Victor Vroom's expectancy theory and organizational motivation

Expectancy Theory

"A Questionnaire was distributed to 177 bloggers. Our research findings suggest that bloggers with high motivational rewards have the highest levels of blogging intention, and that a blogger with higher blogging intention is willing to invest more time in maintaining their blog and posts more articles on their blog. Pouring our feelings and regularly connecting with friends and acquaintances were the two most important motivational rewards" (Liao, et al., 2011).

What is the expectancy theory's relevance to organizational behavior?

The Expectancy Theory has a powerful connection to the study of organized behavior. The expectancy theory is not so much a theory as it is a proven motivational model, according to the literature. In the book Essentials of Management (Koontz, et al., 2006, p. 293), the authors explain that in his explanation of the theory Victor H. Vroom believed "people will be motivated to do things to reach a goal if they believe in the worth of that goal." Moreover, employees and other stakeholders involved in an organization will be motivated if they "…see that what they do will help them in achieving…" that goal (Koontz, 293). The authors link the expectancy theory to a statement Martin Luther made many centuries ago when he was motivating people to challenge the Roman Catholic Church: "Everything that is done in the world is done in hope" (Koontz, 293).

The obvious expectancy theory link with companies and other organizations is that the level of intensity of an individual's motivation towards accomplishing a task or goal "will be determined by the value they place on the outcome of their effort (whether positive or negative), multiplied by the confidence they have that their efforts will materially aid in achieving a goal" (Koontz, 293). Hence, boiled down to simple terms, Vroom posited that motivation within an organization is a "product of the anticipated worth" any individual places on the particular goal that is out there to be met or reached -- and the "chances he or she sees of achieving that goal" (Koontz, 293).

Taking it a step further, the reason the Vroom version of the expectancy theory has such powerful implications for organizations is that it "recognizes" how important the needs and motivations are of individuals in the organization, Koontz explains (293). The important point here is individuals will always have their individual goals, apart from the organization. Sure, they are on the team, they will do their part, but the goals of an individual and his or her organization "can be harmonized."

What does the research say about the theory?

The dynamics and particulars of the expectancy theory are pointed out clearly in author Thad Green's book, Performance and Motivation Strategies for Today's Workforce: A Guide to Expectancy Theory Applications. Green begins with the fact that there are wildly different kinds of personalities in any workforce or organization; the diversity (cultural, ethnic, religious and gender) in today's companies "presents a problem of considerable magnitude" (Green, 1992, p. 1). Hence there is no "one best way" to motivate people, the authors contend. One type of employee can be motivated simply by asking him to do it because it's important; another employee can be motivated by telling her she will get a day off if she finishes the task early in the week. So an approach that motivates one group will "miss the mark" with another, Green explains. So what is needed is an approach for "managing the individuality of each employee," Green goes on.

One possible solution to that much-needed approach for Green is the theory of motivation put forward by Abraham Maslow and Frederick Herzberg; that's the "notion that employees are motivated to perform better when offered something they want, something they believe will be satisfying" (Green, p. 1). But wait, that doesn't always work, Green explains. Employees can be offered something they said they wanted and then turn around and fail to perform as well as management hoped they would. And so Green's research shows that offering employees something they believe will be "satisfying" is often "not enough"; the employee must believe he will get what was offered. "Employees are not motivated to perform better when managers focus on the 'offering' and ignore the 'believing'" (Green, p. 1).

It boils down to three separate and "distinct beliefs," Green explains. The first is believing that indeed they "can perform well enough to get what is offered" (p. 1). The second belief is "…believing that they will get it if they perform well" and the third is believing that "what is offered will be satisfying" (Green, p. 2). Green's research indicates that most popular theories of motivation only deal with the third belief, which is why he believes Vroom's version of the expectancy theory stands out as uniquely appropriate for organizations; it deals with all three beliefs.

For clarity, Green breaks Vroom's expectancy theory down to simpler terms. To wit, the three beliefs deal with what employees think will happen if indeed they put out the effort: a) belief B1 relates to the "relationship between effort and performance"; b) belief B2 in Green's explanation deals with the "relationship between performance and outcomes"; and c) belief B3 has to do with the relationship "between outcomes and satisfaction" (Green, p. 2). B1 only works if the employee believes he or she can actually complete the task (e.g., they need self-confidence); B2 only works if the employee really fundamentally trusts that "their performance will lead to expected outcomes"; and B3 is successful only if the outcomes truly will satisfy her or him (Green, p. 3-4).

Has the expectancy theory been supported by the research?

Certainly there is a great deal of research that has gone into the expectancy theory and the research available for this paper reveals the theory is seen as believable and is well-supported. For example, Andrew J. DuBrin, Professor of Management in the College of Business at the Rochester Institute of Technology, writes in his book that thanks to the expectancy theory employers have at their disposal several courses of action vis-a-vis getting employees motivated. The theory "helps pinpoint what a manager must do to motivate group members and diagnose motivational problems," the professor asserts (DuBrin, 2008, p. 392). With the expectancy theory at work, "individual differences among employees must be taken into account," he writes. Also, the rewards that are offered as motivation "should be closely tied to those actions the organization sees as worthwhile," he warns, albeit that should be very obvious to managers. After all, why offer an employee something very cool and enviable if it doesn't directly relate to the mission of the company? He gives a good example that The Home Depot offers to motivate their employees -- a check for $2,000 for "exceptional customer service" (392).

DuBrin further posits that if employees are not given "the appropriate training and encouragement" in the first place they are not going to be in a position to take advantage of any motivational incentives later during their employment years. And moreover, for the expectancy theory to provide the outcome desired, employees should be "…presented with credible evidence that good performance does lead to anticipated rewards" (392).