Expectancy theory in organizational behavior and 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 are the strengths and weaknesses of the theory?

The strengths of the theory are presented throughout this paper in various forms. But in particular, an article in the journal Library Philosophy and Practice points out the strengths from one particular instance. The importance of being able to motivate a person when that individual is part of a team collaborating on one particular library task. An individual worker "…seems to adjust his own motivational levels to those of his/her colleagues" and to "his acceptance by the group within" (Ugah, 2011, p. 1). But that same individual know that if he produces "exceptional output on a unilateral basis" it will anger his colleagues and disrupt the group norm of production" (Ugah, 1).

So, given the above-mentioned issues, what's to be done? In a library, one of the most important tasks is in the cataloguing departments, which entails descriptive cataloguing, subject cataloguing, assigning subject headings and classification, as well as typing, pasting of book pockets, and more. It's "not always easy" working in this department, Ugah explains on page 2. Cataloguing means being isolated from the public and "a high cost is paid in physical and mental health" in the cataloguing department -- hence all the workers in the cataloguing must be motivated as a staff, and not as individuals (Ugah, p. 3). If only one member of the cataloguing staff is motivated, he or she will turn off the rest; and likewise, if one member bogs down or becomes negative, it drags all the rest down. The positive solution is to use the expectancy theory but not necessarily offer the same exact rewards to all members; this is where management must know individuals well and be able to dangle that carrot, so to speak, in unique ways to each person.

The weakness of the theory, according to Koontz, is that Vroom's theory "is difficult to apply in practice" because in reality "motivation is much more complex than the approaches of Maslow and Herzberg seem to imply" (293). Indeed, the strength of the motivation and energy exerted depends on "the value of a reward plus the amount of energy a person believes is required and the probability of receiving the reward" (Koontz, 294). However, performance is "greatly influenced by an individual's ability (knowledge and skills) to do the job," and hence just thinking a worker is being motivated by giving him an incentive could fail because he may or may not have the experience and skill to excel in any event (Koontz, 294).

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).