12/3/2020

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR

SUBMITTED BY: PRIYANKA SUNDARLAL

REG NO: 1947131

SEC: BSAF 3A

SUBMITTED BY: MA’AM TAZEEN IMRAN

 VROOM’S EXPECTANCY THEORY
INTRODUCTION:
This theory was given by Victor vroom

“It says that the strength of tendency to act in a certain way depends upon the strength of expectations.
That the act would be followed with a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the
individual “

(basically, when we do something, we do expect something in return or outcome and that expectations
or outcomes motivates for work. suppose those people, who are working in organization, what they
expect? Obviously, salary which they will get in the end -which motivates them to work.)

FOR EXAMPLE:

As that will lead to Performance appraisal

I WILL WORK HARD will lead to bonus ,
performance appraisal
promotions

These all are attractions for me

❖ Motivations basically lies in expectations of an outcome.

❖ And how much that outcome is attracted, because the more attractive outcome, the more
motivated I would be

outcome motivations
Let’s understand through a diagram

Individual effort The process is that if anybody is putting an individual effort

whether he is an employee or a student, everybody puts
individual efforts to get individual performance, the more
effort an individual will put, the more would be the
performance.

If performance would be more the more, we would get

reward from an organization for e.g. salary. Bonus, power,
promotion and based on those organizational rewards we
Individual can fulfill or achieved our personal goals (for example ,
performances somebody is looking for a home, cars or vocations etc.)

And that’s why we are motivated to do individual efforts so

that our personal goals can be achieved.

Organizational
rewards

Personal goals
There are three relationship proposed by Victor vroom

❖ Effort performance relationship (the more effort the more performance)

❖ Performance reward relationship (higher the performance higher the reward)
❖ Reward personal goal relationship (higher the reward, higher the chances of achieving personal
goals)

WHY PEOPLE ARE NOT MOTIVATED

AT WORK?
There are certain questions than answers it all
Q1 if work hard and put my maximum efforts, will it be considered in the performance appraisal?
(Will somebody appreciate me; will it be counted? People think nobody is looking at their efforts
and this is the reason they don't want to work hard)
Q2 if I get good performance appraisal, will it lead to organizational benefits?
(Will I get expected benefits for example you expected increment in salary but you were just
given with one bike hence you won't be motivated).
Q3 even I get rewards. will those rewards be personally attractive to me? (suppose as a reward
you were been given car, which you already have, you won’t be motivated.

ELEMENTS OF THEORY:
This theory has three elements

EXPECTANCY is the belief that increased efforts will lead to increase performance i.e. if I work harder
my performance will rise -

INSTRUMENTALITY is the belief that if you perform well that a valued outcome will be received i.e. if I
do a good job, I'll get challenging jobs

VALENCE: is the important the individual places upon the expected outcome for example if someone

is mainly motivated by money or might not value other offers of additionally time off .
E×I×V

OR

E↑P↑O↑P↑
 CRITICISM OF THEORY
IDEALISTIC IN NATURE
this theory is too idealistic in nature (very straightforward) the theory states that motivations is equal to
expectancy multiplied by instrumentality multiplied by valance under this theory if any of the factors are
zero the employee would be unmotivated as in the real-world employees work hard at times even they are
not sure they will get yeh reward they expect.

lack of values
the theory is inherently rational it assumes that employee act purely out of self-interest and their
expectations for rewards however this theory omits other factors by which employee can get motivated.

timing issues
this theory only looks at a motivational factor as a stand - alone event because employee is motivated by
a reward but he or she is not motivated by a reward tied to a particular project or work. this makes the
expectancy theory weak.

IMPLEMENTATION. CHALLLENGES:
Managers typically don't stroll into their administrators' workplaces with flawlessly composed
arrangements of the prizes they need, arranged by how terrible they need them. In any case, the hope
expectancy theory assumes that supervisors approach worker instrumentality and valance factors.
Without knowing precisely what workers need and how awful they need it, it turns out to be difficult to
envision how inspired they will be to take on an assignment, regardless of whether a prize is advertised.
Deals challenges are a microcosm of this. Constantly, the prize gets a couple of makers energized while
the rest block the challenge out and accomplish restricted, assuming any, efficiency gains. This happens in
light of the fact that, in reality, supervisors don't generally have the idea how to motivates every individual
from their groups.

The Real Problem

Eventually, expectancy theory has a center issue: rather than depicting the complexities of representative
inspiration, it utilizes complex language to portray an oversimplified perspective on why workers attempt.
In plain English, it says that representatives endeavor to receive something consequently.
Notwithstanding, it misses the remainder of the story, which is that representatives strive to receive
something consequently, however that something may descend the line such that is disconnected to the
venture on which they work hard in any case.