The expectancy theory was developed by Victor H. Vroom in 1964 as a systematic explanation of individual motivation within the workplace. This theory put forth three key components: expectancy, performance, and valence. From the base component of the theory, which is expectancy, behavior is built by an individual’s value of the reward or valence. Vroom’s theory of expectancy is used by manager to understand how individual employees are motivated and how they will respond to rewards closely tied to the tasks given. Expectancy is proposed to be an individual’s understanding of how their effort leads to a given performance level.
Vroom put forth in his theory that individuals believe the more effort put into a task or objective, the better the performance on the task. Therefore, effort leads to performance or E ? P. This effort is closely related to the individual’s belief that they can perform the given task (self-efficacy), whether they believe the task is perceived obtainable, and the individual can control the goal or performance. If the result of a strong effort is a good or exceptional performance, than the result of good performance should be a given outcome, P ? O.
This outcome should be a reward tied closely to the task and performance. A reward that is tied significant to the performance will help to motivate the individual’s effort. The third key factor of Vroom’s expectancy theory is valence. Valence refers to how much value the individual places on the reward, V(R). Again, the reward should be tied to the outcome, but without a perceived value by the individuals, performance will not put forth any effort to begin with. A summary of the Vroom’s expectancy is seen with the following notation. (Web site, Expectancy Theory, 2013) Expectancy: Effort ?
Performance (E? P) Instrumentality: Performance ? Outcome (P? O) Valence: V(R) 1 In the given scenario, after speaking with supervisor A’s employees, supervisor B has identified three major issues that need to be addressed by management. These issues can be summarized as (1) a lack of effort to master the new production process, (2) a lack of effort to reach the company’s stated production goals, and (3) there is no significant reward or penalty for not meeting the production goals. The employees stated the lack of effort to master the new process may be due to the lack of physical dexterity needed.
Management may be able to address this issue by pairing who have successfully mastered the new process with those that are having issues. By mentoring the employees that have doubts about their capabilities, they may find that they are indeed capable of the new process, leading to their belief that they have the physical aptitude to complete the tasks required. Mentoring will help these employees with self-efficacy. The second issue, a lack of effort to reach the company’s stated goals could possible a two-fold issue.
It is possible that these goals must be measured both in production count and in production quality. Management may be able to address the second issue and the third issue (no reward for achieving the company’s stated goals) through creating a recognition program and evaluating the level of bonuses given to employees. A recognition program that could measure the quality of the items produced, as well as a second recognition category for the quantity of items produced may give employees a reward that would have more intrinsic value then a bonus that has little monetary value due to tax withholdings.
Rewards given could be something as simple as an employee of the month in each category, with paid time off as the reward, a special parking spot, or lunch with upper management. 2 This type of employee recognition program should be evaluated for success after short implementation phase. Evaluation should be made to determine if production has increased, employee satisfaction increased and if the new processes are being implemented successfully. Citations “Expectancy Theory. ” – Process and Motivation. N. p. , n. d. Web. 04 May 2013. . 3