Friday, December 4, 2020

Vroom's Expectancy Theory

 Vroom’s Expectancy theory was introduced by Professor Victor H. Vroom of Yale school of management in 1964. It looks at the cognitive processes that affect the motivation of the employee (Parijat and Shilpi, 2014). Vroom’s Expectancy theory explains that monetary incentive and some other stimulations such as promotions job satisfaction prides of achievements can drive the person better (Stephen Pembi, 2019).

 

The reason of the employee works in the organization is fulfilling their personal goals, these goals can be met by the organizational rewards or work outcomes. Therefore the relationship between personal goals, organizational rewards or work outcomes is more important (Parijat and Shilpi, 2014)

People’s motivation explained the combination of three factors, which are Expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. According to Nemati ( 2016)Expectancy Theory is a the multiplicative function of valence, instrumentality, and expectancy”



Figure 1: E x I x V = Motivation                                                                        (Fremstad, 2013)

According to Nemait (2016) these three variables explain as, 

Expectancy:

Expectancy can be described as the belief that higher or increased effort will yield better performance. This can be explained by the thinking of "If I work harder, I will make something better". Conditions that enhance expectancy includes having the correct resources available, having the required skill set for the job at hand, and having the necessary support to get the job done correctly.


Instrumentality:

Instrumentality can be described as the thought that if an individual performs well, then a valued outcome will come to that individual. Some things that help instrumentality is having a clear understanding of the relationship between performance and the outcomes, having trust and respect for people who make the decisions on who gets a what reward, and seeing transparency in the process of who gets what reward.


Valence:

Valence means "value" and refers to beliefs about outcome desirability (Redmond, 2010). There are individual differences in the level of value associated with any specific outcome. For instance, a bonus may not increase motivation for an employee who is motivated by formal recognition or by increased status such as promotion. Valence can be thought of as the pressure or importance that a person puts on an expected outcome.



                                                                                                                
(Nemati, 2016)

In my personal experience at one of the well-known organizations related to IT support it was received the government project which needs to do the fill solution installation for 150 locations in 6 districts within three months’ time. According to the management forecast it was not easy to complete the current resources. Management sleeted twelve employees with the relevant skillset and given a target to complete the project within the agreed time and if it will achieve management promised to provide the incentive for each and every individual according to the performance. Conversely, it was given the rewards based on the competition of each and every district. Once it completed the district on or before targeted time all the team was afforded a dinner at a star class hotel with employee's family members. Team members were worked 24 X 7 and However total project was completed two days before the deadline.  


References:

Fremstad, J. (2013) ‘The Expectancy Theory: Teachers’ Perspectives of Motivation and Compensation’, (August).

NEMATI, S. K. (2016) Work Attitudes and Job Motivation Home - Kayla Weaver (FA16 002), Atlassian Confluence. Available at: https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/PSYCH484/4.+Expectancy+Theory.

Parijat, P. and Shilpi, B. (2014) ‘Motivationvroom’, International Journal of Business and Management, VII(9), pp. 1–8.

Stephen Pembi (2019) ‘Vroom’s Expectancy Theory and its Application in Management of Incentives Scheme in Adamawa Plastic Company, Yola, Nigeria’, International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 3(5), pp. 334–339.




9 comments:

  1. The theory also emphasizes some very important aspects or variables of management that are efforts, performance, rewards and personal goals and theory also establishes relationships between effort, performance,
    rewards and personal goals and tries to synthesize all these into one theory of motivation(Parijat & Bagga, 2014).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The theory of expectation has held a key position in the study of work motivation.It has served as a complete resource for theoretical innovation in domains such as organizational behavior, leadership and compensation.

      Delete
  2. According to Cardoso, Dominguez and Paiva (2015) Vroom deliberates through Expectancy Theory that motivation is built according to the intentions of person’s selections plus his expectancy for attaining his goals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Motivation, according to Vroom, boils down to the decision of how much effort to apply in a specific task situation. This choice is based on a two-stage sequence of expectations. Vroom used a mathematical equation to integrate these concepts into a predictive model of motivational force or strength. For our purposes, however, it is sufficient to define and explain the three key concepts within Vroom’s model—expectancy, instrumentality, and valence (Van Eerde and Thierry, 1996).

      Delete
  3. Intel is one of the best example, follows the concept of Vroom’s theory in the organization and following that they developed an internal Intel university which provides a comprehensive development curriculum for current employees seeking to move up the ladder and benefit from a job promotion, providing staff the opportunity to attend personal development seminars for creating the relationship between personal well-being, offers employees discounts from participating hotels and restaurants and an on-site fully equipped gym, pay rewards, annual bonuses are paid out based on the employees bonus target which are exact amounts calculated from the employee’s performance, offers their employees the chance to buy shares in the company at a lower price than market value and the workforce is paid out an annual multiplier bonus which is determined by the overall success and achievement of the company as a whole throughout the year (Intel Inc., 2012).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Expectancy Theory of motivation as developed by Victor Vroom is a process theory of motivation and it finds an important place in the literature of motivational theories. The Expectancy Theory looks at motivation in a more comprehensive and realisticthan some of the other theories. Although it is a more complex theory of motivation, it is based on common sense psychology of employees and says that they will be motivated to act when there is an expectancy that their behaviour can result in achievement of desired outcomes (Parijat and Shilpi, 2014).

      Delete
  4. Basically this theory explains that the performance of any employee is based on factors such as individual experience, knowledge, personality, ability and skills.(Smith, T.2020)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The theory is that people have different goals and can be motivated if they have specific expectations. Vroom theory is about choice, and it explains the processes that a person follows to make a choice. According to Vroom, motivation is based on determining how much effort is required for a given position (Parijat and Shilpi, 2014)

      Delete
  5. The theory also seems lacking when it fails to come to grips with the fact that some employees may be more interested in intrinsic rewards and nor extrinsic rewards.
    Another potential weakness of the expectancy theory is that it assumes all necessi-ties are in place, which is not always the case. Employees need to have the ability, the resources and the opportunity to perform their job well. An example of this would be the role genetics can play as a biological limiting factor of performance (Walker, 2003).


    ReplyDelete