UPI Study › Courses › Principles of Management › Free lessons › Lesson 11.5 Free with a free account
Effort, Performance, and Reward: Vroom's Expectancy Theory
Principles of Management · Chapter 11: Motivation in the WorkplaceSection 11.5 · lesson 66 of 11712 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Principles of Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Principles of Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Shaping Behavior: Thorndike and the Power of Reinforcement →← Fair Pay, Fair Effort: Adams' Equity Theory of MotivationNext lesson: Shaping Behavior: Thorndike and the Power of Reinforcement →
In this lesson
Motivation as a calculation, and how to find the broken link.
- Describe expectancy theory and its 3 components
- Explain how the components combine into motivational force
- Diagnose which component is failing in a situation
- Match each failing component to a manager's response
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,559 words). Read along, or search it.
Motivation in the Workplace
Effort, Performance, and Reward: Vroom's Expectancy Theory
Why would a capable employee, who wants a promotion, stop trying for one? Expectancy theory gives a precise answer. It treats motivation as a kind of calculation. We'll meet Victor Vroom's three components: expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. We'll see why they multiply rather than add, and why that makes diagnosis essential. We'll trace what weakens each component, and what a manager can do about it. One component turns out to be the most often broken, and the hardest to repair. We'll connect the theory to path-goal leadership, and to appraisal and reward later in the course. We'll weigh the evidence honestly. And we'll end with Theo, who stopped trying after a year of being overlooked.
Motivation as a Calculation
Effort Depends on What She Believes It Will Produce
The psychologist Victor Vroom proposed that motivation depends on belief. Specifically, a person's motivation to exert effort depends on her own beliefs about what that effort will actually produce. That reframes motivation in an important way. It's not a fixed state, or a trait a person simply has more or less of. In an important sense, it's a calculation. And a calculation can be corrected, once you know which input is wrong. Recall the distinction drawn in Subchapter eleven point two. This theory concerns the employee's own expectations, about her effort and its consequences. That's entirely distinct from the Pygmalion effect, which concerns a manager's expectations about the employee.
3 Components
Expectancy, Instrumentality, Valence
Vroom's theory identifies three components that together determine motivational force. The first is expectancy. It's the belief that effort will actually lead to performance. Will trying harder genuinely translate into doing better? That's her own assessment. The second is instrumentality. It's the belief that performance will lead to an outcome. Will performing well actually be recognized and rewarded? Or will it go unnoticed, however well the work was done? The third is valence. That's the value the person places on the outcome. Is what's offered actually something she wants? Each component comes with a diagnostic question worth asking directly. For expectancy, can I do it? For instrumentality, will it be recognized? For valence, do I want what follows?
The Multiplicative Relationship
Near Zero Anywhere Means Near Zero Overall
The theory's most useful feature is how the components combine. They multiply, rather than add. It's the same structural pattern as the performance equation from Subchapter eleven point one. So if any one component is near zero, motivational force is near zero. That holds no matter how strong the other two are. This has a direct implication for diagnosis. Facing an unmotivated employee, a manager must identify which component is actually failing. Simply applying more of whatever is already present won't work. Offering a more valued reward accomplishes nothing, if she doesn't believe her performance will be recognized. And clarifying how performance is rewarded accomplishes nothing, if she doesn't believe her effort can produce that performance. On this theory, a no to any one of the three questions is enough, by itself, to explain a genuine motivation problem.
Figure 11.5.1
Diagnosing the Broken Link
Figure eleven point five point one draws the expectancy chain for an employee at a fictional company, Harborline Manufacturing. The chain runs from effort, to performance, to outcome, to value. Expectancy links effort to performance. Instrumentality links performance to outcome. Valence links the outcome to its value. For this employee, two links are intact. She believes her effort will produce good performance. And she genuinely wants the outcome on offer. The broken link is in the middle, between performance and outcome. That's instrumentality. Given the multiplicative relationship, that one break is enough on its own. It depresses her motivational force, however strong the other two links are. So the manager's job here isn't a better reward, or more training. It's the middle link.
What Reduces Expectancy
4 Causes, 4 Different Responses
Four things reduce expectancy, and each calls for a different response. The first is inadequate skill, where a person genuinely lacks the capability her role requires. Training addresses that. The second is insufficient resources. The tools, information, or support needed to perform aren't actually available. The response is resourcing. The third is unclear standards. She can't judge what good performance would even look like. Clarified standards address that ambiguity. The fourth is past failure. Earlier unsuccessful attempts have eroded her belief that effort can produce the performance. Here the response is rebuilding confidence, through structured early success. The point is that the response differs by cause. Training won't fix a missing tool. These responses are developed further when the course covers performance management, in Subchapter thirteen point four.
What Reduces Instrumentality
The Link Most Often Broken
Three things reduce instrumentality. The first is a past experience of performance going unrecognized. Someone who worked hard and performed well before, only to see no consequence follow, reasonably discounts the promise this time. The second is unclear or inconsistent reward decisions. The real connection between performance and reward is genuinely difficult to discern from the outside. The third is outcomes determined by factors other than performance. Seniority, favoritism, or organizational politics visibly decide who gets rewarded, regardless of how well anyone performed. In practice, instrumentality is the component most often broken, and the hardest to repair. The reason is specific. It depends on the organization's actual track record, not on anything a manager can simply say. A manager can declare that good performance will be rewarded. But that declaration means little against a documented history of it not happening. Rebuilding it takes a genuinely new track record, accumulated over time. Not a single reassurance.
What Reduces Valence
The Right Reward for the Right Person
Valence is the simplest component to break. It's reduced just by offering an outcome the person doesn't value. A reward that genuinely motivates one person can leave another entirely unmoved. This connects directly to McClelland's need profiles, from Subchapter eleven point three. An employee with a strong affiliation need may place little value on a public individual award. An employee with a strong achievement need may place little value on a purely social team recognition event. The same gesture can land well with one person, and fall flat with the next. So matching the outcome to the individual's actual need profile isn't a nicety. On this theory, it's a direct precondition for the valence component to function at all.
Table 11.5.1
The Diagnosis in One View
Table eleven point five point one pulls the diagnosis together. For expectancy, the question is, can I do it? It's reduced by inadequate skill, insufficient resources, unclear standards, or past failure. The manager's responses are training, resourcing, clarified standards, and structured early success. For instrumentality, the question is, will it be recognized? It's reduced by unrecognized past performance, inconsistent reward decisions, and outcomes driven by factors other than performance. The response is a consistent, visible track record, built over time. There's no quick fix. For valence, the question is, do I want what follows? It's reduced by an outcome that doesn't match the individual's actual need profile. The response is matching the specific reward to the specific person's known preferences.
Connections
Expectancy Theory Across This Course
Expectancy theory connects to two other parts of this course. Looking back, it underlies the path-goal theory of leadership, from Subchapter ten point three. That theory casts the leader's core function as strengthening each of these three links directly. The leader clarifies the path from effort to performance. She ensures that performance is genuinely rewarded. And she adjusts rewards toward what followers actually value. Looking ahead, Subchapters thirteen point ten and thirteen point eleven return to instrumentality specifically. They cover performance appraisal and reward. In expectancy-theory terms, a well-designed appraisal and reward system is organizational machinery. It either builds or erodes instrumentality, across an entire workforce at once.
The Evidence
Hard to Test, Highly Useful
How strong is the evidence? It deserves an honest characterization. Expectancy theory is well regarded conceptually within the motivation literature. But it's genuinely difficult to test in full. Testing it requires measuring subjective beliefs: a person's own expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. None of those is directly observable. They have to be inferred from self-report, or indirect measurement. The available evidence supports the general framework. These three beliefs matter, and low belief in any one genuinely undermines motivation. There's less support for the precise multiplicative form Vroom originally proposed. It's harder to confirm with available tools. Even so, the framework's practical value is substantial. It's the best available diagnostic tool in this chapter for pinpointing exactly where a motivation problem lives.
Case Vignette
Theo Stops Trying After a Year of Being Overlooked
Here's a composite case, constructed for instruction. Theo spent an entire year delivering consistently strong performance on a demanding project. He was confident his effort was producing genuinely good work. And he trusted that good work would eventually be recognized, with the promotion he'd been quietly working toward. The promotion cycle came and went, without any acknowledgment of his contribution. A colleague with a considerably less demanding track record was promoted instead. The reasons were never clearly explained to Theo. In the months that followed, Theo's effort visibly declined. He hadn't lost confidence in his ability to do the work well. And he still wanted a promotion. He simply no longer believed that strong performance would actually lead to one. His manager, new to the team and unaware of the history, offered a slightly larger version of the same reward. It had no visible effect. The broken link was instrumentality, not expectancy or valence. And a full year of documented experience wasn't going to be undone by a single renewed promise. Only a genuinely new track record, sustained over time, would give Theo real reason to believe the connection held. Next, Subchapter eleven point six turns to reinforcement theory, and the observable consequences that follow behavior.
About Principles of Management at UPI Study
Principles of Management (Business 101) is a self-paced online course of 117 video lessons in 17 chapters, from the classical schools and the four management functions to leadership, motivation, change, human resources, strategy and ethics. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Principles of Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Principles of Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Effort, Performance, and Reward: Vroom's Expectancy Theory
What is Vroom's expectancy theory of motivation?
What is the difference between expectancy, instrumentality, and valence?
How can a manager fix low motivation using expectancy theory?
Why is instrumentality the hardest part of expectancy theory to fix?
About the Principles of Management course
How many college credits is Principles of Management?
How much does Principles of Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Principles of Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Principles of Management.
117 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →