The Expectancy Theory Of Motivation

The expectancy theory was developed by Victor H. Vroom in 1964 as a systematic explanation of individual motivation within the workplace. This theory put forth three key components: expectancy, performance, and valence. From the base component of the theory, which is expectancy, behavior is built by an individual’s value of the reward or valence. Vroom’s theory of expectancy is used by manager to understand how individual employees are motivated and how they will respond to rewards closely tied to the tasks given. Expectancy is proposed to be an individual’s understanding of how their effort leads to a given performance level. Vroom put forth in his theory that individuals believe the more effort put into a task or objective, the better

The Expectancy Theory of Motivation (hereafter “The Expectancy Theory”) is theory that states: “the strength of a tendency to act in a certain way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual.” (Robbins & Judge, 2012) The theory is among the most widely accepted theories relating to motivation. (QuickMBA, 1999-2010)

This paper explores a contemporary and widely accepted motivational theory known as Expectancy theory of motivation introduced by Victor Vroom in 1964. It will first explain the three key components and relationships of the expectancy theory of motivation. These components include Expectancy, Instrumentality and Valence. In addition, it will explain how to enhance the motivation of employees in a fictional but real-life modeled scenario using the Expectancy theory of motivation. After studying this paper, the reader should be able to explain the main components of the Expectancy

According to the expectancy theory of motivation, in the workplace an employee’s willingness to work is dependent upon the end result of working and how important the end result is to the employee. An employee will be more compelled to put forth more effort if it is believed that the consequence of doing so will be a positive performance evaluation. The employee must believe that by achieving a positive performance evaluation, an incentive will be achieved. The incentive, whether it is monetary or advancement, must benefit the employee (Robbins, 2012).

Motivation has become a term as ubiquitous as it is undefinable. What exactly is motivation and how is it used to achieve a desired result? In many circumstances, individuals are motivated by different aspects at different times in their lives. Compounding this issue further are the environmental factors embedded in an individuals motivation. Depending on an individual's background, he or she may be motivated differently than others of similar socio economic circumstances. As such, it is quite difficult to appraise the merits of a single motivational characteristic or theory. This difficulty has given rise to numerous theories of motivation throughout history, each with its own distinct value. The problem with many of these theories is that they are imperfect by nature and do not encompass all possible options of behavior. This document will focus primarily on the achievement motivation theory established by Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot in 1997 and how it can and cannot be used effectively within workplace situations.

The standard way of thinking about motivation has it that the only way to get people to be driven is to reward them extrinsically. In other words, the way we generally try to motivate people is by dangling a carrot in front of their face, or pushing them with a poke to the ribs with stick. Many people assume that if you want someone to do something, you incentivize them with external compensation. For example, if you want a student to work harder in class, offer them extra credits. If you want your basketball team to be better, make them run more suicides as punishment. However, in this book, Drive: ’’The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us’’ by Daniel Pink challenges this conventional, preconceived notion of motivation of carrot and stick mentality. Pink divided motivation into three categories that evolved over time: motivation 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0.

Motivation is the number one driving force behind anything and everything an individual does each day. “Motivation is the desire to do the best possible job or to exert the maximum effort to perform an assigned task. Motivation energizes, directs, and sustains human behavior directed towards a goal.” (Honor, 2009). Motivation can determine the outcome of projects, goals, and can set limits on what an individual can obtain or what they believe they can obtain. Motivation often is the deciding factor on how successful a project in an organization is, and an individual’s needs and desires can both influence a person’s motivation greatly. Motivation can also determine how well an individual does in school, college, or university.

Vroom’s expectancy theory of motivation has three related components; effort, performance, and reward. It states that people desire rewards they believe can be achieved by putting forth acceptable performance, and that acceptable performance can be achieved by putting forth sufficient effort. In the theory, expectancy is the thought that effort leads to performance, instrumentality is the thought that performance leads to rewards, and valence is the degree that an individual values the rewards. In essence, expectancy links effort and performance, and instrumentality links performance and rewards. If a person has high expectancy, instrumentality, and valence, they will be highly motivated (Nelson, 2015). At the ROM, I wanted to help children enjoy their visit and make extra money for university. Since I needed the money, and I remembered visiting

Some of the employees have said that they cannot be successful with the new process because it requires more dexterity than they believe that they are capable of.

One view held by cognitive theorist an individual’s motivation is based on value and expectation (Textbook 370). According to this theory, people are motivated to preform behaviour to the extent

Savaria’s motivation can be supported through the Vroom Expectancy Motivation Theory. This theory links the performance of an individual effort to his motivation with the purpose of increasing satisfaction and minimizing dissatisfaction. According to Vroom, the performance of an employee is based on individual factors; personality, skills, knowledge, experience and abilities. The Vroom theory accounts to three variables; Expectancy, Instrumentality, and Valance.

Expectancy theory of motivation Hausser Food. Employees and organization both of them have expectation and needs. Organization have expectation to their employees through target. Employees have expectation to the organization or company through their reward if they can reach or above the target. In this point of view The employees of Florida team are feel under rewarded which although they have high E to P that have good P to O

4. 3 Major Types of Motivation Theories  Content Theories of Motivation WHAT motivates us  Process

• But Valencia or the value people to different rewards varies. For example, an employee prefers salary to benefits, while another person prefers just the opposite. The Valencia of the same reward varies from one situation to another.

Radosevich, D. J., Levine, M. S., Sumner, K. E., Knight, M. B., Arendt, L. A., & Johnson, V. A. (2009). The role of expectancy theory in goal striving processes. Journal Of The Academy Of Business & Economics, 9(4), 186-192.