Team 2 Newsletter
1
Expectancy Theories and Work Motivation
ContibutingAuthors:
Ashley R. Beaudoin
Joshua S. Shiver
Kayla D. Smith
Trey A. Trainum
Sara R. Westendorf
Department of Psychology and Counseling
Valdosta State University
Learning Objectives:
1. Discuss the differences between Vroom’s original Expectancy-Valence model and the PorterLawler model with regards to extrinsic and intrinsic rewards.
2. Differentiate between effective and ineffective ways to increase work motivation using
Expectancy-Valence Theories.
3. Diagnose reasons for lack of motivation exhibited by employees in an organization.
4. Explain different variables that may affect the level of effort and motivation exerted by
employees, and reasons for their variance.
5. Define effective elements of performance management/rewards systems for managementlevel individuals.
6. Differentiate between the relative impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on managerial
motivation and performance.
7. Discuss revisions and complications of expectancy theory of motivation
8. Describe how group work effects individual work.
9. Recognize the ways to improve workers effectiveness.
General Overview: Expectancy Theories and Work Motivation
The Porter-Lawler model of Work Motivation
Vroom’s (1964) expectancy-valence theory describes how people are motivated to work, by
explaining that people generally hold preferences among certain outcomes or states of nature.
The Porter-Lawler model refined Vroom’s original model by adding intrinsic and extrinsic
rewards to the equation. These rewards influence peoples’ level of satisfaction. These are
different for everybody, as people have different views of themselves on which they base the
equity of the rewards they receive.
Expectancy Theory of Motivation: Motivating by Altering Expectations
Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) presents a model that describes how people are motivated to
work as function expectancies related to value of future rewards. Lunenberg (2001) is an
expansion on Vroom’s (1964) model by showing how expectancy theory can be applied by
managers to motivate their employees, and also reasons for workers’ poor performance and
Team 2 Newsletter
2
productivity. Lunenberg (2001) also proposed confounding variables that may affect and
invalidate Vroom’s model, such as an employee’s self-efficacy, their reward expectancy and
their reward valence.
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Rewards and Work Motivation
Kominis and Emmanuel (2007) conceptualized an extended version of the traditional
expectancy-valence (E-V) model, as a result of a study regarding performance management and
reward system (PMERS) perceptions of middle-level manager motivations. Their model and
results describe a direct relationship between the perceived reward value, attainability of tasks,
accuracy of performance measures, transparency of performance and rewards, and motivation
(Kominis & Emmanuel, 2007). These authors also discuss rewards as being intrinsic or
extrinsic: finding motivation (and eventually performance) to be significantly affected by both
types of rewards (Kominis & Emmanuel, 2007). As well, Kominis and Emmanuel (2007) found
reward value to be affected by performance measurement accuracy, and performance-reward
transparency.
Advances in Theories of Work Motivation
Vroom's expectancy theory had shortcomings, leading variations of the basic valence X
expectancy model to come into existence. Lawler expanded the model to distinguish between
actions and outcomes and the types of experiences associated with each. While prior testing of
the various models had found correlations between expectancy measures and job performance
measures, the variable's interaction remained unclear. That is, the relationship between measures
of expectancy and job performance did indicate the effect on motivation as the model predicted.
Lawler and Suttle (1971) conducted an experiment to further evaluate the structural
characteristics of the variables constituting the models expectancy theory.
Group Work and how it affects Individuals
There are multiple factors within the workplace that contribute to an individual’s success or
failure within the organization. Based on those contributing factors, an individual’s work
potential will be determined. One important factor, that has a high potential to affect one’s work,
is being involved with a group of colleagues to accomplish a common goal. A group can
contribute to an individual’s job-relevant knowledge and skills, psychological arousal,
performance strategies, and level of effort (Porter, Lawler, & Hackman, 1993). With having
those variables in mind and colleagues wanting to improve the work atmosphere, individuals will
be able to perform at their peak performance level.
Expectancy-Valence Theories of Work Motivation
Pinder (2008) explains Vroom’s original Expectancy-Valence Theory, and how people hold
preferences among outcomes or states of nature. Vroom’s theory (as cited in Pinder, 2008) states
that people are motivated to work or partake in a specific action based on their expectations of
the consequence of that action, and whether or not they feel that the reward is worth the effort
put forth to receive it. This theory revolves around the concept of valence. When valence is
high, there is a high preference for a certain outcome. As performance is the most central
outcome of interest in the context of work, Pinder (2008) explains that we generally want
Team 2 Newsletter
3
performance to have a high valence among employees. Further, instrumentality factors into the
equation as the connection between performance and outcomes stemming from performance.
Pinder (2008) then shifts the topic to the Porter-Lawler model that refined Vroom’s model by
adding the importance of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards to the equation because they influence
satisfaction. People have different views of themselves on which they base the equity of the
rewards that they receive. Overall, Pinder (2008) explains that there may be quite a few factors
that contribute to the effort that employees will give (motivation).
Question 1: What is the difference between expectancy beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs?
A. Expectancy and self-efficacy beliefs are synonymous.
B. Expectancy beliefs have to do with the outcomes of an action, whereas selfefficacy beliefs have to do with simply a person’s judgment about whether he or
she can do something.
C. Expectancy beliefs have to do with a person’s judgment of their own ability.
D. Self-efficacy beliefs have to do with perceived equity of a person’s own skills.
The correct response to Question 1 is “B: Expectancy beliefs have to do with the outcomes of an
action, whereas self-efficacy beliefs have to do with simply a person’s judgment about whether
he or she can do something.”
Discussion of Question 1: Expectancy beliefs have to do with the outcomes of an action,
whereas self-efficacy beliefs have to do with simply a person’s judgment about whether he or
she can do something. Answer a. is incorrect because, while the two terms are similar, selfefficacy is a somewhat broader construct. Answer c. is incorrect because expectancy beliefs are
beliefs that a certain outcome will result from the presence of a certain action. Answer d. is
incorrect because self-efficacy beliefs are simply a person’s own judgment about whether he or
she can do something.
Question 2: What it the Pygmalion effect, and can it be problematic in a work
environment?
A. The Pygmalion effect results in a legitimate increase in overall employee
performance, and is not problematic in a work environment.
B. The Pygmalion effect occurs when employees’ perceived equity increases to
a point that all employees feel they are being treated unfairly. So, yes, this is
problematic.
C. The Pygmalion effect is a general increase in an employee’s performance that
results from raising a manager’s expectations about the possible performance
levels of employees. This can be problematic in a work environment because
it could result in inaccurate performance ratings.
D. The Pygmalion effect occurs when employees’ expectations of their own
performance results in a performance increase. This is not problematic in a
T
work environment, but effective.
Team 2 Newsletter
4
The correct response to Question 2 is “C: The Pygmalion effect is a general increase in an
employee’s performance that results from raising a manager’s expectations about the possible
performance levels of employees. This can be problematic in a work environment because it
could result in inaccurate performance ratings.”
Discussion of Question 2:
The Pygmalion effect is a general increase in an employee’s performance that results from
raising a manager’s expectations about the possible performance levels of employees. This can
be problematic in a work environment because it could result in inaccurate performance ratings.
Answer a. is incorrect because the performance gains that are seen from a Pygmalion effect may
not be legitimate. Answer b. is incorrect because the Pygmalion effect does not deal with
perceived equity of one’s own skills, but a manager’s perceptions of performance. Answer d. is
incorrect because that is the definition of the Galatea effect, not the Pygmalion effect.
Expectancy Theory of Motivation: Motivating by Altering Expectations
Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) presents a model that describes how people are
motivated to work as function expectancies related to value of future rewards. Lunenberg (2001)
expanded on Vroom’s (1964) model by showing how expectancy theory can be applied by
managers to motivate their employees, and also reasons for workers’ poor performance and
productivity.
The four key assumptions of Vroom’s expectancy theory as articulated by Lunenburg
(2001) posit that (1) people join organizations with expectations about their needs, motivations
and past experiences, (2) an individual’s behavior is a result of choice, (3) different people want
and expect different things from an organization and (4) people make choices according to their
individual preferences.
Simply stated, the Expectancy Model holds that a worker’s effort leads to a performance
outcome, which in turn leads to a reward. This process is complex, however, and is impacted by
three key variables: 1) expectancy; (2) instrumentality; and (3) valence.
Expectancy pertains to the probability that a worker’s effort will result in an expected
increase in level of performance. For example, if a worker perceives that increased effort will
not impact heightened performance, he/she will be less likely to engage in effortful behavior.
Instrumentality refers to the belief that work-related task performance will lead to
positive and rewarding outcomes. The perception that an increase in task performance without
positive incentives and subsequent rewarding outcomes, however, would will reduce a worker’s
motivation to perform the task. In other words, task performance is motivated by the expectancy
of an instrumental or tangible incentive and the delivery of a reward.
Valence refers to the value or preference that a worker has with respect to potential
rewards related to his/her performance on a given task. This means that if a reward received for
increased effort and performance is not commensurate with the worker’s perception of the
magnitude of their effort and performance – then the motivation to continue performing the task
Team 2 Newsletter
5
is diminished. For example receiving pat on the back as a reward instead of an expected
monetary bonus would theoretically attenuate motivation and subsequent task engagement.
Effort, therefore, is dependent on the perceived expectancy of how well that effort will
lead to performance. This effort, however, is dependent on the instrumentality of the
performance outcome (reward). If the worker perceives that the valence of reward for a
performed task is acceptable, he/she will be moved to continue performing the task. Vroom
(1964) articulated this dynamic in terms of a mathematical model represented by the following
equation: Motivation = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valence. If, however, any of the
equation’s components equal zero, then logically motivation will also equal zero.
Expanding and Improving on Vroom’s Model
There are, however, confounds that may affect and invalidate Vroom’s model, which are
addressed by Lunenberg (2001).
One possible variable is self-efficacy, which pertains to worker’s self-perception their
ability successfully master and perform given tasks. Managers, therefore, must be mindful being
certain that workers can master and perform the tasks they are assigned. For example, for a
technical job that requires a specific knowledge set, managers may want to give their employees
a short test to ensure they are able to actually do the work assigned.
Another key variable explicitly absent from Vroom’s Models is reward expectancy,
which is defined as the belief that task performance will yield in valued reward outcomes. Thus,
it is important for managers to be measuring job performance fairly and accurately. For example
in a telemarketing organization, rewards need to be tied to how many sales a telemarketer makes
instead of how many calls they make.
Lastly, reward valence which is the value of the reward given for good performance, and
managers should do this by distributing rewards to well-performing employees that those
employees actually want and will strive to work hard for. For example, if the reward for the most
sales in a month is an extra day off from work, not all employees may be motivated to make the
most sales as they would prefer a commission and extra money and an extra day off of work may
not be a big enough motivator for them.
Question 3: John works at a company performing simple data entry, and hasn’t seemed
very motivated lately in his work. His performance is down, and he hasn’t been producing
the required amount of output. He doesn’t currently have a lot on his plate; so being
overworked does not seem like a possible reason for this. According to Vroom’s
expectancy model for motivation, what could be a reason for John’s lack of performance
lately?
A. John is simply bored, he isn’t being cognitively challenged enough for him to feel
like his efforts are worth his time and effort.
B. John is socially loafing. Due to the sheer amount of people who share similar
responsibilities as him, he believes his lack of output will go relatively unnoticed
by management.
C. John is not happy with how management measures performance, and he believes no
matter how hard he works, his perceived performance will not change based upon
his level of level of effort.
D. John has fallen victim to the over-justification effect. John loves doing the work he
does intrinsically, but now that he is paid to do something he would do in his own
time for fun, he now perceives it as “work” as is less motivated to perform.
Team 2 Newsletter
6
The Correct response to Question 3 is “C: John is not happy with how management measures
performance, and he believes no matter how hard he works, his perceived performance will not
change based upon his level of level of effort.”
Discussion of Question 3: According to Vroom’s expectancy theory of motivation, three things
primarily affect motivation: expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. Answer C suggests that
John feels that his performance is not effectively or fairly being evaluated and that the level of
effort he must exert will not change his performance due to the ineffectiveness of the
performance management system currently used to measure performance. Therefore, he is not
motivated to work any harder by giving more effort. This lines up with the instrumentality
component of Vroom’s model, which says that people’s level of motivation is dependent upon if
they feel that their level of effort will affect their performance. A, B, and D are incorrect because
although these are variables that are included in other models of motivation, they are not part of
the 3-component model explained by Vroom.
Question 4: How might motivation be increased in a company according to
Vroom’s expectancy theory?
A. Hold team-building exercises to increase a sense of collective camaraderie.
B. Give everyone in the organization an extra day of paid time off.
C. Allow employees to partake in personal development training, so that they
can develop more work skills and feel that they are an increasingly valuable
asset to the company.
D. Give employees individual choice between several available rewards that are
directly tied to their performance.
The correct response to Question 4 is “D: Give employees individual choice between several
available rewards that are directly tied to their performance.”
Discussion of Question 4: According to Vroom’s expectancy theory, one component of
motivation is valence, which is the degree to which the employee prefers the reward being
offered for their effort and performance. If an employee doesn’t particularly like the reward
being offered, they will be less motivated to perform well. However, since we all have
individual differences in what we personally prefer, allowing employees choice in their own
reward ensures that everyone has as high of a valence to their performance-tied reward as
possible. Answers A and C are incorrect, as they may increase motivation according to other
theories but they are not components that affect motivation according to Vroom’s expectancy
theory. B is incorrect because it takes into no account the valence of each individual employee,
and some employees may not care about paid time off at all.
Team 2 Newsletter
7
Expectancy-Valence Theory Extended: Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation within
Performance Management Systems for Managerial Positions
Kominis and Emmanuel (2007) conceptualized an extended version of the traditional
expectancy-valence (E-V) model, as a product of an investigation of the relationship between
perceptions of elements of a performance management and reward system (PMERS;
measurement, evaluation, and rewards) on motivation in middle-level management positions.
According to their results and revised model, there is a direct relationship between the perceived
reward value, attainability of tasks, accuracy of performance measures, transparency of
performance and rewards, and motivation: intricacies will be discussed below. Kominis and
Emmanuel (2007) discuss rewards as being intrinsic or extrinsic, and found both significantly
affect motivation, and thus performance, in managers. As well, the researchers found reward
value to be affected by performance measurement accuracy, and performance-reward
transparency (Kominis & Emmanuel, 2007).
The traditional E-V model involves process theories of worker motivation and
performance, which Kominis and Emmanuel (2007) describe as being rationally based and
cognitively oriented: a central expectancy core. In other words, workers are assumed to follow
processes by making choices that are rational according to the different behavior options
available: workers chose to exhibit behaviors that will help in achieving their personal goals
(Kominis & Emmanuel, 2007). Choices are based on valences (i.e., outcome preferences or
anticipated rewards) as well as expectations of outcome attainment. So, individuals are
motivated by the value they place on an outcome, as well as their perception of achieving the
outcome (Kominis & Emmanuel, 2007). The authors explain that mixed results have been
achieved using the traditional E-V model when studying managerial positions, in particular
(Kominis & Emmanuel, 2007).
As an improved alternative, Kominis and Emmanuel (2007) propose a model
implementing an effort-reward (E  R) perception aspect, which is “critically” related to the
success of a PMERS system. Specifically, the authors pose that ability of a performance
management system has to appropriately measure, evaluate, and reward performance will affect
the E  R perceptions of managers (Kominis & Emmanuel, 2007). This model separates the E
 R aspect into three parts: set performance goals, effectiveness via performance measures, and
delivery of rewards according to performance and set performance goals. Through this improved
model, extrinsic motivation is determined via these three aspects, alongside the employee’s
perception of reward value (Kominis & Emmanuel, 2007). As well, the authors examine the
affect intrinsic motivations have on performance according to and alongside the additive model.
As stated previously, the authors found both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards affect
managerial motivation: that is, motivation is effected by perceptions of value of extrinsic rewards
given by the organization, as well perceptions of value related to intrinsic rewards. Thus,
managers may be menially motivated by the rewards provided by the organization (e.g., bonuses
or other incentives), if intrinsic rewards are high (i.e., personal goals are perceived as being
attainable; Kominis & Emmanuel, 2007). As well, the context of the job (i.e., whether the
manager truly enjoys the environment or the job itself) may be more important for motivation,
thus affecting performance.
Team 2 Newsletter
8
These authors suggest that PMERS systems implement the following elements: clearly
defined performance standards, clearly explained performance standards, explanations for
performance ratings, allowing managers opportunities to set and achieve goals, supervisory
ratings accurately depicting performance exhibited, and appropriately and consistently awarding
rewards according to the set PMERS system. Therefore, a focus should be placed on
performance-dependent incentive schemes, and performance needs to be explicitly defined,
standardized, and communicated to the employee being evaluated. Fairness of the performance
management system is likely to affect whether the employee views the system’s rewards as a
positive or negative valence (i.e., desired or undesired outcome), whether the standards set are
attainable.
In conclusion, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards should be viewed as sharing a
complimentary relationship. In other words, under some circumstances, extrinsic rewards can
overpower intrinsic rewards, and vice versa. For example, an employee may be more motivated
by the physical activity (e.g., regularly leaving the office to run an errand to another department)
of their job versus the monetary rewards (e.g., actual salary or a bonus) received by completing
the work. Conversely, an employee may only complete the physical tasks in order to receive the
monetary, or extrinsic reward. Supervisors should take the time to monitor their staff member’s
interests, and coach them towards achieving performance goals accordingly. Specifically,
managers should attempt to observe and discuss with their staff members what it is they enjoy
doing at work, ask them what they feel motivates them the most, and encourage them to involve
themselves in the activities that best suit their interests and motivations (while still reaching
departmental goals). Kominis and Emmanuel (2007) suggest that intrinsic rewards impact
motivation as strongly as extrinsic reward. For example, a person who enjoys the organization’s
job structure (e.g., task variety) or job environment (e.g., autonomy within organization) may not
show differences in motivation according to the PMERS system (Kominis & Emmanuel, 2007).
Question 5: What element of a PMERS system is NOT important for
maintaining motivation for management positions within the financial field?
A. Clearly defining performance standards
B. Providing accurate performance ratings
C. Consistently granting rewards according to performance
D. The content of the reward (i.e., what the reward consists of)
The correct response to Question 5 is “D: The content of the reward (i.e., what the reward
consists of)”
Discussion of Question 5: The content of the reward (i.e., what the rewards consists of) is
incorrect, because although all four answers may be considered important in a PMERS system
(in certain managerial contexts), the content of the reward is the most dependent of the individual
(i.e., different people will view rewards differently). A, B, and C must exist in all PMERS
systems (according to Kominis & Emmanuel, 2007), for perceptions of fairness, attainability,
and valence.
Team 2 Newsletter
9
Question 6: Which statement is TRUE in reference to intrinsic and extrinsic
rewards/motivation:
A. Intrinsic and extrinsic rewards should be considered as conflicting
elements in managerial PMERS design.
B. Intrinsic and extrinsic rewards significantly affect performance by
affecting perceptions of task attainment.
C. If an individual enjoys their job tasks and likes their organizational
culture, the external rewards they are offered may not affect
performance.
D. Intrinsic motivation is the only important element of successful
performance management.
The correct response to Question 6 is “C: If an individual enjoys their job tasks and likes their
organizational culture, the external rewards they are offered may not affect performance.”
Discussion of Question 6: If an individual enjoys their job tasks and likes their organizational
culture, the external rewards they are offered may not affect performance, because, as Kominis
and Emmanuel (2007) discuss, individuals may perceive intrinsic rewards to have a greater value
than extrinsic rewards (e.g., bonuses, benefits, etc. given by the organization). Answer a. is
incorrect because Kominis and Emmanuel (2007) posit that a complimentary versus a conflicting
viewpoint should be taken into account when designing a performance management system.
Answer B. is incorrect because in their research Kominis and Emmanuel (2007) found that
performance is affected by motivation as a function of intrinsic or extrinsic rewards (Kominis &
Emmanuel, 2007). Lastly, answer D. is incorrect because, as previously stated, both internal and
external rewards play a role in performance by affecting motivation.
Expectancy Theory and Job Behavior
Vroom’s (1964) instrumentality theory of motivation was the first general theory of work
motivation to incorporate cognitively-oriented assumptions. According to Vroom, motivation is
based on the interaction of expectancy and valence. Expectancy can be viewed as the employee
expecting an act to be followed by a particular outcome, while valence can be viewed as the
attraction to the outcome. The theory has been predominantly criticized by Campbell, Dunnette,
Lawler, and Weick for not differentiating between actions and outcomes as well as for not
distinguishing between the types of expectancies associated with each. Accordingly, Graen,
Lawler, and Porter each modified the basic valence x expectancy statement to account for these
issues (Lawler and Suttle, 1971).
Lawler not only expanded Vroom’s basic valence x expectancy statement to account for
these criticisms, but substituted force with effort to refer to readily operationalized behaviors
(Behling and Starke, 1973). This model clearly distinguishes between the expectancy that effort
will lead to the successful performance of a behavior and the expectancy that this action will
Team 2 Newsletter
10
produce outcomes, defining motivation as a function of the multiplicative combination of three
variables: the perception that effort will lead to goal accomplishment, giving purpose to job
performance (E  P); job performance that leads to goal accomplishment will result in the
attainment of certain outcomes or rewards (P  O); and the valence (V) of these outcomes
(Lawler and Suttle, 1971). The model further purports that job behavior is a joint function of
ability, role perception, and motivation (Lawler and Suttle, 1971). This means that an employee
must have the ability to perform the job behavior, must be aware that the job behavior is
necessary to fulfill their role, and further must be motivated to engage in the behavior to fulfill
their role. For example, a sales associate depends on item availability in order to make sales
(ability) and must understand that he/she is responsible for making sales (role perception). With
these characteristics in place, the sales associate will engage in job behaviors relevant to making
sales if they are motivated to do so, whether for intrinsic satisfaction or external monetary
rewards (commission/salary).
All model variations of expectancy theory have found significant correlations between
expectancy type attitude measures and job performance measures. However, the research
concerning the different models did not fully test all necessary attitudes, leaving it unclear as to
whether the specified expectancies combined to influence motivation as the models predicted.
Using different variations of expectancy models described and tested in prior research, Lawler
and Suttle proposed seven different expectancy variables.







The effort of engaging in a behavior will lead to a specific outcome, E  O.
The amount of effort put towards engaging in a behavior depends on the valence or
attractiveness of the associated outcome, Σ [(EO) (V)].
The effort of engaging in a behavior will lead to a desired level of performance, E  P.
The level or quality of a behavioral performance will lead to a specific outcome, Σ (P 
O).
The level or quality of a behavioral performance will depend on the valence or
attractiveness of the associated outcome, Σ [(P  O) (V)].
The effort of engaging in a behavior will lead to a desired level of performance which
interacts multiplicatively with the level or quality of a behavioral performance that will
lead to a specific outcome, (E  P) Σ (P  O).
The effort of engaging in a behavior will lead to a behavioral performance which
interacts multiplicatively with the perception that a specific level of behavioral
performance will lead to an attractive associated outcome, (E  P) Σ [(P  O) (V)].
Lawler and Suttle (1971) correlated the variables with each other as well as job behavior
to gain insight about the structural characteristics of the model and of employee attitudes and
beliefs. Further, they evaluated the roles of motivation, ability, and role perception on job
performance to determine the usefulness of the expectancy models. Additionally, they conducted
a partial test of the causal relationship between expectancy and effort.
Lawler and Suttle found minimal support for Expectancy Theory. The highest
expectancies involved intrinsic rather than extrinsic rewards- a first in this line of research.
Additionally, role perception was the best predictor of performance. While they found that some
expectancy-type beliefs can predict behavior, the theory’s more complex predictions were not
Team 2 Newsletter
11
validated as being better predictors of performance. None of the seven variable formulations was
clearly more valid than another due to high intercorrelation among measures; however the
predicted relationships between expectancies and effort were present. Further, weighting
expectancy items by valence items did not improve predictions of job behavior. The authors
suggested that it was too difficult to determine if their findings indicated the model to be
incorrect, or alternatively resulted from methodological problems. Indeed, the ability measure
did not significantly relate to performance, measures testing the impact of valence lacked
variance, arousing concerns of validity, and the possibility of a feedback loop existed that was
capable of influencing expectancy beliefs. The authors concluded that the theory was too
complex for existing measures of testing and called for the development of new measures
(Lawler & Suttle, 1971).
There is general support for a cognitively-oriented theory of work motivation;
Expectancy-type attitude measures continuously correlate significantly with job performance
measures. Some expectancy-type beliefs have been shown to predict behavior. Unfortunately
whether the expectancies combine to influence motivation as expectancy theory predicts remains
unclear. More research is needed to test the more complex predictions, the impact of valence,
and the purported causal relationship between expectancy and effort.
Question 7: How does Lawler’s expanded model of expectancy theory differ from
Vroom’s original model?
A. Lawler’s model formulates around the idea that the force to perform an act is
derived from the multiplicative relationship between valence and expectancy.
B. Lawler’s model formulates around the idea that the force to perform an act is
derived from the additive relationship between valence and expectancy.
C. Lawler’s model indicates that effort will lead to an outcome.
D. Lawler’s model distinguishes between the types of expectancies associated
with actions and outcomes individually.
The correct response to Question 7 is “A: Lawler’s model formulates around the idea that the
force to perform an act is derived from the multiplicative relationship between valence and
expectancy.”
Discussion of Question 7: Lawler’s model distinguishes between the types of expectancies
associated with actions and outcomes individually, which is what Vroom’s original expectancy x
valence model was criticized for. Lawler substituted Vroom’s use of “force” for effort to
insinuate readily operationalized behaviors. Both Lawler and Vroom’s models were
multiplicative, but consisted of different expectancy variables. Lawler’s model indicated that
effort would lead to increased performance levels and that a certain performance level was
determined by the desirability of an associated outcome.
Team 2 Newsletter
12
Question 8:
What research deficiencies did the Lawler and Suttle (1971) identify as justification for the
necessity of their research?
A. Previous research did not provide support for expectancy models.
B. Previous research did not test different variations of the expectancy model, primarily
focusing on ability and other factors influencing behavior.
C. Previous research did not fully test different variations of the expectancy model, did
not test other factors influencing behavior, and did not test for causality.
D. Previous research fully tested different variations of the expectancy model, but did
not test other factors influencing behavior and were therefore unable to test for
causality.
The correct response to Question 8 is “C: Previous research did not fully test different variations
of the expectancy model, did not test other factors influencing behavior, and did not test for
causality.”
Discussion of Question 8: Previous research did not fully test different variations of the
expectancy model, did not test ability or other factors influencing behavior, and did not test for
causality. Previous research provided support for expectancy theory, with expectancy-type
attitude measures significantly correlating with job performance measures. Variations of the
model were tested but did not account for other factors influencing behavior, leaving it unclear
whether the models functioned as described. While previous research had not tested for
causality, this was not due to the untested factors influencing behavior (however tests of
causality would be subject to confounding variables without controlling for the other factors).
Individual Worker’s Effectiveness among Groups
One current issue organizations are currently facing involves challenges to attract and
retain employees who poses high levels of qualified skills and motivation (Kataria, Garg, &
Rastogi, 2013). At times, employees in the workplace can be put under great amounts of pressure
by their superiors and colleagues. In fact, individual worker’s effectiveness doesn’t solely
depend on showing up to work, but performing at their highest potential possible (Carboni &
Ehrlich, 2013). There are many different elements that contribute to someone achieving success
or hindering their chances to keep up in the organization. More specifically, work effectiveness
can be influenced by the interactions that are made among colleagues and one’s own perceptions.
Group influence on individual worker’s effectiveness can occur at any moment within the
work environment. Both positive and negative encounters among colleagues can alter one’s
feelings toward the organization. According to Kataria et al. (2013), an employee’s
psychological climate involves being concerned with their perceptions of every aspect within
their work environment. An employee’s psychological environment can be altered when sharing
interactions with colleagues. Based on those interactions, emotions and motivation will vary
Team 2 Newsletter
13
(Kataria et al., 2013). High levels of work engagement within an individual are important. It
positively influences those around them, which improves the overall atmosphere.
Porter, Lawler, and Hackman (1993) state that there are a total of four variables which
are able to influence an employees work environment. Job-relevant knowledge and skills,
psychological arousal, performance strategies, and level of effort an employee dedicates toward
his or her work will assist with the interactions made among colleagues (Porter et al., 1993).
Basically, when there is collaborative work occurring and individuals performance level is at
their peak potential, achievement can be obtained. Take for example the variable dealing with
arousal in the workplace. Groups in an organization can alter the levels of arousal. An example
of this is being pressured by other members within a group. However, groups can be influential
by increasing ones arousal by simply providing encouraging statements to one another. Whether
performing a new task or one that is familiar to the person, the levels of arousal can cause
variation among the individual when interacting with those around them.
In order to improve worker’s effectiveness, something has to be done within the group or
possibly something bigger, which would take more than a few colleagues to change. A strong,
determined, and positive leader can transform out of the group and assist in influencing
individual worker’s effectiveness (Hoffman, Bynum, Piccolo, & Sutton, 2013). A supportive
leader can, in a sense, influence their followers or group members. By doing that, stimulation
levels will increase, inspirational motivation will begin to develop, and individualized
consideration will flourish (Hoffman et al., 2013). When a leader is heartfelt and encouraging,
individuals within the group can view any possible internal problems with work as something
that can be corrected. Worker’s effectiveness can also be improved when superiors of an
organization take action when they view something that is done correctly and when they see
areas for improvement. Take for example the implementation of reward systems. When rewards
systems are put in tact, employee’s accuracy, in relation to tasks, will enhance (Porter et al.,
1993). For instance, pay increase provided by superiors can alter effectiveness with group work.
When a group surpasses what was expected, superiors can increase one’s salary (Porter et al.,
1993). This can engage the participation of employee’s within their group. Overall, there are
many things that influence individual worker’s effectiveness in relation to group work. In order
to improve work among colleagues, both the groups, with assistance from all, and superiors can
assist in the process of allowing individuals to work to their fullest potential.
Question 9: According to Porter Lawler, & Hackman (1993), which of the
following is not a variable that contributes to influencing employee work
behavior?
A. Performance strategies being used by an individual
B. Amount of effort an employee exerts during work
C. Job-relevant skills and knowledge a group of employees poses
D. Psychological arousal experienced while working
Team 2 Newsletter
14
The correct response to Question 9 is “C: Job-relevant skills and knowledge a group of
employees poses”
Discussion of Question 9: Job-relevant skills and knowledge a group of employees’ poses is not
a correct variable that contributes to influencing employee behavior. Porter et al. (1993) focused
more on the individual. Group work then has a possibility to influence the individual’s
performance. Hence the reason as to why option A, B, and D. are all variables that contributes to
influencing employee work behavior. They focus on an individual of a group rather than the
group as a whole.
Question 10: Which of the following is way that a strong, determined, and positive
leader can enhance group effectiveness by influencing their followers or group
members?
A. Notice only the positive work among the group work so more can be
accomplished
B. Inspirational motivation begins to develop within individuals of the group
C. There is an increase in stimulation levels can be obtained
D. Both C & D are correct
The correct response to Question 10 is “D: Both C & D are correct”
Discussion of Question 10: The correct answer is d. Both inspirational motivation and
stimulation levels are elements in which a strong, determined, and positive leader can influence
their group. Choice a. is incorrect because a leader who is positive, yet determined and strong,
would not only look at the positive work that his or her groups members does, but also notices
and points out the things that can be improved on. That allows for the group to succeed while
learning new views and aspects with their task at hand.
Summary
To summarize, Vroom’s (1964) expectancy-valence theory describes how people are
motivated to work, and explaining that people generally hold preferences among certain
outcomes or states of nature. However, many researchers felt this model as not entirely
sufficient on and needed alterations and amendments. The Porter-Lawler model refined Vroom’s
(1964) expectancy theory by asserting that intensive and extrinsic rewards can influence peoples’
level of satisfaction according to their individual preference. Lunenberg (2001) also found that
modifications were needed to improve Vroom (1964)’s expectancy theory, and managers should
be aware about employee’s levels of self-efficacy on tasks they are being evaluated on, this could
invalidate Vroom (1964)’s model. Lunenberg also mentions the implicit importance of the
employee’s reward expectancy and reward valence on their motivation to perform as well.
Kominis and Emmanuel (2007) suggest that managers should take time to consider the interests
of their staff members in order to enable appropriate growth through motivational needs.
Managers should also keep in mind the individual’s differences that may occur in motivations;
Team 2 Newsletter
15
for example, one person may prefer the physicality of their job (intrinsic motivation), while
another person endures the physicality of the job in order to receive a bonus (extrinsic
motivation). The results of Lawler and Suttle's (1971) experiment failed to determine whether
the expectancies combined to influence motivation as the theory predicts, as none of the model
variations was more valid than another. However, Lawler and Suttle (1971) did find the expected
relationship between expectancies and effort, providing general support for expectancy theory,
but research did reveal for the first time that the highest expectancies involved intrinsic rather
than extrinsic rewards. Porter, Lawler, & Hackman (1993) also add that groups can contribute to
an individual’s job-relevant knowledge and skills, psychological arousal, performance strategies,
and level of effort. All in all, Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory seems to be a robust model for
addressing levels of motivation in organizations, and accompanying research addresses many
important additions and variables that affect the model as a whole.
Team 2 Newsletter
16
References
Behling, O., Starke, F. A. (1973). The postulate of expectancy theory. Academy of Management
Journal, 16(3), 373-388.
Carboni, I., & Ehrlich, K. (2013). The effect of relational and team characteristics of individual
performance: A social network perspective. Human Resource Management, 52(4) 511
535.
Hoffman, B. J., Bynum, B. H., Piccolo, R. F., & Sutton, A. W. (2013). Person-organization value
congruence: How transformational leaders influence work group effectiveness. Academy
of Management Journal, 54(4), 779-796.
Kataria, A., Garg, P., & Rastogi, R. (2013). Psychological climate and organizational
effectiveness: Role of work engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(3), 33
46.
Kominis, G., & Emmanuel, C. R. (2007). The expectancy-valence theory revisited: Developing
an extended model of managerial motivation. Management Accounting Research 18, 49
75.
Lawler III, E. E., & Suttle, J. L. (1973). Expectancy theory and job behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 482-503.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Expectancy Theory of Motivation: Motivating by Altering
Expectations. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 15(1).
Pinder, C. C. (2008). Expectancy-valence theories of work motivation. In C. C. Pinder (Ed.),
Work motivation in organizational behavior. (2nd ed.). (pp. 363-388). New York, New
York: Psychology Press.
Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1993). Central issues in motivation and
Team 2 Newsletter
leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Vroom, V. H. (1964) Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
17