Motivation and Expectancy Theory
Frank J. Navran

We have all asked ourselves at some point, “What will it take to get X to do…?” As managers and supervisors we look for ways to get our employees to do what we want them to do, willingly, enthusiastically and to the best of their ability.

I am reluctant to suggest that there are ways we can “motivate” them since I am not certain that anyone can motivate another. I believe that motivation comes from within. We can coerce, force, compel or cajole - but that will not yield the “willingly and enthusiastically” part of the equation needed for long-term success.

What we can do is understand what motivates our employees and help them recognize that what we want them to do is consistent, at least in some significant measure, with what they seek. If there are ways we can motivate others they have largely escaped me over these past thirty-five years.

The key for me has been a conversation I was party to several years ago concerning “expectancy theory.” It laid out a simple formula for understanding why an individual would choose to do or not do a specific task.

Expectancy theory has become another of those simple truths that I find so useful. In its simplest form it says that for a person to be motivated to perform a certain act four preconditions must be met. The person must:

1. Know what is required to successfully perform the act.
2. Believe themself capable of doing what is required.
3. Know the probable consequences of performing the act.
4. Want/desire/value the anticipated consequences.

Each of these preconditions deserves a bit of discussion.

Know what is required to successfully perform the act

This is a simple enough concept. We are more likely to want to do something when we know both the desired outcome (what success looks like) and what is necessary to produce that outcome (what is required to achieve success). Generally, we shy away from the “uninformed” choice where we do not know the goal or how to it can be attained.

Believe themselves capable of doing what is required

Once we know what is required to accomplish the task at hand we can then assess our own level of confidence that we are capable of doing what is necessary to achieve success. We are more inclined to do what wee believe we are capable of - less inclined to do what we believe we are not capable of. We are less inclined to choose to fail.

In the organizational world “capability” typically extends beyond personal capacity and includes organizational capacity - do we have the time, resources, manpower, information, technology… necessary to be successful?

Know the probable consequences of performing the act

There is more to a task than the probability of success. There are any number of consequences and knowing (or believing we know) those consequences figures into out process. We evaluate the probable consequences - what will happen if I do this thing - from several perspectives, such as:

What will happen to me if I do this?
What will happen to others?
What problems will this solve or create?
What are the costs and benefits?
Is this the right, good and fair thing to do?

Want/desire/value the anticipated consequences

Knowing the probably outcomes, do we want those things to occur? Is the likely outcome something we value or something we are trying to avoid?

Given the above discussion, a simple example.

My son, Ian, then a college student, told me one evening that he and a friend were going to do their first parachute jump the coming weekend. It was something he had talked about for a good long while, had saved for and was now going to do. He asked if I might want to join in and I promptly declined - almost without thinking about it. I spent a good deal of time, however trying to understand why he was so enthused about the idea and I found it so unappealing.

Expectancy theory gave me a vocabulary and conceptual framework for understanding. Consider the four preconditions and out responses to them.

Know what is required to successfully perform the act

We both knew what was required in term of the physical and psychological demands of the task:

• Attend a brief “ground school” where the process would be explained
• Strap into the necessary gear
• Board an airplane with the side door removed to facilitate the jump
• Attach ourselves to a “tandem jump instructor”
• Have the nerve to jump out of the airplane - at about 10,000 feet above the ground

Believe themselves capable of doing what is required

We both believed ourselves capable of doing the required tasks

• We were both able to attend and learn the required content from the ground school
• We had the physical ability to strap on the gear
• No problem boarding the plane
• No problem “hooking up” with the instructor
• No anticipated problems making the jump or riding down

Know the probable consequences of performing the act

It is in the area of expected “consequences” that Ian and I diverged.

His expectations:

• Exhilaration and euphoria
• A sense of freedom and power
• A soft, uneventful landing
• A smile that would stay in place for days

My expectations:

• I would soil my shorts and hurt my back

Want/desire/value the anticipated consequences

Ian wanted/desired/valued the outcomes he anticipated. I did not want, desire or value what I thought I might experience.

Hence, “expectancy theory”.

Ian was motivated because he expected desirable outcomes as a consequence of his first tandem jump. I was not motivated because the consequences I expected were things I hoped to avoid.

I used this example in a presentation at a conference some years ago and a friend, a psychiatrist by profession, sat with me at lunch afterwards and suggested that there was a deeper level of understanding than I proposed regarding Ian’s motivations. He saw it as father-son competitiveness, I am a private pilot and Ian, by jumping out of a plane, was “besting” me in an area where I was doing something that he could not.

He may be right, but rarely, as managers or supervisor, do we achieve deep psychological insights into those we manage or supervise. And, while the psychological insights might expand the understanding, I suggest that expectancy theory is adequate to the task of understanding how we might make it more likely that our employees will do more of what we want and need them to do.

So what?

One of my favorite questions. Why should we care that expectancy theory helps us understand why people choose to do or not do certain things?

Simple. Understanding the four preconditions of motivation reveals that we, as the manager or supervisor, can also influence them and thus influence the degree to which an employee may be motivated to do a certain task. We cannot “motivate” them, per se, but we can create circumstances that they are more likely to find motivating - a significant difference - not simply an exercise in semantics.

Know what is required to successfully perform the act

We can help our employees know what is required for successful completion of a task in the way we frame the task and define the desired outcomes.

I am reminded of a story Ken Blanchard told when he described a “Wrong Rock” manager. We have all known these people. They tell you to perform a task - for example, “I need a rock. Go down to the field behind the parking lot and bring me a rock”. You go to the field, find a nice rock and return, “That’s not what I had in mind.” You ask for clarification and get, “I’m not exactly sure, but this isn’t it. Try again. Maybe a little bigger, maybe smoother. Something less obtrusive, I don’t know how to describe it, but I’ll know it when I see it.”

Wrong rock managers fail at the first precondition of expectancy theory because they do not help us to know what success will look like. Therefore we do not know if we will be able to successfully perform the task. No knowing what is required for success means we cannot judge what it takes to succeeds or if we are capable of success. Not knowing if or how we can succeed de-motivates.

If you have success criteria it is easier to know if and/or how you can succeed. Thus as the manager or supervisor it is to our advantage to consider what a successful outcome would be and to effectively communicate that to the person being tasked.

Believe themselves capable of doing what is required

Capability is derived from knowledge, skill and ability. We bring certain knowledge, skills and abilities to the work place and learn others after we get there. Is the task one I have the capacity to successfully perform? Am I capable?

There are both an objective and subjective element to that assessment. Do I (objectively) have the necessary skills, knowledge, abilities for success? We call that competence. Equally significant, do I (subjectively) believe that I have the necessary skills, knowledge, abilities for success? We call that confidence. We are more likely to be motivated if we feel both competent and confident.

As managers and supervisors we communicate both what we want/need an employee to do and our confidence that they have the competencies to successfully deliver. Often, the communication of our confidence is not specifically articulated. Rather it is inferred by the manner in which we communicate to the employee. It is in the subtleties of all of the things that accompany our spoken or written words.

Know the probable consequences of performing the act

This is an area where many of us fail. We presume that the employee either already knows or has no need to know the consequences of success, failure or any of the possibilities in between.

Reality is that they may have no idea of the importance of the task or how it fits into a larger set of tasks, why the timing is or is not critical, what other outcomes are dependent upon this one’s success or a myriad of other possible consequences associated with what we ask then to do.

For many of us, we act as though telling them to do something irrespective of context is enough. Fortunately, many times it is. But in too may cases not knowing the significance of a task translates into not believing the task is deserving of one’s best efforts since the consequences of less than the best are not known and therefore presumed to be insignificant. As an employee it is easy enough for me to think that since there is nothing of import at stake here there is no need for me to put forth my best effort. Save that for the stuff that matters

Want/desire/value the anticipated consequences

I cannot make you want, desire or value the desired outcome of an assigned task. I can tell you why I think it is important, how it serves the organization or its stakeholders, how it is good for our group - even how it is good for you. I do not feel a need to bribe you to do your work, but if I do not help you see how your work contributes to meaningful and significant outcomes then I am failing you. I am failing to make significance of the probable consequences (at least those that have some significance) explicitly evident.

Conclusion

In some cases the outcomes of our work are self-evident. In some cases employees are internally focused and derive their motivation from the satisfaction at doing their best every time. But in many cases our employees need (and deserve to know) why what we are asking them to do matters.

It can be a simple as explaining, “I need a rock to prop my door open. The door is not plumb and swings shut. Something heavy enough to keep it open but small enough to not be a trip hazard. Better if it is smooth so I won’t get all scratched or scraped every time I pick it up to move it.”

And, yes, “Thank you. I know this is an odd chore but I do appreciate the help. Maintenance said they can fix the door in a week or two but, in the meantime, I don’t want people thinking my door is closed to them.”

Now, as your employee I know what you want me to do, that I am capable of doing it, the consequences of doing it and that those consequences are not trivial.

You have not motivated me. Rather, you have given me the information I need to be motivated.

It’s a simple thing. And it works.