Expectancy Theory by Victor Vroom

Why people give their best effort, and why they sometimes hold back.

SEA CE 4261 · Oral Report

Bandong, Ram Adlei
Desingco, Stephen Elijah
Bautista, Ralph Emmerson
Horca, Jericho

Would you take this deal?

Bonus offer

+5points

for a 20-page paper, due at 7:00 tomorrow morning

E“Can I even finish it tonight?”
I“Will the points really be added?”
V“Do I even need 5 more points?”

Three quick thoughts. Vroom says they decide your effort.

Agenda

Slides

1BackgroundThe proponent and the history4–6
2The ComponentsE, I and V, and how they connect7–12
3In the WorkplaceOne site team, one deadline13–15
4Modern DevelopmentHow the theory grew, and its limits16–19

01

Background

The person behind the theory, and the ideas it grew from.

Victor H. Vroom, the psychologist who asked “why try?”

Victor Harold Vroom

1932 – 2023

BornMontreal, Canada, 1932
StudiedMcGill (BS, MS) · Michigan (PhD)
TaughtPenn, Carnegie Mellon, then Yale from 1972
Known forExpectancy Theory, 1964 · Vroom–Yetton leadership model, 1973

From “what do people need?” to “how do people choose?”

1930s
Tolman and Lewin
Behavior follows what we expect, and how much we value the goal
1957
Georgopoulos et al.
Workers produce more when output is their path to a goal
1964
Victor Vroom
Work and Motivation: the first expectancy theory of work
1968
Porter and Lawler
Extend it with ability, role clarity and satisfaction

02

The Components

Three beliefs, one formula, and one picture of how they connect.

Three beliefs, multiplied

Motivation=E×I×V

Expectancy

Effort → Performance

From 0 to 1

Instrumentality

Performance → Reward

From 0 to 1

Valence

Reward → Personal goals

From −1 to +1

Expectancy: effort leads to performance

E

Expectancy

“If I try, can I do it?”

01

Leaders raise it with

Training and coaching
The right tools, people and time
Targets that are hard but reachable

Example

A new engineer must model a drainage plan in software they have never used. Two days of training turn “no way” into “I can do this.”

Instrumentality: performance leads to reward

I

Instrumentality

“If I do it well, will I get the reward?”

01

Leaders raise it with

Clear rules: this result earns this reward
Promises kept, and paid on time
Fair and open performance reviews

Example

Last year the firm promised a bonus for finishing early, then never paid it. This year's offer gets shrugs, not overtime.

Valence: how much the reward is worth to me

V

Valence

“Do I actually want that reward?”

−1+1

Leaders raise it with

Asking people what they value
Offering a choice of rewards
Watching for rewards people don't want

Example

A promotion means moving to a far-off project site. For an engineer with a young family, that “reward” has negative valence.

How it works, in one picture

Effort

I try hard

Performance

I do the job well

Reward

I get the bonus

Goals

My needs are met

E I V Motivation = E×I×V

Expectancy

Can I do it?

Leader: train and equip

Instrumentality

Will it pay off?

Leader: keep promises

Valence

Do I want it?

Leader: fit the reward

03

In the Workplace

One construction site, one tight deadline, three broken links.

One deadline, three fixes

A contractor wants a bridge deck finished two weeks early. The crew hesitates.

Link	What the crew says	What the manager does
EExpectancy	“That schedule is impossible.”	Re-plans the pours and adds a second crew
IInstrumentality	“They never pay the bonus anyway.”	Puts the bonus in writing, paid at turnover
VValence	“I'd rather be home on Sundays.”	Lets each worker pick cash or rest days

One zero cancels the rest

Engineer ATrained, trusts the firm

0.9×0.9×0.8

0.65

Engineer BBonus went unpaid last year

0.9×0×0.8

0

Engineer CWants time, not cash

0.9×0.9×0

0

Sample scores for illustration. Same project, same skills, same cash bonus.

04

Modern Development

How the theory grew after 1964, where it shows up today, and where it falls short.

The theory kept growing

1968

Porter–Lawler model

Adds ability, role clarity, and rewards seen as fair

EI

1973

Vroom–Yetton model

Vroom turns to leaders: when to decide alone, when to involve the team

Leadership

1977

Self-efficacy

Bandura's idea of belief in your own ability deepens “expectancy”

E

1996

Research review

77 studies: the model predicts effort and performance, but less strongly than first thought

Evidence

Where you see it today

Delivery apps

“15 more trips today, ₱250 extra.” A clear target and a sure payout.

Instrumentality

Flexible benefits

Pick your perk: HMO upgrade, leave days or allowance.

Valence

Written incentives

Results tied to rewards on paper, reviewed openly.

Instrumentality

Board-exam review

Firm-paid review classes raise the belief “I can pass.”

Expectancy

Useful, but not the whole story

+Strengths

Explains why people differSame reward, different effort
Gives leaders three clear leversTrain, keep promises, fit the reward
Backed by decades of researchIncluding a review of 77 studies

−Limits

Assumes people calculate rationallyHabit and emotion also drive effort
E, I and V are hard to measureThey are beliefs, not numbers
Leaves out fairnessCovered by Equity Theory and Porter–Lawler

Three questions before you motivate anyone

ECan they do it?
IWill it pay off?
VDo they want it?

Questions?Thank you.

To close: before you try to motivate anyone, ask three questions. Can they do it? Will it pay off? Do they want it? If the answer to all three is yes, you won't need to push. They will push themselves.

Thank you. We are happy to take your questions.

Q&A prep, likely questions:

Is it really just E × I × V? Strictly, Vroom wrote force = E × the sum of (I × V) for every outcome. A job has many outcomes: pay, praise, overtime fatigue. Each one counts.

How is it different from Maslow? Maslow says what people need (content). Vroom says how they decide to act on it (process). The two fit together: needs shape valence.

How is it different from Equity Theory? Equity looks at fairness compared with others. Vroom looks at my own expected payoff. Porter–Lawler joins the two.

Can valence be negative? Yes. Overtime, a transfer or even a "promotion" can be unwanted, which pushes motivation below zero: people avoid the task.

References

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.
Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. Century.
Lewin, K. (1938). The conceptual representation and the measurement of psychological forces. Duke University Press.
Georgopoulos, B. S., Mahoney, G. M., & Jones, N. W. (1957). A path-goal approach to productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 41(6), 345–353.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Irwin.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom's expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 575–586.
Koontz, H., Weihrich, H., & Cannice, M. V. (2013). Management: A global, innovative, and entrepreneurial perspective (14th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.
Yale School of Management. (2023). Remembering Professor Victor H. Vroom, 1932–2023. som.yale.edu

Expectancy Theory by Victor Vroom

Background

Tolman and Lewin

Georgopoulos et al.

Victor Vroom

Porter and Lawler

The Components

In the Workplace

Modern Development

Porter–Lawler model

Vroom–Yetton model

Self-efficacy

Research review

Delivery apps

Flexible benefits

Written incentives

Board-exam review

+Strengths

−Limits

Three questions before you motivate anyone