I have always found Expectancy Theory the single most valuable insight into how motivation works. So, I am pleased to see that this is one of my more popular motivation videos!
Not sure whether to like this or not - as I can't be sure whether it's a joke or not. The reality of physical coercion is that it is just abuse and has n place in work or family life. Compliance is not motivation.
Thank you for these videos. they helped me grasp a bit the reasoning of some motivation theories. If they are ALL the best motivation theories, which one is actually worth it? or should you as a manager apply different approaches to different situations/ employees?
If they are all the best, you should apply them all. Firstly, many theories address different aspects of motivation - most notably some focus on the process (like Vroom) while others focus on the 'what' that motivates us. Secondly, we are talking about people here. I doubt a single theory could account for everything. That said, Kurt Lewin got close with his B = f(P, E) (that is, behavior is a function of the person and the environment. But, while it's undoubtedly true, it leaves out rather a lot of detail!
@@ManagementCourses thank you for your response. Indeed, we are talking about people, so no rational theory would have the desired job performance. Combining many, while being aware of the cultures and the situations/ context would probably be best.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH ,WE IN THIRD WORD HAVE ACCESS TO GOOD STAFFS OF THIS LEVEL , YOU ARE REALLY THE BEST . I M FOLLOWING YOU FROM TANZANIA IN E. AFRICA
People like you, who don't have much spare cash to buy courses are the reason I started this channel. So it's great to hear your appreciation. Thank you.
That was so helpful in aiding my understanding of this theory. I will definitely view your others, as I'm doing a HR course, with the current module on Performance Management. Thank you!
I am currently taking an online graduate school management course, and personally I think your videos are better than some of the videos my university provides. Are you affiliated with or are you interested in being affiliated with any universities?
Thank you. I am not affiliated with any universities although a small number use some of my videos in course - and maybe some that have not let me know! I am always open to collabs and licensing my content for use on non-YT servers (which is, of course, a breach of copyright without my permission!)
The explanation is excellent and clear. Love the example, it helps us remember well. However, can you please maybe include some of the criticisms and limitations in the theories? That will bring more overall and proper understanding about a theory. Thank you so much!
The difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation comes down to one question. (and an expectancy theory is the answer, but a bit different from Vroom) What is an incentive or reinforcer? For a Skinnerian behaviorist, a reinforcer is any event virtual or real that changes any attribute of behavior, from rate to intensity to form. For a biological behaviorist, a reinforcer is a positive change in a specific neurologic state that is embodied by an affective tone or feeling. For the Skinnerian, all reinforcement is extrinsic, and is justified procedurally. For the biological behaviorist, all reinforcement is intrinsic, and is justified realistically, or through a thorough understanding of how the brain works. Either perspective denies separate categorical entities of extrinsic and intrinsic reward. Ultimately however, a sound neurologically grounded explanation of incentive motivation resolves the distinction, which given our current knowledge, is no distinction at all. The concept of a unified reinforcement theory was proposed by the bio-behaviorists John Donahoe and David Palmer in 1994, and was independently confirmed by the affective neuroscientist Kent Berridge (who added the affective nature of reinforcement) in the same and following decades. Donahoe and Palmer proposed a neurologically grounded definition of reinforcement. Reinforcement reflected a discrepancy principle, when behavior is continually mediated by the activity of dopamine neurons elicited by continuous correction error between predictions and outcomes. Dopamine scales with the importance of the reinforcer, and is responsible for a feeling of energy and arousal, but not pleasure. The reinforcement principle from a Skinnerian behaviorism is still the guiding principle of present-day behaviorists or behavior analysts, but discrepancy principles are now core to single process incentive motivation theories in radical behaviorism as reflected by modern affective neuroscience. The difference between these two principles is stark in both principle and practice. Whereas a Skinnerian behaviorist is concerned about the effectiveness of reinforcers, a biological or radical behaviorist Is concerned about how reinforcement induces affect. To a teacher, parent, society, or politic, the effectiveness of reinforcement is paramount. However, for an individual, affect in reinforcement is of first importance. The latter is reflected in the recent work of Berridge, who emphasized that behavior change must be oriented to eliciting continuous positive affect, which is epitomized by an active and meaningful life. Given this perspective where individual feelings are critical for motivation and positive affect or ‘happiness’, the metric for success for behaviorists is not behavioral control, but individual freedom, and a behaviorally engineered society that focuses on constructing the avenues that enrich the meaning or value of life, or an individual’s fully realized self-control in a free society. John Donahoe: Behavior Analysis and Neuroscience www.scribd.com/document/426400833/Behavior-Analysis-and-Neuroscience-1 The Joyful Mind: Kringelbach and Berridge sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/wp-content/uploads/sites/743/2019/10/Kringelbach-Berridge-2012-Joyful-mind-Sci-Am.pdf ‘A Mouse’s Tale’ Learning theory for a lay audience from the perspective of modern affective neuroscience www.scribd.com/document/495438436/A-Mouse-s-Tale-a-practical-explanation-and-handbook-of-motivation-from-the-perspective-of-a-humble-creature Berridge article on history of learning theory www.scribd.com/document/447163649/Berridge-Reward-Learning-Incentives-and-Expectations Berridge Lab sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/
I like the humor there "no equation" 😂 Thank you so much! I almost watched all your Motivation topic videos for my report in Masters. Keep it up! From Philippines with love!
Vroom is about internal or external motivation. I have other videos that make the point you made so clearly - that many knowledge workers are largely or entirely motivated internally. A typical internal motivator is the opportunity to learn by taking on a new challenge. A manager who promises this, but who has a reputation for failing to deliver and simply reallocating people to tasks they can already do well will not motivate, despite offering a high value motivator. Vroom explains why.
I am a humble and an aspiring manager, oftentimes stumbling to motivate people in my team...this formula seems to clear many of my doubts Thanks a lot Sir, let me try something out of it. Nevertheless always something troubles me is how much organisation would support me. I equate many times Motivation to employee is cost to the company and my leadership doesn't like anything spoken about money I have to balance something.
Hi - there are many videos in this series about motivation. Watch some more and you'll learn that 1. there are many other motivators, besides money, and 2. Money isn't a particularly good motivator in many circumstances. The full playlist is here: ru-vid.com/group/PL6vWkk9L7LeE7ly5r-rFBoi0gt1o3yKhH
Thank you for posting this video. I have found it really interesting as it has helped me to understand the Expectancy Theory mathematical equation in simple terms IE, low expectancy multiplied by low belief in the performance will lead to desired rewards, multiplied by the low value employees place on the existing reward system, this would equal a low motivational force and therefore low employee satisfaction. I will be using this to help with the critical analysis of my next MBA assignment. Thanks!
Thanks for the video! This was very clear and exactly what I needed to feel more confident to use expectancy theory to substantiate my masters thesis - great help!
My wife is a nursing student in Haifa university. This semester she studies the course "System aspects of the nursing practice". Thank you very much for clear explanation of Vroom's theory.
Heey! real nice videos you got, it's helping me out a lot! I'm currently searching for a model to help me write my thesis. the thesis wil be a motivational research about young people from the ages of 15-25 about what motivates them to joing a youth center. I'm currently thinking about using this expactancy theory of Victor Vroom, McClelland's achievemt theory and Herzberg's two-factor theory. What do you think is the best way to go? 1 of these 3 of is there another better one? kind regards, Vincent
Vincent - what is nice about those three theories is they are all complementary. None tries to explain all of motivation and each explains a different part. For example, Vroom doesn't talk about what does and does not motivate us. Rather, it's about how the motivation process works. McClelland talks about big concepts that drive our choices and Herzberg explains why somethings we want don't provide motivation. I can't guide you as to which are relevant in your circumstance - that what the research element of your thesis program needs to uncover But my guess is that each will contribute an element of understanding about the choices young people make.
My late parents would say clean the car this instant if you actually want to eat dinner tonight. I am 60 years old and recently decided to return to graduate school to study organizational behavior. These are really helpful videos.
I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but yes, I think expectancy theory does apply to students motivated (or not) to do assignments, courses, volunteering, or paid work.
You are very welcome. [Thank you. You have explained a subject that I have difficulty in understanding in a simplified way perfectly.] - Google Translate
Great Explanation Sir !! One doubt the valence here does not hold a positive or negative sign as in Lewin Theory ? I mean in what terms does Lewin's theory differ from this ( apart from fact that behavior as function of environment is not considered in Vroom's theory )
Thank you, Parthesh. I've never seen Vroom's work discussed with negative valence, as it is about. positive motivation. But I do expect that the model will hold with a 'motivator' that actually repels someone. If you ask me to do something and offer a reward I actually find distasteful, I will be motivated to resist. For example, you may offer me a trip abroad with a flight. But if I am highly aware of climate change and keen to avoid adding to carbon emissions, what you may reasonably have expected would have a positive valence could actually have a negative one. Interesting thought - thank you.. I don't know, but I do expect that Vroom was building on Lewin's ideas. Many 20th century psychology theorists were!
I've always liked the theory but never quite understood how to explain the formula. This is an excellent video to demonstrate it with a simple everyday example. Thank you so much for simplifying it for me!
No, Instrumentality and Valence are different. Instrumentality - the extent to which one thing infleunces an outcome (is uinstrumental in it) Valence - the value or strength of something If you want simpler language (Vroom's is words are not common English words): - Expectancy: Likelihood - Instrumentality: Influence - Valence: Value The mapping is not precise, but it should help anyone without a big dictionary!
@@ManagementCourses Thanks for replying! Instrumentality is a matter of whether people can feel their performance will lead to a certain reward. valence is a term of whether people simply value the reward or not. Is this interpretation correct? I am sorry for my poor explanation. If you could teach me again, that would be a huge help.
OMG! Thank you BIG TIME. You are the only one amongst all the authors I have studied and the videos I have seen who has been able to explain it. It is truly said, those who know, know. Those who understand, teach. THANK YOU for being such a great teacher!! I don't think I will be looking for anyone else to breakdown complex management theories now. I have subbed. Thank you once again and please never stop doing this.
Holy shit I understand this SO MUCH! I almost want this to be on my shrm exam because I feel like you explained it better than my damn book! Ugh thank you!!!
