CAVENDISH UNIVERSITY –

ZAMBIA
ASSESSMENT BRIEF AND FEEDBACK
FORM

STUDENT No. 073-174

LECTURER NAME:
MODULE Psychology
MR. SELENJE
ASSESSMENT NUMBER: 01
DATE HANDED OUT: //2022
DATE DUE IN:
02/09/2022

Table of content

Introduction……………………………………………………………3

Process and content theories……………………………………………3-4

1
Expectancy theory………………………………………………………..4

Diagram of expectancy theory……………………………………………5-6

Managerial implication …………………………………………………..6-7

Three dimension theory of attribute……………………………………….7

How it is applied at the workplace…………………………………………..7-9

Implication to workers………………………………………………………..9-10

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….10

References……………………………………………………………………..11

Introduction

Whether a private or public company, motivation is essential in any business organization. Many
business and psychological professionals have defined and described motivation. According to

2
the Cambridge Dictionary of Psychology, it is the readiness to exert effort in the direction of a
goal. Since humans are essentially psychological beings, they require motivation whether
extrinsic or intrinsicto accomplish both corporate and individual aims and goals . Motivation is
more important than ever in the modern world, when rivalry has taken on such a high relevance
both inside businesses and among individuals. The art and science of motivation has thus
become a crucial component of company management. In this assignment, the researcher will
discuss two theories of motivation, including the three-dimension theory of attributes and
Vrooms Expectancy theory, as well as their managerial applications and effects on employees.

(a) Motivation is referred to as the force that propels all human endeavors. It is necessary for all
human accomplishments. It holds a crucial position as a management component.Vroom claims
that the choice of how much effort to put forth in a given task scenario is the crux of motivation.
This decision is supported by a two-stage expectation hierarchy in which performance follows
effort and results in a particular outcome or reward.

Different motivational theories exist. These ideas can be broadly categorized into two groups:
content theories, which concentrate on a person's demands, and process theories, which
concentrate on the mental operations that inspire employees. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
Theory, Herzberg's Two Factor Theory, and McClellands Theory of Needs are a few examples of
content theories. Cognitive Evaluation Theory, Reinforcement Theory, Goal Setting Theory,
Equity Theory, Vrooms Expectancy Theory, and many others are examples of process theories.

One of the process theories of motivation is Victor Vroom's Expectancy Theory. It examines the
cognitive processes that have an impact on employees' motivation in firms. Built on the notion
that people think there are connections between the effort they put forth at work, the performance
they gain from that effort, and the rewards they receive as a result of their effort and
performance, this cognitive process theory of motivation is based on this premise. In other
words, people will be motivated if they think that putting forth a lot of effort would result in
good work, and good work will result in the benefits they want. The first expectancy theory with
direct applicability to work settings was created by Victor Vroom in 1964. Porter later developed
and improved upon this idea.

3
An expectancy theory with direct application to workplace settings was first developed by Victor
Vroom (1964); it was then developed and improved by Porter and Lawler (1968) and others
(Pinder, 1987).

The Expectancy Theory offers a method of sort for determining motivation through a certain
kind of calculation. The Expectancy hypothesis operates in the following manner: Employees
work in organizations because they have personal goals that they would like to accomplish.
Organizational benefits or professional accomplishments may help you reach these personal
objectives. Therefore, the link between organizational incentives or work outcomes and personal
goals—specifically, how much and how attractively organizational rewards satisfy an employee's
personal goals—is crucial. The value the employee places on the results of their labour can also
be used to describe this relationship. Second, an employee's performance at work depends on the
organizational rewards or job outcomes. The degree to which an employee believes that his or
her efforts will lead to the accomplishment of organizational rewards or work outcomes is also
crucial. Thirdly, the employee's view of the likelihood that his or her own efforts would result in
good performance is also crucial.

(b) Expectancy theory is predicated on four tenets (Vroom, 1964). One presumption is that
individuals enter organizations with preconceived notions about their wants, drives, and prior
experiences. These affect how people respond to the organization. The assumption that a person's
behavior is the product of deliberate action. In other words, people are free to select the
behaviors that their own expectancy computations indicate. The idea that various people have
varied expectations of the organization is the third (e.g., good salary, job security, advancement,
and challenge). A fourth supposition is that individuals will make decisions based on what will
benefit them individually the most. Expectancy, instrumentality, and valence are the three main
components of the expectancy theory based on these presumptions. A person is driven to the
extent that they anticipate that their efforts will result in satisfactory performance (expectancy),
that their efforts will be rewarded (instrumentality), and that the benefits will have a high
perceived worth (valence).

The diagram below will help to explain more of this theory

4
 Expectancy.

Expectancy is an individual's assessment of the likelihood that work-related effort will produce a
specific level of performance. Expectancy, which runs from 0 to 1, is based on probabilities. The
expectancy is zero if an employee believes there is no probability that their efforts will result in
the targeted performance level. On the other side, the expectancy has a value of 1 if the worker is
100 percent positive that the task will be finished. Employee expectations of longevity typically
fall between these two extremes.

Instrumentality

An individual's evaluation of the likelihood that a specific degree of accomplished task

performance will result in a variety of professional outcomes is known as instrumentality. In the
same range as expectation, instrumentality is 0 to 1. For instance, the instrumentality has a value
of 1 if an employee understands that a good performance rating will always result in a pay raise.
A positive performance grade and a pay raise may be seen as being unrelated, in which case the
instrumentality is 0.

Valence.

Value is the degree to which an employee values a specific award. As a result, certain employees
may value wage increases, promotions, peer acceptability, supervisor acknowledgment, or any
other reward more or less. Valences, in contrast to expectation and instrumentality, can either be
positive or negative. Valence is favorable if an employee has a strong preference for receiving a
reward. Valence can also take a negative turn. Additionally, valence is zero if a worker is
uninterested in a reward. The range is from -1 to +1 overall. Theoretically, a reward has value

5
since it relates to the requirements of an employee. Therefore, Valence offers a connection to the
need theories of motivation (Alderfer, Herzberg, Maslow, and McClelland).
Managerial Implications of Expectancy theory

It has some important implications for motivating employees. The model provides guidelines for
enhancing employee motivation by altering the individual’s effort-to-performance expectancy,
performance-to-reward expectancy, and reward valences. Several practical implications of
expectancy theory are described next (Greenberg, 2011; Hellriegel & Slocum, 2011; McShane &
Von Glinow, 2011; Nadler & Lawler, 1983). Vroom proposes the equation Motivation =
Expectation x Instrumentality x Valence to describe the relationship between motivation,
expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. There is a strong multiplier impact in the equation. It
means that when expectation, instrumentality, and valence are all high, motivation levels will be
higher than when they are all low. According to the multiplier assumption of the theory, if any
one of the three elements is zero, the degree of motivation as a whole is also zero. Thus, even if
an employee believes that their efforts will lead to performance, which will lead to reward,
motivation will be zero if the valence of the reward they anticipate receiving is zero (i.e. if they
believe that the reward they will receive for their effort has no value.

Effort-to-Performance Expectancy

Leaders should work to enhance employee confidence in their ability to complete the job
successfully. Choose individuals with the necessary knowledge and skills, give them the
necessary training, be clear about the job's requirements, give them enough time and resources,
assign increasingly challenging tasks based on training, pay attention to employees' suggestions
for job changes, intervene and make an effort to resolve issues that might impede effective
performance, give examples of employees who have mastered the task, and offer coaching to
employees are all ways to achieve this. Fundamentally, leaders must set performance goals that
are realistically achievable. Effective leaders not only make it apparent to their team members
what is expected of them, but also assist them in performing at the required level.

Performance-to-Reward Expectancy

The conviction that strong performance will result in worthwhile rewards should be strengthened
by leaders. Among the ways to do this are to precisely measure how well an employee is

6
performing their job, to clearly state the rewards that will follow successful performance, to
explain how the employee's rewards were determined based on past performance, and to give
examples of other employees whose strong performance has translated into higher rewards. In
essence, managers should establish a direct link between the precise performance they seek and
the incentives that staff members want. It's critical that workers understand how rewards are
given at work. Statements of intent must be accompanied by actions.

Mechanisms for compensation can act as a potent inducement to link performance to rewards.
Pay-for-performance plans are compensation structures that directly compensate employees
depending on how successfully they execute their tasks (Berger, 2009). These can take the shape
of "incentive stock option (ISO) plans" for executives and other workers, "commission plans" for
sales professionals, "piece-rate systems" for factory and field workers, and more (Dunn, 2009;
Mercer, Carpenter, & Wyman, 2010). (Baker, 2011). Rewards connected to performance,
however, are not always monetary. Additionally, verbal and symbolic forms of praise for
excellent work can be highly powerful (Markham, Dow, & McKee, 2002).

Valences of Rewards

The expected value of rewards coming from desired performance should be raised by leaders.
Distributing awards that employees value and personalizing prizes are two strategies for doing
this. It is false to assume that everyone in a workforce with a diverse demographic wants the
same benefits. While some workers might appreciate a promotion or a pay increase, others could
value more vacation time, better insurance coverage, child care, or elder care facilities. Many
businesses now offer cafeteria-style benefit plans, which are incentive programs that let
employees choose their fringe benefits from a list of available options. The necessity for leaders
to reduce the occurrence of counter valent rewards—performance awards with negative valences
—is another issue that may arise with expectancy theory. For instance, despite formal benefits
and the nature of the job itself normally motivating people to perform at greater levels, group
norms (see, e.g., the famous Hawthorne Studies, Mayo, 1933; Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939)
may lead certain employees to execute their duties at minimum levels.

(c) Because they want to discover the causes of behaviors, learners are motivated to participate
in the learning environment. An individual's attributions are what are referred to as the actions'

7
causes. Heider(1958) asserts that people are motivated to learn because they have a personal
need to acquire new attributions.

The definition of attribution theory is the process through which people assess the success or
failure of their own behavior or that of others (Weiner, 2004). Students typically use three
aspects to explain their reasons for success or failure: 1) Locus (internal or external); 2) stability;
3) instability; and 4) controllability

What is the cause's locus of influence—is it internal or external to the person? If it's internal,
the emphasis is on aptitude and effort, whereas if it's external, it's on the difficulty and lack of the
task.

Dimension of stability: How long-lasting is the cause? Between stable and unstable. Causes:
Are they constant or do they change with the environment and the passage of time?

The 3rd dimension; Controllability factor, how easily the reason can be changed.
Uncontrollable versus under our control. Exist extrinsic, reversible causes? Weiner claims that
controllability and intention are synonymous.

How the theory is applied in the work place

Employee motivation may also be impacted by attributes. Employees who believe that factors
beyond their control were responsible for their achievement may be hesitant to take on new
challenges and may get demotivated to work hard at their jobs. Employees who credit
themselves for their accomplishment, on the other hand, are more likely to be highly motivated
at work. Understanding how individuals attribute things can therefore have a significant impact
on both employee performance and managerial success.

The process of attribution is thought to consist of three steps. An individual's behavior must first
be observed. The perceiver must secondly conclude that the behavior they have observed is
intentional. In other words, it is assumed that the individual being watched acted purposefully.
Finally, the observer assigns either internal or external causes to the behavior they have seen.
While external causes are assigned to outside factors, internal causes are attributed to the subject
of the observation. However, the perceiver must look at the components of consistency,
distinctiveness, and consensus while deciding between internal and external sources of behavior.

8
Consider a workplace example to have a better understanding of consistency, distinctiveness, and
consensus. Manager Geoffrey has tasked a group of workers with creating a client-specific sales
training program. Geoffrey keeps finding issues with the work done by Jim, one of the team
members, as the project moves forward. Geoffrey first considers consistency, or whether Jim has
performed poorly on prior similar team projects, to figure out why his performance is subpar. His
past performance evaluations reveal that he has never had performance issues when developing
personalized sales training programs. Geoffrey would come to the conclusion that the subpar
performance had an outside source as a result of this. Geoffrey thinks about individuality in the
second place; she wants to know if Jim has performed poorly on various duties. Once more, after
looking over Jim's performance assessments, she discovers that he consistently does well while
working in a team to complete a different kind of activity, like creating a selection interview.
This further suggests that Jim's subpar performance has an outside reason. Finally, Geoffrey
evaluates consensus, or how other people performed in a similar activity. She discovers that
many of the team members have struggled with creating this unique sales training program when
she asks them about their experiences with the present project. Therefore, all evidence suggests
that Jim's subpar performance was brought on by an outside influence, such as a challenging
work or a picky client. Based on this assessment, Geoffrey might look into ways to lessen how
the outside influences affect Jim's success rather than making an effort to change his level of
effort or skill.

Implication of the theory at the workplace

A self-aware leader will employ a dual strategy. He or she will first need to make sure they are
conscious of their impulses toward self-preservation and adopt a more objective viewpoint while
observing their own accomplishments and failures. They must watch out for being too eager to
credit their own skill for their victories and too fast to attribute their failures to uncontrollable
external factors. Second, a strong leader will welcome mistakes and failures as a chance for
people to stop blaming events and other people for mistakes and start thinking more honestly
about how mistakes occurred and how to prevent them in the future. People may be less prone to
cover up errors if they are aware that doing so won't result in their termination. They will be less
prone to place blame on others if they are confident that their capacity for reflection and
openness to error will be acknowledged.

9
In the workplace, the attribution theory can take many different forms. For instance, if a person
receives a promotion, those left behind will "naturally" attribute the advancement to the person
being the manager's "favorite" rather than their experience and skills. In this situation, a good
leader must be aware of this and take action to prevent assumptions like this from harming
workplace productivity and morale. Perhaps adopting a more open strategy, completely outlining
the promotion to others, and taking the people who were passed over aside to explain why they
were not selected and how they might become ready and advance on their own professional path.

Conclusion

The learning process is greatly impacted by motivation. By itself, it can tell whether someone
will pass or fail. Regardless of their existing circumstances, everyone has to be inspired to work
harder, and this is directly tied to what they anticipate getting in exchange for their efforts. While
some people learn more from outside influences, others could accomplish more through their
own goals. With the aid of additional tools like adequate supervision, communication, and
evaluation, Vroom's expectation theory stands out as an important model of motivation that can
be utilized to create a management strategy for an organization and enhance employee
motivation
All variations in employee motivation at work stem from the expectation theory. The motivation
an employee has for performance is directly related to what they anticipate from their employer.
It is evident that there are many various perspectives surrounding Weiner's (1979) attribution
theory after taking into account the factors involved. Although there is evidence for and against
the theory's viability, it appears that the advantages of Weiner's work outweigh its drawbacks.
The logical nature of Weiner's work, along with the supporting data from other psychologists
including Heider (1958), Blefare (1987), and Meyer (1973), lead to the conclusion that, at this
time, this idea appears to be deserving of acceptance as a sound basis for the understanding of
attribution

10
 References

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.

Harvey, J.H. & Weary, G. (1985). Attribution: Basic Issues and Applications, Academic Press,
San Diego.
Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, N.J.: General
Learning Press.
Weiner, B. (1980). Human Motivation. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-
Verilog.
Victor Vroom (1964) Expectancy theory

Porter and Lawler (1968) and others (Pinder, 1987).

(Greenberg, 2011; Hellriegel & Slocum, 2011; McShane & Von Glinow, 2011; Nadler &
Lawler, 1983)

(Berger, 2009). Compensation mechanism

(Markham, Dow, & McKee, 2002).

Dunn, 2009; Mercer, Carpenter, & Wyman, 2010) and other employees (Baker, 2011).

Mayo, 1933; Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939)

11