Victor H. Vroom Is a business school professor at the Yale School of Management. He holds a PhD from University of Michigan. Vroom's primary research was on the expectancy theory of motivation, which attempts to explain why individuals choose to follow certain courses of action in organizations, particularly in decision-making and leadership His most well-known books are Work and Motivation, Leadership and Decision Making and The New Leadership. Expectancy Theory Expectancy theory proposes that a individual will decide to behave or act in a certain way because they are motivated to select a specific behaviour over other behaviours due to what they expect the result of that selected behaviour will be. In essence, the motivation of the behaviour selection is determined by the desirability of the outcome. However, at the core of the theory is the cognitive process of how an individual processes the different motivational elements. This is done before making the ultimate choice. The outcome is not the sole determining factor in making the decision of how to behave. Expectancy theory is about the mental processes regarding choice, or choosing. It explains the processes that an individual undergoes to make choices. In the study of organizational behavior, expectancy theory is a motivation theory first proposed by Victor Vroom of the Yale School of Management. Expectancy Theory This theory emphasizes the needs for organizations to relate rewards directly to performance and to ensure that the rewards provided are those rewards deserved and wanted by the recipients. Victor H. Vroom defines motivation as a process governing choices among alternative forms of voluntary activities, a process controlled by the individual. The individual makes choices based on estimates of how well the expected results of a given behaviour are going to match up with or eventually lead to the desired results. Motivation is a product of the individual’s expectancy that a certain effort will lead to the intended performance, the instrumentality of this performance to achieving a certain result, and the desirability of this result for the individual, known as valence. Difference from the content theories of Maslow,Alderfer,Herzberg and McClelland Vroom’s expectancy theory differs from the content theories of Maslow, Alderfer, Herzberg, and McClelland in that Vroom’s expectancy theory does not provide specific suggestions on what motivates organization members. Instead, Vroom’s theory provides a process of cognitive variables that reflects individual differences in work motivation. Need theories of motivation (Alderfer, 1972; Herzberg, 1968; Maslow, 1970; McClelland, 1976) attempt to explain what motivates people in the workplace. Expectancy theory is more concerned with the cognitive antecedents that go into motivation and the way they relate to each other.

1. VICTOR H. VROOM
Professor of Organization and Management
School of Management
Yale University
victor.vroom@yale.edu

2. VICTOR H. VROOM
• Is a business school professor at the Yale School of Management.
• He holds a PhD from University of Michigan.
• Vroom's primary research was on the expectancy theory of motivation, which
attempts to explain why individuals choose to follow certain courses of action in
organizations, particularly in decision-making and leadership
• His most well-known books are Work and Motivation, Leadership and Decision
Making and The New Leadership.

3. EXPECTANCY THEORY
• Expectancy theory proposes that a individual will decide to behave or act in a certain way because they
are motivated to select a specific behaviour over other behaviours due to what they expect the result of
that selected behaviour will be.
• In essence, the motivation of the behaviour selection is determined by the desirability of the outcome.
However, at the core of the theory is the cognitive process of how an individual processes the different
motivational elements. This is done before making the ultimate choice. The outcome is not the sole
determining factor in making the decision of how to behave.
• Expectancy theory is about the mental processes regarding choice, or choosing. It explains the
processes that an individual undergoes to make choices. In the study of organizational
behavior, expectancy theory is a motivation theory first proposed by Victor Vroom of the Yale School of
Management.

4. EXPECTANCY THEORY
This theory emphasizes the needs for organizations to relate rewards directly to performance and
to ensure that the rewards provided are those rewards deserved and wanted by the recipients.
Victor H. Vroom defines motivation as a process governing choices among alternative forms of
voluntary activities, a process controlled by the individual. The individual makes choices based on
estimates of how well the expected results of a given behaviour are going to match up with or
eventually lead to the desired results. Motivation is a product of the individual’s expectancy that a
certain effort will lead to the intended performance, the instrumentality of this performance to
achieving a certain result, and the desirability of this result for the individual, known as valence.

5. DIFFERENCE FROM THE CONTENT THEORIES OF
MASLOW,ALDERFER,HERZBERG AND MCCLELLAND
Vroom’s expectancy theory differs from the content theories of Maslow, Alderfer, Herzberg, and
McClelland in that Vroom’s expectancy theory does not provide specific suggestions on what
motivates organization members. Instead, Vroom’s theory provides a process of cognitive variables
that reflects individual differences in work motivation.
Need theories of motivation (Alderfer, 1972; Herzberg, 1968; Maslow, 1970; McClelland, 1976)
attempt to explain what motivates people in the workplace. Expectancy theory is more concerned
with the cognitive antecedents that go into motivation and the way they relate to each other.

6. ASSUMPTIONS ON WHICH EXPECTANCY
THEORY IS BUILT
Expectancy theory is based on four assumptions
• One assumption is that people join organizations with expectations about their needs, motivations, and
past experiences. These influence how individuals react to the organization.
• A second assumption is that an individual’s behaviour is a result of conscious choice. That is, people
are free to choose those behaviours suggested by their own expectancy calculations.
• A third assumption is that people want different things from the organization (e.g., good salary, job
security, advancement, and challenge).
• A fourth assumption is that people will choose among alternatives so as to optimize outcomes for them
personally.

7. KEY ELEMENTS OF EXPECTANCY THEORY
Expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. A person is motivated to the degree that he or
she believes that
(a) effort will lead to acceptable performance (expectancy),
(b) will be rewarded (instrumentality), and
(c) the value of the rewards is highly positive (valence).

8. EXPECTANCY
Expectancy is a person’s estimate of the probability that job-related effort will result in a given level
of performance. Expectancy is based on probabilities and ranges from 0 to 1. If an employee sees no
chance that effort will lead to the desired performance level, the expectancy is 0. On the other
hand, if the employee is completely certain that the task will be completed, the expectancy has a
value of 1. Generally, employee estimates of expectancy lie somewhere between these two
extremes.

9. INSTRUMENTALITY
Instrumentality is an individual’s estimate of the probability that a given level of achieved
task performance will lead to various work outcomes. As with expectancy, instrumentality
ranges from 0 to 1. For example, if an employee sees that a good performance rating will
always result in a salary increase, the instrumentality has a value of 1. If there is no
perceived relationship between a good performance rating and a salary increase, then the
instrumentality is 0.

10. VALENCE
Valence is the strength of an employee’s preference for a particular reward. Thus,
salary increases, promotion, peer acceptance, recognition by supervisors, or any other
reward might have more or less value to individual employees. Unlike expectancy and
instrumentality, valences can be either positive or negative. If an employee has a strong
preference for attaining a reward, valence is positive. At the other extreme, valence is
negative. And if an employee is indifferent to a reward, valence is 0. The total range is
from -1 to +1. Theoretically, a reward has a valence because it is related to an employee’s
needs. Valence, then, provides a link to the need theories of motivation

11. Vroom suggests that motivation, expectancy, instrumentality, and valence are related to one
another by the equation
Motivation = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valence.
The multiplier effect in the equation is significant. It means that higher levels of
motivation will result when expectancy, instrumentality, and valence are all high than when
they are all low. The multiplier assumption of the theory also implies that if any one of the
three factors is zero, the overall level of motivation is zero. Therefore, for example, even if
an employee believes that his/her effort will result in performance, which will result in
reward, motivation will be zero if the valence of the reward he/she expects to receive is zero
(i.e. if he/she believes that the reward he/she will receive for his/her effort has no value to
him/her.

12. VROOM-YETTON DECISION MODEL
• Decision making tree that enables a leader to examine a situation and determine which
style or level of involvement to engage- Victor Vroom+ Philip Yetton+Arthur Jago.
• The model helps us identify 5 different leadership styles.

13. Decision Making Style
Description
Autocratic l (Al)
Leader solves the problem along using
information that is readily available to
him/her
Autocratic ll (All)
Leader obtains additional information from
group members, then makes decision
alone. Group members may or may not be
informed.
Consultative l (Cl)
Leader shares problem with group
members individually, and asks for
information and evaluation. Group
members do not meet collectively, and
leader makes decision alone.
Consultative ll (Cll)
Leader shares problem with group
members collectively, but makes decision
alone
Group ll (Gll)
Leader meets with group to discuss
situation. Leader focuses and directs
discussion, but does not impose will. Group
makes final decision.

14. MODEL

15. THANK YOU