What is the Expectancy Theory and how to use it

Expectancy theory, developed by Victor Vroom (August 9, 1932 – July 26, 2023) in 1964, is a motivation theory that explains how individuals decide to act based on their expectations of outcomes. It suggests that people are motivated to engage in behaviours when they believe their actions will lead to desired outcomes.

His most well-known books are Work and Motivation, Leadership and Decision Making and The New Leadership.

Alongside the version developed by Lyman Porter and Edward Lawler, Victor Vroom's formulation of expectancy theory is widely regarded as a significant contribution to the field. Both theories have withstood the test of time and historical scrutiny, cementing their importance in understanding motivation.

…Intensity of work effort depends on the perception that an individual's effort will result in the desired outcome…

The theory is structured around three main components, Expectancy, Instrumentality an Valence:

Expectancy (Effort-Performance Relationship)

It is the belief that one's effort will lead to the desired performance level.

It is influenced by factors such as having the necessary skills, access to resources, and a clear understanding of the task requirements.

For individuals to believe that their efforts will lead to successful performance, they must possess the requisite skills and abilities. It means having the right knowledge, expertise, and technical proficiency needed to perform the task at hand, for instance, a software developer must have programming skills and familiarity with the coding languages required for a project, without these skills, no amount of effort will seem sufficient to achieve the desired performance level.

Even the most skilled individuals can falter if they lack the necessary resources. Resources encompass a wide range of elements such as time, equipment, information, and support from colleagues or supervisors;

consider a scientist conducting research – access to a well-equipped laboratory, relevant data, and collaborative support are critical. Without these resources, the scientist may doubt their ability to achieve meaningful results, regardless of their expertise and effort.

Clarity, moreover, in what is expected and how success is measured is another crucial factor.
Individuals need to know exactly what they are supposed to do and how their performance will be evaluated, ambiguity can lead to confusion and uncertainty, undermining confidence.

For example, if a sales manager sets vague targets for their team without specifying the metrics for success, team members may struggle to align their efforts with expected outcomes. Clear and specific goals help individuals channel their efforts more effectively and believe in their potential for success.

Previous Experience and Success
Past experiences play a significant role in shaping expectancy. If individuals have succeeded in similar tasks before, they are more likely to believe in their ability to replicate that success. Conversely, repeated failures can erode confidence and diminish expectancy.

For instance, an athlete who has consistently performed well in training and previous competitions is likely to have a high level of expectancy for future performances.

Self-Efficacy
The psychological concept, introduced by Albert Bandura, refers to an individual’s belief in their own ability to succeed in specific situations.

High self-efficacy can enhance expectancy because individuals with strong self-belief are more likely to perceive that their efforts will lead to successful outcomes. For example, a teacher with high self-efficacy believes that their teaching methods will effectively reach and educate their students, leading to better performance outcomes.

Feedback and Encouragement
Constructive feedback and encouragement from supervisors, peers, and mentors can significantly boost expectancy.

Positive reinforcement and recognition of effort can enhance an individual's belief in their capabilities, for instance, an employee who receives regular constructive feedback and encouragement from their manager is more likely to believe that their efforts will lead to successful performance.

---

Instrumentality (Performance-Outcome Relationship)

It refers to the belief that achieving a certain performance level will lead to a specific outcome.

It depends on the trustworthiness of the people who decide who gets what outcome and the transparency of the reward process.

It is the belief that achieving a certain level of performance will lead to a specific outcome or reward.

The component highlights the connection between an individual’s performance and the rewards they expect to receive, several factors influence instrumentality, shaping how individuals perceive the likelihood that their performance will lead to desired outcomes.

For instrumentality to be high, individuals must trust that the reward system is fair and reliable.

They need to believe that the organization will deliver on its promises and that good performance will be recognized and rewarded accordingly, for example, if employees consistently see that high performers receive bonuses and promotions, their belief in the performance-outcome relationship strengthens.

Conversely, if rewards are given inconsistently or based on favouritism, instrumentality diminishes.

Transparency of the Process

The process by which rewards are determined should be transparent and well-communicated.

Employees need to understand how their performance is evaluated and how rewards are allocated. Clear criteria and open communication about performance metrics and reward distribution enhance the perception of a strong performance-outcome link.

For instance, a company that openly shares its bonus structure and performance appraisal criteria is likely to foster higher instrumentality among its employees.

Moreover, consistency in linking performance to rewards is crucial. If individuals observe that high performance consistently leads to positive outcomes, their belief in this relationship is reinforced.
However, if rewards are given sporadically or not at all, even to high performers, instrumentality suffers.

For example, if a salesperson consistently meets and exceeds targets but does not receive the promised commission, their belief in the performance-outcome relationship weakens.

Managerial Support and Commitment

If managers actively support and advocate for rewarding high performance, employees are more likely to perceive a strong link between performance and outcomes.

For instance, a manager who regularly acknowledges and rewards team members for their achievements reinforces the performance-outcome relationship; rewards must be meaningful and align with the individual’s personal goals and values, the more valued the reward, the stronger the instrumentality.

For example, if an employee values professional development, offering opportunities for training and career advancement as rewards will enhance their belief in the performance-outcome relationship, on the other hand, if the reward offered does not align with what the employee values, the instrumentality will be low, regardless of how well the performance is measured and rewarded.

Feedback and Recognition

Regular feedback and recognition can reinforce the link between performance and outcomes. When employees receive timely and specific feedback about their performance and how it contributes to organizational goals, they are more likely to believe that their efforts will lead to rewards. For instance, an employee who receives positive feedback and public recognition for their work is more likely to believe that continuing to perform well will lead to future rewards.

Observing the experiences of others within the organization can also influence instrumentality.

Seeing peers or role models being rewarded for their performance can strengthen the belief that such outcomes are attainable. For example, if an employee witnesses a colleague receiving a promotion for exceptional work, they are more likely to believe that their own efforts can lead to similar rewards.

---

Valence (Value of the Outcome)

It is the value an individual places on the expected outcome.

It is the extent to which the outcome is perceived as desirable or undesirable, the value can be positive (desirable outcome), negative (undesirable outcome), or neutral.

Valence is the emotional orientation people have regarding the rewards they might receive, it is highly subjective, as different individuals value different outcomes based on their personal preferences, needs, goals, and values.

The value an individual places on a reward is deeply influenced by their personal preferences and needs, for instance, an employee who values financial security will likely place a high valence on monetary bonuses, conversely, another employee who prioritizes work-life balance may value additional vacation time more highly.

Recognizing and catering to these individual differences is crucial for effectively motivating diverse teams.

Rewards that align with an individual’s personal and professional goals tend to have higher valence. For example, if an employee aims to advance their career, opportunities for professional development, such as training programs or promotions, will be highly valued. Ensuring that rewards support employees’ long-term aspirations can significantly enhance their motivational power.

Cultural and social influences can also shape the value placed on different outcomes. In some cultures, public recognition and status may be highly valued, while in others, more tangible rewards like cash bonuses or gifts might be preferred. Understanding the cultural context and social dynamics within an organization can help tailor rewards that have higher valence for the employees.

The perceived fairness and equity of the reward system can influence valence; for employees believe that rewards are distributed fairly and based on merit, the value they place on these rewards increases.

On the other hand, if the reward system is perceived as biased or unfair, even desirable rewards may lose their motivational impact, Ensuring a fair and transparent reward process is essential for maintaining high valence.

An individual’s past experiences with rewards can shape their current perceptions of valence.

Positive experiences with certain rewards can enhance their attractiveness, while negative experiences can diminish it, for example, if an employee previously received a meaningful and enjoyable reward, they are likely to value similar rewards more highly in the future.

Conversely, if a past reward was disappointing or irrelevant, it might hold little value going forward.

Social Comparison

The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards also plays a role in valence. Intrinsic rewards, such as personal satisfaction, a sense of achievement, and enjoyment of the work itself, can have high valence for many individuals. Extrinsic rewards, such as salary increases, bonuses, and promotions, are also important.

Understanding the balance between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for each employee can help in designing reward systems that maximize valence.

Personal and Professional Stage

The stage of an individual’s personal and professional life can influence the valence of different rewards; younger employees might value career advancement opportunities and learning experiences, while employees later in their careers might place higher value on stability, recognition, and work-life balance.

The formula used in expectancy theory is

Motivation = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valence

If any of these components is zero, the overall motivation will be zero, as motivation is a multiplicative function of expectancy, instrumentality, and valence.

Expectancy theory is often used in organizational settings to design motivational strategies, understand employee behaviour, and improve performance management systems. It highlights the importance of clear communication, appropriate resources, and meaningful rewards to enhance motivation.