Which concept from expectancy theory is Ryan demonstrating when he makes this statement

journal article

The Academy of Management Review

Vol. 7, No. 1 (Jan., 1982)

, pp. 80-88 (9 pages)

Published By: Academy of Management

https://doi.org/10.2307/257251

https://www.jstor.org/stable/257251

Abstract

The current state of motivation theory is reviewed. Emphasis is placed on the internal, unobservable aspects of motivation and the distinction between motivation and behavior and performance. Major theories of motivation concerned with the arousal and choice of behavior are examined, problems of implementation are discussed, and directions for future research are suggested. They include study of the circumstances under which any given motivational theory is most effective. The long-run objective should be a contingency type model of motivation.

Journal Information

The Academy of Management Review, now in its 26th year, is the most cited of management references. AMR ranks as one of the most influential business journals, publishing academically rigorous, conceptual papers that advance the science and practice of management. AMR is a theory development journal for management and organization scholars around the world. AMR publishes novel, insightful and carefully crafted conceptual articles that challenge conventional wisdom concerning all aspects of organizations and their role in society. The journal is open to a variety of perspectives, including those that seek to improve the effectiveness of, as well as those critical of, management and organizations. Each manuscript published in AMR must provide new theoretical insights that can advance our understanding of management and organizations. Most articles include a review of relevant literature as well. AMR is published four times a year with a circulation of 15,000.

Publisher Information

The Academy of Management (the Academy; AOM) is a leading professional association for scholars dedicated to creating and disseminating knowledge about management and organizations. The Academy's central mission is to enhance the profession of management by advancing the scholarship of management and enriching the professional development of its members. The Academy is also committed to shaping the future of management research and education. Founded in 1936, the Academy of Management is the oldest and largest scholarly management association in the world. Today, the Academy is the professional home for more than 18290 members from 103 nations. Membership in the Academy is open to all individuals who find value in belonging.

Rights & Usage

This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
The Academy of Management Review © 1982 Academy of Management
Request Permissions

Learning Outcomes

• Describe the ways in which managers can use expectancy theory to motivate employees

Expectancy theory, initially put forward by Victor Vroom at the Yale School of Management, suggests that behavior is motivated by anticipated results or consequences. Vroom proposed that a person decides to behave in a certain way based on the expected result of the chosen behavior. For example, people will be willing to work harder if they think the extra effort will be rewarded.

In essence, individuals make choices based on estimates of how well the expected results of a given behavior are going to match up with or eventually lead to the desired results. This process begins in childhood and continues throughout a person’s life. Expectancy theory has three components: expectancy, instrumentality, and valence.

• Expectancy is the individual’s belief that effort will lead to the intended performance goals. Expectancy describes the person’s belief that “I can do this.” Usually, this belief is based on an individual’s past experience, self-confidence, and the perceived difficulty of the performance standard or goal. Factors associated with the individual’s expectancy perception are competence, goal difficulty, and control.
• Instrumentality is the belief that a person will receive a desired outcome if the performance expectation is met. Instrumentality reflects the person’s belief that, “If I accomplish this, I will get that.” The desired outcome may come in the form of a pay increase, promotion, recognition, or sense of accomplishment. Having clear policies in place—preferably spelled out in a contract—guarantees that the reward will be delivered if the agreed-upon performance is met. Instrumentality is low when the outcome is vague or uncertain, or if the outcome is the same for all possible levels of performance.
• Valence is the unique value an individual places on a particular outcome. Valence captures the fact that “I find this particular outcome desirable because I’m me.” Factors associated with the individual’s valence are needs, goals, preferences, values, sources of motivation, and the strength of an individual’s preference for a particular outcome. An outcome that one employee finds motivating and desirable—such as a bonus or pay raise—may not be motivating and desirable to another (who may, for example, prefer greater recognition or more flexible working hours).

Expectancy theory, when properly followed, can help managers understand how individuals are motivated to choose among various behavioral alternatives. To enhance the connection between performance and outcomes, managers should use systems that tie rewards very closely to performance. They can also use training to help employees improve their abilities and believe that added effort will, in fact, lead to better performance.

Practice Question

It’s important to understand that expectancy theory can run aground if managers interpret it too simplistically. Vroom’s theory entails more than just the assumption that people will work harder if they think the effort will be rewarded. The reward needs to be meaningful and take valence into account. Valence has a significant cultural as well as personal dimension, as illustrated by the following case.

ASMO in Japan

When Japanese motor company ASMO opened a plant in the U.S., it brought with it a large Japanese workforce but hired American managers to oversee operations. The managers, thinking to motivate their workers with a reward system, initiated a costly employee-of-the-month program that included free parking and other perks.

However, the program was a huge flop, and participation was disappointingly low. Why?

The program required employees to nominate their coworkers to be considered for the award. Japanese culture values modesty, teamwork, and conformity, and to be put forward or singled out for being special is considered inappropriate and even shameful. To be named Employee of the Month would be a very great embarrassment indeed—not at all the reward that management assumed. Especially as companies become more culturally diverse, the lesson is that managers need to get to know their employees and their needs—their unique valences—if they want to understand what makes them feel motivated, happy, and valued.

Contribute!

Did you have an idea for improving this content? We’d love your input.

Improve this pageLearn More

Which theory of motivation postulates that individuals compare their inputs and outputs to those of others?

Which of the following is true about the leadership skills and behaviors associated with the expectancy theory of motivation?

When a reward is deemed as attractive to the employee the attractiveness of the reward can be described as?

When choosing measures of performance which of the following criteria should be met?