–1.0. We will explain how this works as soon as we discuss the final link in the model. The final piece of the model is not really a link between two other components but an extra component.Valencerefers to how attractive or unattractive an outcome looks to a person. Thus, as noted above, many outcomes might be associated with work, and some of these might be quite attractive, whereas others may be rather unattractive. For example, good performance might be associated with receiving a raise, which would be attractive to most people. But poor performance might be associated with being fired, which would presumably be unattractive. Another way of stating this would be to suggest that improving performance increasesthe chances of receiving a raise (thus a positive correlation or instrumentality) but decreasesthe chances of being fired (thus a negative correlation or instrumentality), and it has no effect on the chances of winning the lottery (thus, a zero correlation or instrumentality). Valences can thus be positive,
negative, or neutral, and it is possible to specify that some outcomes are more positive (or negative) than others. Note that all the terms in expectancy theory are based on a person's perceptions. In other words, we are less interested in whether, in fact, a person's efforts will result in increased performance and more interested in whether the person believes that to be the case. Of course, if individuals' perceptions are incorrect, then they will learn this over time and adjust their perceptions, but it is essential to remember that we are dealing with perceived links here, not the actual relationships between the components in the model. Figure 13.4 illustrates the way the model works and indicates that the model is used to estimate the “force” operating on the employee to increase her or his effort. Note that in the example, the expectancy is set at 1.0, suggesting that there is a certainty that increased effort will lead to improved performance. There are also three outcomes in the example: two positive (pay raise and winning the lottery) and one negative (getting fired). Winning the lottery is more attractive than getting a pay raise. The key here, though, is the instrumentality term. Although winning the lottery is attractive, improved performance is not associated with increased chances of winning the lottery, and so this drops from consideration (zero times three is zero), suggesting that winning the lottery does not play a role in an employee's decision to increase effort at work. Notice, too, that getting fired is a negative outcome, but that increased performance decreases the chances of getting fired, producing a negative instrumentality. When we multiply two negatives we get a positive, suggesting here that increasing performance makes it less likely that an employee will be fired, which is really a benefit of improved performance.