P,

Nystrom & W. Starbuck (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Design. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Liao, H., Liu, S., & Pi, S. (2011). Modeling motivations for blogging: An expectancy theory

analysis. Social Behavior and Personality, 39(2), 251-264.

Linksi, C. (2014). Transitioning to participative management. Organizational Development

Journal, 32(3), 17-26.

Malik, S. (2012). A study of relationship between leader behaviors and subordinate job

expectancies: A path-goal approach. Pakistan Journal of Commercial & Social Sciences,

6(2), 357-371.

Miller, L. E., & Grush, J. E. (1988). Improving predictions in expectancy theory research

effect. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 107.

Paul, R., & Ebadi, Y. (1989). Leadership decision making in a service organization: A field test

of the Vroom-Yetton model. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 201-211.

Ramlall, S. (2004). A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for

employee retention within organizations. Journal of American Academy of Business,

5 (1/2), 52-63.


Starke, F. A., & Behling, O. (1975). A test of two postulates underlying expectancy

theory. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 703.

Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1973). How to choose a leadership pattern. Classics of

Organizational Behavior. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and Decision Making. Pittsburgh, PA:

University of Pittsburgh Press.

Yetton, P. (1972). Participation and leadership style: A descriptive model of a manager's choice

of a decision process (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carnegie-Mellon University.

the expectancy theory - file · web viewthe original theory of expectancy comes from...

Documents