Expectancy-Value Theory: Connecting Expectations to Rewards

As employees scramble over each other in an attempt to achieve the next promotion, or trinket of acknowledgement, it is important to understand precisely how their expectations lead to motivation. Expectancy-Value Theory is one way of looking at how employees value the behavioral options available to them.  In this theory, management should tie behavior and reward closely together if there is an expectation that employees will be motivated and productive.  Management has an ethical opportunity to ensure proper returns on investments and progressive use of human capital in order to fulfill their function.

The concepts of valence and expectancy make up the bulk of the Expectancy-Value Theory.  In general, employees believe that when they put forth a specific amount of effort there should be an appropriate reward that is offered. If the expected energy and the value of the reward are not in alignment it will be difficult for management to solicit certain types of motivated behavior.

Valence and expectancies make up the bulk of Vroom's Value-Expectancy Theory and are further defined as the following: 

1.) Valence: The desired outcome of working at a particular level.

2.) Expectancies: The subjective expectation that such action will lead to a particular reward.

Vroom defines valence as, "the affective orientation toward particular outcomes" (1964, pp. 15). Those positive outcomes an employee desires to achieve are called positively valent while those things which an employee desires to avoid are negatively valent. It does not matter much what the true worth of these positive or negative factors are but only that they have a subjective perceptual value to employees.

It is not enough for a person to think in terms of the value of objectives but also the likelihood of achieving those objectives. For example, if an employee believes there is a high likelihood of achieve a particular objective after a defined amount of effort is put forth motivation is more likely. If this association of effort and reward is lower, motivation is less likely. Such expectancies are often denoted in numbers and range from .00 (low) to 1.0 (high).

In general, employees continually scan their environment in an effort to judge the value combinations of potential valences and expectancies. Alternatives come and go and employees do not always maintain orderings throughout their time of employment (Behling & Starke, 1973). The ordering of valences and expectancies can be seen as Sum (EijVj).  Someone who prefers a specific expectancy and valence combination is said to prefer Sum(EijVj)1 over Sum(EijVj)2  This would mean they prefer a particular course of action based upon the value of expectancy and the likelihood of its valence. 

We might be able to break this into an appropriate example. An employee has an option to put effort towards 1.) obtain a raise; or 2.) obtain a promotion without a raise. Option 1 could be denoted as Sum(EijVj)1 and option 2 can be denoted as Sum(EijVj)2. The employee makes the decision that the particular value combination of option 1 is worth more than option 2. The employee is most likely to put his effort toward the higher income.

Researchers can often use these short denotations to help them categorize and keep track of certain options over others. It is such understandings and choices, from the perspective of the employee, that often leads to an approach in workplace behavior based upon the value ordering of these particular choices.  As employees move through these choices they will often ignore or forget older orderings as they become less available.

. . . most decisions are made in sequential fashion. Thus, having chosen y over X and then, z over y, one is typically committed to z and may not even compare it with x, which has already been eliminated. Furthermore, in many choice situations the eliminated alternative is no longer available, so there is no way of finding out whether our preferences are transitive or not. These considerations suggest that in actual decisions, as well as in laboratory experiments, people are likely to overlook their own intransitivities. Transitivity, however, is one of the basic and the most compelling principles of rational behavior (Tversky, 47, p. 45).

Unfortunately, many employees cannot formalize these values in their minds and this can cause confusion. At times it is beneficial for managers to ensure that the actions that lead to rewards are clearly defined for employees in order to help them make these values more solidified. This is one of the reasons why workplace expectations and the rewards should be transparent and clear for employees in order to build develop appropriate behavioral options.

Furthermore, understanding what employees value in terms of potential outcomes within the workplace will lead to a greater understanding of the motivational potentials of employee behavior. It should be kept in mind that management should ensure that the performance expectations are solidified through formal corporate literature, management behavior, and compensation structures. When there is confusion between the expectancies and their potential outcomes this lowers the total likelihood that certain behaviors will be exhibited. Poor performance is a direct result of poor management communication.

Behling, O. & Starke, F. (1973). The postulates of expectancy theory. Academy of Management Journal, 16 (3).

Tversky. A. (1969) Intransitivity of Preferences. Psychological Review, 76, pp.31-48.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiiey.

The Leading Theories of Employee Motivation

Job motivation spawns from a variety of employee interests and desires. Motivation comes from the personal desires of the individual but is fostered through organizational pathways. There are many different ways of defining motivation but often motivation includes all reasons why a person chooses to act in a certain manner (Adair, 2006). The most common theories offer some level of insight into motivational factors that lead to higher levels of performance.

It is often beneficial to view these various common motivational theories to see a wider picture of the running vantage points and approaches to understanding employees behavior. Each motivational theory has their own particular approach that ranges from group dynamics to fulfillment of lifelong needs. Some are psychological by nature while others look at the organization and its environment as factors.

Maslow Hierarchy of Needs: Through this theory the needs of individuals progress through different stages based upon their development. People move through physiological needs, security and safety, social needs, self-esteem and self-actualization. As each person accomplishes some need the next one takes precedence.

Frederick Herzberg's Two Factors Theory: In this theory there are primarily two factors of satisfied and dissatisfied. Satisfaction often came through the context of work functions while dissatisfaction was often a result of the organizational dynamics. Motivation came through the execution of work tasks while the organizational factors were seen as context.

Theory X and Theory Y: In such a theory the X employee has a low level of motivation and the Y is engaged in the work task. The X employee does not feel as though the should make particular demands on them while the Y employee feels that such demands are a normal part of work life. X employee must often be coerced while Y employees have a more natural tendency to engage the work tasks.

The Expectancy Theory: Developed by Vroom (1964) and Porter & Lawler (1968) as a way of understanding individual motivations within the workplace. According to the theory each employee has expectancies of their work environment. When the expectancies are in match with work performance and clear rewards from the environment the employee will create motivation.

The Goal Setting Theory: The theory helps explain that setting goals and having appropriate feedback creates higher levels of motivation (Latham and Locke, 1979). Organizations can partner with individuals to help them set goals that are acceptable to the company and continue to give them accurate performance feedback throughout employees fulfillment of these desires.

Equity Theory: The equity theory indicates that motivation is a result of how people are treated when compared to others. In this theory people are more motivated when there is a perception of fairness and just treatment of everyone.

The Group Culture Theory: It is important to consider the factors that motivate an entire group that may have needs which are distinctly different from those of the individual. Under this theory the personality of a group and their needs should be considered as a motivational factor (Adair, 2006).


Adair, J. (2006). Leadership and motivation. The fifty-fifty rule and the eight key principles of motivating others. Kogan Page, London and Philadelphia.

Latham, G. P., & Locke, E.A.  (1979), Goal-setting:  A motivational technique that works. Organizational Dynamics, 8 (2):  68-80.

Porter, L. & Lawler, E. (1968). Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

Vroom, V. (1964) Work and Motivation. New York: McGraw Hill.