Editing Expectancy theory (section)

==Criticisms==
Critics of the expectancy model include Graen, Lawler and Porter.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/0030-5073(73)90066-4 |title=Expectancy theory and job behavior |journal=Organizational Behavior and Human Performance |volume=9 |issue=3 |page=482 |year=1973 |last1=Lawler |first1=Edward E |last2=Suttle |first2=J.Lloyd |url=https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/33872/1/0000133.pdf |hdl=2027.42/33872 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Their criticisms of the theory were based upon the expectancy model being too simplistic in nature; these critics started making adjustments to Vroom's model.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Graen | first=George | title=Instrumentality theory of work motivation: Some experimental results and suggested modifications. | journal=Journal of Applied Psychology | publisher=American Psychological Association (APA) | volume=53 | issue=2, Pt.2 | year=1969 | issn=1939-1854 | doi=10.1037/h0027100 | pages=1–25| pmid=5797825 }}; 
{{cite book | last=Lawler | first=Edward E. III | title=Pay and Organizational Effectiveness: a Psychological View | publisher=McGraw-Hill | series=McGraw-Hill Series in Industrial Engineering and Management; MacGraw-Hill Series in Psychology | year=1971 | isbn=978-0-07-036700-5 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=F_qZAAAAIAAJ }}; 
{{cite journal | last1=Lawler | first1=Edward E. | last2=Porter | first2=Lyman W. | title=Antecedent attitudes of effective managerial performance | journal=Organizational Behavior and Human Performance | publisher=Elsevier BV | volume=2 | issue=2 | year=1967 | issn=0030-5073 | doi=10.1016/0030-5073(67)90026-8 | pages=122–142}}; 
{{cite book|last1=Porter |first1=L. W. |last2=Lawler |first2=E. E. |year=1968 |title=Managerial Attitudes and Performance |location=Homewood, IL |publisher=Richard D. Irwin, Inc.}}</ref>

Edward Lawler claims that the simplicity of expectancy theory is deceptive because it assumes that if an [[Employment|employer]] makes a reward (such as a financial bonus or promotion) enticing enough, employees will increase their productivity to obtain the reward.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://ceo.usc.edu/pdf/T922205.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2010-12-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100610224740/http://ceo.usc.edu/pdf/T922205.pdf |archive-date=2010-06-10  }}</ref> However, this only works if the employees believe the reward is beneficial to their immediate needs. For example, a $2 increase in salary may not be desirable to an employee if the increase pushes him into a tax bracket in which he believes his net pay is actually reduced (a belief that is typically fallacious, especially in the [[United States]]). Similarly, a promotion that provides higher [[Social status|status]] but requires longer hours may be a deterrent to an employee who values evening and weekend time with their children.

As an additional example, if a person in the [[Military|armed forces]] or security agencies is promoted, there is the possibility that he or she will be [[Relocation (personal)|transferred]] to other locations. In such cases, if the new posting is far from their permanent residence where their family resides, they will not be motivated by such promotions and the results will backfire. As such, the reward is valued negatively to the person receiving it.

Lawler's new proposal for expectancy theory does not contradict Vroom's theory. Lawler argues that since there have been a variety of developments of expectancy theory since its creation in 1964 that the expectancy model needs to be updated. Lawler's new model is based on four claims.<ref name="web.dcp.ufl.edu">{{Cite web |url=http://web.dcp.ufl.edu/hinze/Expectancy.htm |title=Expectancy |access-date=2010-12-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101027133712/http://web.dcp.ufl.edu/hinze/Expectancy.htm |archive-date=2010-10-27  }}</ref> First, whenever there are a number of outcomes, individuals will usually have a preference among those outcomes. Second, there is a belief on the part of that individual that their action(s) will achieve the outcome they desire. Third, any desired outcome was generated by the individual's behavior. Fourth and finally, the actions generated by the individual were generated by the preferred outcome and expectation of the individual.

Instead of simply looking at expectancy and instrumentality, W.F. Maloney and J.M. McFillen<ref name="web.dcp.ufl.edu"/> found that expectancy theory could explain the motivation of those individuals who were employed by the [[Construction|construction industry]]. For instance, they used worker expectancy and worker instrumentality. Worker expectancy is when supervisors create an equal match between the worker and their job. Worker instrumentality is when an employee knows that any increase in their performance leads to achieving their goal.

In the chapter entitled "On the Origins of Expectancy Theory" published in ''Great Minds in Management'' by Ken G. Smith and Michael A. Hitt, Vroom himself agreed with some of these criticisms and stated that he felt that the theory should be expanded to include research conducted since the original publication of his book.<ref>{{cite book |last=Vroom |first=Victor H. |chapter=On the Origins of Expectancy Theory |title=Great Minds in Management |editor-last1=Smith |editor-first1=Ken G. |editor-last2=Hitt |editor-first2=Michael A. }}</ref>