Vroom’s Expectancy Theory assumes that people assume a particular behavior because they are motivated to choose a certain type of behavior from a list of behaviors because they are aware of the results of the chosen behavior (Parijat & Bagga, 2014). The primary objective of choosing a certain type of behavior is to maximize pleasure and to minimize pain. Vroom was aware of the fact that employees’ performances were affected by various factors such as the skills they possess, their individual abilities, level of knowledge, motivation among others. More so, Vroom studied people’s motivations and suggested that it depends on expectancy, instrumentality, and valence.
Expectancy is the employees’ belief that if they increase their efforts, they will definitely hit the targets set by their bosses (Parijat & Bagga, 2014). Employees make such judgments based on their past experiences, their confidence in their abilities and the level of difficulty of the particular task. Moreover, expectancy is affected by the availability of resources and support from senior employees such as supervisors and managers. On the other hand, instrumentality is the belief that there is an outcome or a reward after performing well in a certain task (Chiang & Jang, 2008) . Employees know that their chance of being rewarded is pegged on their performance. As such, they work extra hard to ensure that they receive the reward. Instrumentality is affected by employees’ clear understanding of how the reward system works and their trust in the people who determine who is to get the reward.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Valence is the value that the employee places on the expected outcome (Parijat & Bagga, 2014). For instance, an employee can decide to refuse a promotion opportunity due to his familial commitments. As such, he does not have to work extra hard to get the promotion. The Expectancy Theory is based on the self-interest of individual employees and emphasizes the importance of rewards and outcomes.
How Vroom's Expectancy Theory Measures Motivation
According to Vroom, Motivational Force (MF) = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valance (Parijat & Bagga, 2014) . Therefore, the employee’s motivation is not only based on the outcomes of his performance but also on the confidence to perform a given task and the perceived level of satisfaction (Chiang & Jang, 2008). There are different types of promotions in the workplace. These promotions have a different motivational influence on employees’’ performances. For instance, a new employee is unlikely to work extra hard in anticipation of promotion if he knows that promotions are a reserve of senior employees. In this case, instrumentality is low. On the flip side, if an employee knows that there is a link between what he wants and what he is supposed to do, he is motivated to perform to the best of his ability. In the same breath, employees are motivated by rewards they consider to be valuable.
For an employee to be motivated to work hard, he should be confident in his own skills and believe that the skills can help him accomplish the provided task (Parijat & Bagga, 2014) . Lack of confidence is associated with zero valence and a low probability of expectancy. Valence is measured between 0 and 1. As such, how well an employee score on the scale determines the employee’s level of motivation. More so, if any of the elements of the motivational force equation is zero, then the motivational force will be zero. For this reason, it can be said that an employee who lacks any of the three elements of expectancy is unlikely to be motivated.
How the Measure of Valence can Aid Staffing Issues in an Organization
Staffing is a significant aspect of management. Selecting the right people for the right job positions can be a daunting task. It is for this reason that Human Resources recruiters develop recruitment strategies to attract employees who can meet the organization’s needs. Employers use valence during recruitment to know what motivates employees and whether they can be retained for the long term (Chiang & Jang, 2008) . In particular, they ask questions that seek to establish the potential employees’ value the most. If the employer is in a position to provide what the potential employees want, they can go ahead and hire them. If not, they can dismiss the interviewee and look for other candidates.
Contrary to conventional belief, not every employee is motivated by remuneration packages (Parijat & Bagga, 2014) . Nowadays, most employees value medical coverage, an opportunity to advance their education, health, and fitness as well as quality time with their families. As such, if they are employed and do not get these essentials, they are likely to be unhappy and unproductive at work. What is more, employees’ motivations change with time. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the management to perform frequent evaluations and interviews of their current employees to determine what motivates the employees.
Also noteworthy is the fact that the value of outcomes is different for different individuals. Therefore, while the recruitment agencies may have a list of qualities and credentials that they are looking for, they should not generalize what the potential employees consider valuable (Chiang & Jang, 2008) . What is more, when staffing, the leadership should align the employees’ individual goals with the organization’s goals. Pairing these goals will ensure that the employee gets what he wants and the organizations get what it wants as well. Consequentially, the employee will be motivated to perform to the best of his ability. However, for the recruiters to achieve this, they must understand the role of valence as it pertains to individual employees.
References
Chiang, C.-F., & Jang, S. C. (2008). An expectancy theory model for hotel employee motivation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27 (2), 313-322. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.07.017
Parijat, P., & Bagga, S. (2014). Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation – An Evaluation. International Research Journal of Business and Management, 7 (9), 1-7.
