Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation
Victor Vroom has significantly advanced our knowledge of the idea of motivation and the thought processes individuals use to choose how much effort to put into their work. He criticised Herzberg’s two factors theory, arguing that an individual’s motivation for any given action would always depend on his or her personal choice for the result and their belief that a certain course of action would lead to it.
This approach is predicated on the idea that people’s motivation is influenced by the kind of reward they anticipate receiving for doing well at work. Man will want to maximise the perceived worth of such incentives since he is a logical human being. When people are led to think that their actions will result in a certain consequence, they will become extremely driven, depending on what kind of outcome they like.
Vroom’s model consists of three variables that are expressed as an equation. Given that the model is a multiplier, motivated performance decisions can only be implied by high positive values for all three variables. The likelihood of motivated performance tends to be 0 if any of the variables are zero.
VALUE x EXPECTANCY x INSTRUMENTALITY = MOTIVATION
The explanations of these three variables are as follows:
Valence
The term “valence” refers to an outcome’s attraction (or repulsion) to the person. The intensity of a person’s liking for a reward is determined by its valence. Subjective and individualistic, the valence differs from person to person. A person is said to have positive valence if he would rather have the result than not have it.
If a person has no preference for the result, their valence is zero; conversely, if they would rather not have the outcome, their valence is negative. To put it simply, the employee has to consider the reward to be both wanted and fulfilling. What matters is how much the employee believes the incentive is worth, not how much the award is really worth. For instance, a person who prioritises being acknowledged for their efforts would not find value in receiving money.
Expectancy
Another name for expectation is the Effort-Performance Probability. It speaks to the degree to which an individual thinks his efforts will result in the accomplishment of the objective, which is the first level outcome. Expectancy is the chance that a certain activity will result in the desired outcome; it is the individual’s assessment of the possibility that a specific action or behaviour will result in the desired consequence.
Its value might be between 0 and 1 since it represents the relationship between effort and performance. A person won’t even do anything if he believes there is no chance of success. However, if the likelihood is greater, he will work more to get the intended result.
instrumentality (Performance-Reward Probability)
The term “instrumentality” describes the odds that a person assigns to every performance-outcome choice, just as they previously assigned odds to different effort levels that resulted in different performance levels (expectancy). To put it simply, instrumentality is the expectation and belief of an individual that their actions will result in a certain desired reward.
For instance, if someone wants to get promoted and believes that achieving great performance is crucial to getting the promotion. The first level result is superior performance, and the second level consequence is promotion. Being the first to get the desired promotion will need exceptional performance (first level result) (Second level outcome). Since instrumentality represents the likelihood of reaching the intended result, its value similarly ranges from 0 to 1.
The motivating force will be greatest when all three elements are high, as the connection indicates (Motivation = V x E x I), and it will decrease when any one of the factors—valence, expectation, or instrumentality—becomes closer to zero. An alternative visual representation of Vroom’s model is shown in the image.
The management has to acknowledge the current state of affairs, assess what needs to be done to enhance these areas in order to modify behaviour and help each employee reach their maximum potential.
For instance, management may handle the various circumstances in the following ways:
I Reasons for Low Effort-Performance Expectancy: Inadequate training and skills, which prevent employees from understanding that exerting more effort would result in higher performance.
Action items: To enhance the effort-performance link, management should provide chances for skill development training.
(ii) Instrumentality with Low Performance and Reward Relationship Reasons: The policy for rewards may be inconsistent and based on non-performance-related reasons that employees may not be aware of or may not think are fair.
Action items: Management has to review the assessment methods and provide guidelines that support this partnership as fair and reasonable.
(iii) Low Reward-Valence Reasons: Employees may not find the incentives appealing. While some employees may find monetary awards appealing, others might place a more importance on recognition.
Action items: Management has to look at whether the awards that are awarded based on performance are desirable.
An assessment of the Expectancy Model
As an alternative to content theories—which, in Vroom’s opinion, were insufficient in explaining the intricate process of work motivation—his idea has grown in popularity.
This theory has the following advantages: I The expectation model is very helpful in comprehending organisational behaviour. It may strengthen the connection between a person’s objectives and those of the company. Similar to need-based models, this model illustrates how an individual’s objectives drive his efforts and shows that behaviour is goal-oriented.
(ii) A cognitive theory that upholds human dignity is the expectation theory. People are seen as rational creatures with the ability to predict the future based on their expectations and beliefs.
(iii) By going beyond what Maslow and Herzberg said, this theory aids managers in their thinking. He contends that motivation is not the same as meeting unmet needs. Managers must enable staff members to understand that their efforts may lead to suitable, need-satisfying incentives. The drive to work will increase at this level of expectations.
Notwithstanding these benefits, Vroom’s expectation model has the following disadvantages:
I It is challenging to do research on and put Vroom’s theory into reality. The paucity of studies that have been particularly created to examine Vroom’s idea is evidence of this.
(ii) According to this idea, man is a logical human being who intentionally determines all of his choices. However, there are many situations in which choices are made without giving them any consideration. This is especially valid for regular work.
(iii) Despite being a significant theory of motivation, it is quite intricate. In real-world organisational settings, a lot of managers lack the resources or time necessary to operate a complicated system while on the job. In conclusion, this model is a good start theoretically, but from a practical standpoint, it is unable to assist the management in resolving the challenging motivating issue