Antecedents of Work

Related Expectancies
HENRY P. SIMS, JR.
PennSyivania State University
ANDREW D. SZILAGYI
University of Houston
DALE R. McKEMEY
United States Air Force
This research investigated the environmental antecedents of expectancy I and expectancy II. Expectancy II
was found to be strongly related to supervisory variables
and, to a lesser extent, to organization practices variables.
Expectancy I was mildly related to organization practices
variables. Internal control individuals had stronger El
and Ell perceptions. Implications for management development and training are discussed.
A number of studies over the past several years have demonstrated that
expectancy or instrumentality formulations are potentially useful for
predicting work motivation in organizational settings (for reviews, see
Heneman & Schwab, 1972; House, Shapiro, & Wahba, 1974; Mitchell,
1974; and Mitchell & Biglan, 1971). The objective of this research was to
further the study of expectancy theory by investigating aspects of the work
environment that may act as antecedents to the formation of work-related
expectancies.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The epistemology of expectancy theory had its origins in the works of
Tolman (1932) and Lewin (1935). Both emphasized the link between
behavior and its perceived outcomes. Lewin (1938) invoked the construct
of force, which he defined as that which causes change. The application
of the earlier theoretical work to organization contexts is a more recent
development, and several forms of expectancy models have evolved.
Vroom (1964) is generally considered the initial investigator to use
expectancy as the basis for a cognitive theory of work motivation (see
Henry P. Sims, Jr. is Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, Pennsylvania.
Andrew D. Szilagyi is Assistant Professor of Organization Behavior and Management,
University of Houston, Houston, Texas.
Dale R. McKemey is a faculty member. Air Force School of Logistics, Wright Patterson
Air Force Base, Ohio.
547

548

Academy of Management Journal

December

Behling & Starke, 1973). Vroom stated that expectancy theory could
explain the work-related variables of occupational preference, morale, need
achievement, group cohesiveness, and motivation for effective performance.
Expectancy theory focuses on the proposition that work-related behavior
can be predicted if the subjective probabilities of outcomes and the anticipated value of outcomes to individuals are known. The two central concepts
to the theory are expectancy and valence.
Porter and Lawler (1968) built upon the Vroom (1964) theory by
including an effort-reward probability, which refers to an individual's perceptions of whether differential rewards are based on differential efforts.
This general expectation was then divided into two subsidiary expectations:
a performance-reward expectation and an effort-performance expectation.
Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick (1970) subsequently named the
Porter and Lawler (1968) expectations expectancy I (El) and expectancy
II (EII). El deals with the individual's perceived probability between
effort and performance (an action-outcome contingency), while EII is
concerned with the perceived probability between performance and reward.
The EI/EII distinction appears to be that most consistently used by recent
investigators (House & Wahba, 1974).
While there have been several recent studies relating the components of
expectancy theory to the behavior of individuals in organizations (e.g.,
Albright & Mitchell, 1972; Lawler & Suttle, 1973; Dansereau, Cashman &
Graen, 1974; Pritchard & Sanders, 1973; Sheridan, Slocum, & Richards,
1974; Pritchard & DeLeo, 1973; Jorgenson, Dunnette, & Pritchard, 1973;
Reinharth & Wahba, 1975; Berger, Cummings, & Heneman, 1975; Turney,
1974), research efforts assessing the impact of environmental characteristics on the formation of expectancies have been few. These have been
limited to investigating only a few environmental characteristics (Evans,
1970, 1974; Graen, 1969; House & Dessier, 1973). The importance of
this subject was underlined by Goodman (1973a), who stated, "Examining
antecedents . . . of expectancies is important not only because there is
limited research in this area, but also because research about antecedents
should increase our understanding of the relationships between VIE components and behavior."
In related research. House iand Dessier (1973) stated that four classes
of variables may impact on any individual's expectancy perception: (a)
leader behavior, concerning the function of the leader in clarifying expectations, guiding, supporting and rewarding subordinates; (b) individtial
characteristics, relating to the subjects' perceptions of their abilities with
respect to performing their assigned tasks; (c) nature of the task, concerning whether the individual receives the necessary cues, reinforcements,
and rewards directly from the accomplishment of his task; and (d) the
practices of the organization, relating to the reward system, control system,
rules, and constraints associated with the general functioning of the organization. Investigations of the House and Dessier (1973) postulates have
generally been directed toward the relationship between leader behavior and

1976

Volume 19, Number 4

549

perceived expectancies. One notable exception was the research by James,

Stebbins, Hartman and Jones (1975) that found both leadership and
psychological climate variables to be strongly related to instrumentalities
(expectancy II). In addition, using laboratory techniques, Berger, Cummings, and Heneman (1975), Jorgenson, Dunnette, and Pritchard (1973),
and Pritchard and DeLeo (1973), all found expectancies to be related to
experimental manipulations of performance reward contingencies.
To some extent, expectancies may be a characteristic of the individual;
different people will perceive an identical environment in distinctly different
ways because of genetic differences or differences in past environmental
experiences. One extensive line of research on what might be called
"generalized" expectancies is the locus of control research of Rotter (1966).
Locus of control refers to the general manner in which an individual
perceives contingencies between his own actions and outcomes. The term
"internal" is used to describe a person who believes he has some control
over his destiny (i.e., internal locus of control). The term "external" is
used to describe a person who believes that his destiny is controlled by
factors extrinsic to himself (i.e., external locus of control). Locus of control
is often termed a generalized expectancy, because it refers to expectancies
of life in general rather than to the contingencies of specific situations.
According to Lawler (1973), individual characteristics and learning
play an important role in the formulation of an individual's perceived
job-related expectancies. In a work situation, the environmental contingencies form an important subset of the stimuli that induce learning, and
therefore, expectancy formulation. Individual characteristics, particularly
the perceived ability of the employee to function effectively in his role, also
have been postulated to impact on expectancy formulation.
In his motivation model, Lawler (1973) has proposed a number of
factors inffuencing expectancies. First, a person's expectancy I perception
(effort -^ performance belief) is influenced by two factors: (a) his selfesteem, or his belief in his ability to cope with and control his environment, and (b) his previous experience in similar situations. Second, Lawler
postulated that a person's expectancy II perception (performance -^ reward
belief) is also influenced by two factors: (a) the subject's belief in external
versus internal locus of control, and (b) the strength of the relationship
between performances and outcomes over past experiences.
Dachler and Mobley's (1973) model of work motivation is similar to
Lawler's in that expectancies are hypothesized to be influenced by (a) the
perceived ability of the subject to work at a desired level of performance
and (b) situational, or environmental restraints of behavior not under
the control of the subject (e.g., lack of resources). Lawler (1973) and
Goodman (1973b) both reported relationships between locus of control
and expectancy in a study of management personnel.
With this background in mind, this research investigated relationships
between the situational variables and work-related expectancies. More
specifically, the following research question was examined.

550

Academy of Management Journal

December

Are job characteristics, supervisory behavior, organizational practices, and individual characteristics related to employee perceptions
of El and EII?

METHOD
Procedure
Data were collected from paramedical and support personnel at a major
midwestern university medical center. The services provided by the medical
center include not only general patient care, but also research and
medical education. This research focused on the general patient care function of the medical center, which included a 900-bed facility employing
approximately 1,600 individuals in various medical, support, and staff
positions. Employees who were temporary, part-time, or with primary
responsibilities in research and/or medical education were not included
in the sample.
The data for this study were collected by means of a questionnaire,
which was completed during normal working hours in separate facilities
on the premises of the medical center. Questionnaires were collected from
a total of 1,161 employees who volunteered to participate in the research.
Females were 79.6 percent of the respondents. A total of 230 questionnaires
were not used because of incomplete responses or because subjects did not
meet the occupational classification criteria.
The sample consisted of the following occupational breakdown: (a) administrative (n 53), consisting of such positions as department heads,
associate and assistant heads and program coordinators in such departments
as hospital administration, nursing, accounting, data processing, and personnel; (b) professional {n = 249), including registered nurses, medical
technologists, occupational and physical therapists; (c) technical (n =
132), including licensed practical nurses, laboratory and therapeutic technicians; (d) clerical (n = 227); and (e) service (n = 312), consisting of
nurses aides, food preparation and building services personnel.
Measures
Expectancies were measured by an instrument which was adapted from
the questionnaire used by House and Dessler (1973). The response categories were a seven-point Likert scale ranging from "definitely not true"
to "definitely true." A factor analysis of the instrument, shown in Table 1,
revealed two factors. Factor one, labeled expectancy II, was the performance -^ reward belief. Factor two, labeled expectancy I, was the effort ->
performance belief.

551

Volume 19, Number 4

1976

TABLE 1
Factor Analysis of Expectancy Instrument
Factors
Items

>

Performance - Reward Expectancy (EtJ)

1. High quality work increases my chances for
promotion.
2. Handling a high quantity of work increases
my chances for promotion.
5. Producing high quality work is rewarded
with higher pay here.
6. Producing a high qtmntity of work is rewarded
with higher pay here.
12. Getting the job done on time increases my
chances for promotion.
13. Getting work done on time is rewarded
with higher pay here.
14. Producing highly professional work here
gives me a sense of accomplishing something
significant.
15. The people I work with respect me more when
I get my job done on time.
16. Completing my job in time leads to more
influence with supervisors.
18. Producing a high quantity of work makes
me more satisfied that I am achieving
something.
19. The higher the quality of my work the more
recognition I receive from my supervisor.
20. Supervisors in this organization listen to
those who do the most effective work.
21. My supervisor gives me more recognition
when I produce a high quantity of work.
22. Producing a high quantity of work leads to
job security here.
23. Completing my work in a timely manner
leads to recognition.
24. When I finish my job in time, I feel that
my job is more secure.
25. The people I work with respect me more
when niy work is of high quality.
26. Producing high quality work leads to job
security.
27. Management gives me recognition when I
produce high quality work.
Effort - Performance Expectancy (Et)
3. Doing things as well as I am capable results
in completing my job on time.
4. Doing things as well as I am capable leads
to high quality work.
7. Working as hard as I can leads to high
quality work.
8. Doing things as well as I am capable leads
to a high quantity of work.
9. The people I work with respect me more
when I produce a high quantity of work.
10. Working as hard as 1 can leads to completing
my >york on time.
11. Getting my job done on time leads to the
experience of accomplishment.
17. Working as hard as I can leads to a high
quantity of work.
28. Putting forth as much energy as possible
results in completing my work on time.

Commu
nality

It

0.66

0.04

0.44

0.63

0.11

0.41

0.70

0.00

0.49

0.67

0.03

0.45

0.73

0.14

0.55

0.71

0.08

0.51

0.33

0.20

0.15

0.45

0.36

0.33

0.65

0.24

0.48

0.09

0.58

0.34

0.71

0.15

0.53

0.62

0.11

0.39

0.60

0.22

0.40

0.59

0.31

0.44

0.69

0.26

0.54

0.50

0.37

0.39

0.48

0.24

0.29

0.66

0.20

0.47

0.73

0.10

0.55

0.01

0.53

0.28

0.18

0.39

0.19

0.19

0.52

0.31

0.10

0.58

0.35

0.30

0.33

0.20

0.06

0.65

0.43

0.13

0.56

0.33

0.21

0.61

0.42

0.10

0.71

0.51

552

Academy of Management Journal

December

TABLE 1 (Continued)
Factors
Items "
29. Putting forth as much energy as possible
leads to my producing high quality work.
30. Putting forth as much energy as possible
leads to my producing a high quantity of work.
Eigenvalue
Percent of Variance Explained
(prior to rotation)
Cumulative Percent
Reliability
(Split-half reliability, corrected by
Spearman-Brown formula)

Communality

tl

0.18

0.62

0.42

0.15
9.65

0.70
3.59

0.51

32.2
32.2
0.94

12.0
44.2
0.87

"Items 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, and 13 are items that tend to be externally mediated. The remaining
items tend to be internally mediated. Items 4, 9, 14, and 18 were not included in the final
scales.

The stability of the factor structure was evaluated by performing a

separate factor analysis for each of the five occupational groups and then
computing congruency coefficients between occupational groups using the
Wrigley-Newhouse method (Harman, 1967). The congruency coefficients
for factor I ranged from .99 to .96 and had a mean of 97.8. The congruency
coefficients for factor two ranged from .97 to .91, and had a mean of 94.5.
These results provided ample evidence of the stability of the factor structure
across the occupational groups.
Individual characteristics included self-actualization need, or the extent
that the individual values the importance of higher level work outcomes.
The response categories were a Likert scale ranging from "very unimportant" to "very important." The scale contained items such as worthwhile
accomplishment, a feeling of self-fulfillment, and personal growth and development. Also included was locus of control, which was defined as the
degree to which an individual believes that events are the result of his
own actions (internal) rather than dependent on luck or fate (external).
This variable was measured with Rotter's (1966) Internal-External Control
scale, which has had extensive experimental validation (Lefcourt, 1966;
McDonald, 1974). The 23-item, forced-choice instrument was scored in
terms of increasing externality.
Job characteristics were measured by the Job Characteristic Inventory
(Sims, Szilagyi, & Keller, 1976) which was inspired by the Hackman and
Lawler (1971) research. A full description of the instrument, including
extensive validity and reliability analysis can be found in Sims, Szilagyi,
and Keller (1976). The six job characteristic dimensions of the instrument
were as follows:
1. Variety is the degree to which a job requires an employee to perform
a wide range of operations in his work and/or the degree to which an
employee must use a variety of equipment and procedures in his work.
2. Autonomy is the extent to which an employee has a major say in

1976

3.
4.
5.
6.

Volume 19, Number 4

553

scheduling work, selecting the equipment, and deciding on procedures

to be followed.
Task identity is the extent to which an employee does an entire or
whole piece of work and can clearly identify the result of his efforts.
Feedback is the degree to which an employee receives information
as he is working and how well he is performing on the job.
Dealing with others is the degree to which a job requires an employee
to deal with other people to complete the work.
Friendship opportunities are the degree to which a job allows employees to talk with one another on the job and to establish informal
relationships with other employees at work.

Supervisory behavior variables were measured with two instruments.

The first was the Supervisory Behavior Description Questionnaire (Fleishman, 1951), which measured the following: initiating structure, the degree
to which the supervisor initiates psychological structure for subordinates
by doing such things as assigning tasks and specifying procedures; and
consideration, the degree to which the supervisor creates an environment
of psychological support, friendliness, and helpfulness. Construct validity
and reliability for these variables have been established by Szilagyi and
Sims (1974a). The second' instrument measured supervisory reward behavior. Positive reward behavior describes the extent to which a supervisor
administers rewards such as recognition, status, and pay increases, contingent upon performance. Punitive reward behavior describes the extent
to which the supervisor utilizes punishment or corrective behavior. Construct validity and reliability of these measures have been established by
Sims and Szilagyi (1975).
Organization practices measures were selected from the organization
practices questionnaire developed by House and Rizzo (1972a, 1972b).
The variables used in this analysis are as follows:
1. Formalization is the degree to which standard practices, policies and
position responsibilities are formalized explicitly.
2. Timely decision making is the degree to which decisions are made
quickly, clearly, and accurately.
3. Top management receptiveness is the interest in and evaluation top
management gives to ideas from subordinates.
4. Selection based on ability is the degree to which promotions are
based on performance rather than "playing politics."
5. Job pressure is the amount of work assigned compared to the amount
of time available to complete it.
6. Adherence to chain of command is the degree to which orders come
from only one's immediate supervisor.
7. Information distortion is the degree to which information regarding
the necessity of proposed work is distorted or withheld.
8. General communications is the degree to which overall organizational
communications is adequate.

554

Academy of Management Journal

December

Construct validity and reliability of these measures have been established

by LaFoUette and Sims (1974).
The split-half reliabilities of the variables (corrected by the SpearmanBrown formula,) were as follows:
Expectancy I (.87)
Expectancy II (.91)
Variety (.80)
Autonomy (.74)
Feedback (.80)
Friendship (.62)
Task identity (.77)
Dealing with others (.75)
Initiating structure (.89)
Consideration (.93)
Positive reward behavior (.93)

Punitive reward behavior (.70)

Self-actualization need (.83)
Timely decision making (.88)
Top management receptiveness (.90)
Formalization (.77)
Selection on ability (.84)
Job pressure (.65)
Chain of command (.65)
Information distortion (.63)
General communication (.75)

The relationships between the antecedent variables and the expectancy

variables were evaluated through the use of multiple regression. The
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences stepwise multiple regression
algorithm (Nie, Bent, & Hull, 1970) with pairwise deletion was utilized
for the analysis. The decision as to which variables to include in the final
equation was made by selecting the step when the standard error of the
total regression equation reached a minimum. Regression was selected as
the method of choice in order to evaluate the influence of the four general
categories of antecedent variables as a set, rather than through bivariate
correlation analysis.
RESULTS
Table 2 presents the results of regressing expectancy II against the
antecedent variables. The multiple r for the regression equation is .627,
which is significant at the .001 level and indicates a relatively strong
relationship between expectancy II and the independent variables. The
predominant antecedent variables are the supervisory behavior variables;
three of the four supervisory behavior variables were entered into the
equation. Positive reward behavior was very significant and explained a
large proportion of the variance. Locus of control was also a very strong
explanatory variable. Internals tended to have stronger expectancy II
perceptions than externals. The job characteristic group of variables was
conspicuously absent from the equation with the exception of feedback,
which can be interpreted as overlapping with the supervisory behavior
variables. Organization practices were significantly present in the equation,
with top management receptiveness, information distortion, general communication, promotion on ability, and job pressure all contributing to
perceptions of expectancy II.

1976

Volume 19, Number 4

555

TABLE 2
Regression Results
Dependent Variable: Expectancy II
Independent Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Positive reward behavior

Top management receptiveness
Initiating structure
Locus of control
Information distortion
General communication
Promotion on ability
Feedback
Punitive reward behavior
Job pressure
Self-actualization need

fto
Enter
68.81
10.52
4.55
18.01
15.95
8.68
6.78
3.72
3.06
1.51
1.50

Standardized
Regression
Coefficient
.335
.148
.070
-.130
.138
.113
.102
.067
.057
.038
.048

Multiple
r
.548
.574
.589
.601
.608
.616
.621
.623
.625
.626
.627

Simple
r
.55
.46
.11
-.26
-.17
.42
.40
.37
.14
-.07
.15

Table 3 shows the results with expectancy I as the dependent variable.

Although the multiple r (.345) was statistically significant (p < .001), the
explained variance was substantially less than the expectancy II equation.
Another difference was the diminished importance of the supervisory behavior variables. Punitive reward behavior was the sole supervisory behavior
variable that entered into the equation. The predominant contribution to
explained variance was derived from the organization practices group of
variables. General communication, job pressure, information distortion,
formalization, decision timeliness, and adherence to chain of command all
entered into the equation. The two individual characteristic variables also
entered into the equation. Internals and those who had higher self-actualization needs had stronger expectancy I perceptions.
A caveat is necessary when interpreting these results. First, the degree of
contribution of the individual predictor variables cannot be completely
determined if the predictor variables are not independent (i.e., the classic
TABLE 3
Regression Results
Dependent Variable: Expectancy I
Independent Variable
1. General communication

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

Job pressure
Locus of control
Punitive reward behavior
Self-actualization need
Information distortion
Task identity
Dealing with others
Formalization
Feedback
Decision timeliness
Adherence to chain of command

fto
Enter
7.68
24.06
10.91
3.96
5.57
2.89
6.79
7.33
5.33
2.66
1.12
1.09

Standardized
Regression
Coefficient
.132
-.187
-.122
.072
.085
.074
.099
-.103
.094
.066
-.059
-.048

Mtiltiple
r
.187
.237
.263
.281
.295
.306
.316
.325
.336.339
.343
.345

Simple
r

.19
-.19
-.15
.09
.13
-.04
.13
.00
.15
.14
.10
.07

556

Academy of Management Journal

December

problem of multi-collinearity). Second, there is no definitive proof of

causality. The implication from the use of such terms as "antecedent" and
"predictor" is that the independent variables do indeed cause expectancies.
No such proof exists, however, and interpretation of the relationships in a
causal manner is strictly an assumption. Also, the inclusion of only two
individual characteristic variables is far from exhaustive. Nevertheless, the
results of the analysis do indicate strong relationships and are indeed useful
in providing insight into the relationships between expectancies and perceptions of environmental variables.
DISCUSSION
There are implications to be derived from the results of the antecedent
research that have potential usefulnss to academicians and practicing managers alike. First, the results tend to indicate that expectancy II perceptions
are situationally based, and thus, have the potential to be influenced by
factors that are within the control of managerial action. Certainly the key
role of the employee's immediate supervisor has been illustrated by the
results. If one accepts the premise that supervisors can be made aware of
the motivational aspects of the work environment through relevant leadership training, then the results presented here indicate that training programs
that focus on reinforcement of the reward contingencies of the job situation
may have potential influence on expectancy II formation. In addition, the
practices and policies of the organization as a whole appear to have a
potential effect on expectancy II formation. The dimensions of top management receptiveness, distortion, general communication, and promotion on
ability all have the recurrent underlying theme of employee-management
communication behavior. These results tend to indicate that an open system
of communication is conducive to strong expectancy II perceptions.
The question of why management would want to influence expectancy
II perceptions should not be forgotten. Despite the methodological difficulties with expectancy theory research, the prevailing opinion is that perceptions of performance-reward probabilities are an important factor in
motivating employees to improved performance. The antecedents of expectancy II that have been identified through this research have importance
as guidelines for potential management action to improve the motivation
of individuals within the organization.
The case with the expectancy I variable is less clear. The amount of
variance in expectancy I that is explained by factors within the control
of management action is substantially less than is the case with expectancy
II and may indicate that El is more an individually based variable, whereas
EII is more situationally based. These results indicate that supervisory behavior plays a minor role in expectancy I formation and, although the
practices of the organization as a whole are important, other factors not
included in this research, principally other individual characteristics, may
be more important as determinants of expectancy I. The results also indi-

1976

Volume 19, Ntimber 4

557

cate that individual characteristics, specifically locus of control, are related

to expectancy formation as Lawler (1973) has hypothesized. These results
were developed in detail elsewhere by Szilagyi and Sims (1975b). As
postulated by Lawler (1973), expectancy I may be more a function of the
person's self-esteem concept (or self-concept regarding ability) in conjunction with the relative diflSculty of the particular job assignment. In
general, development programs directed at changes in expectancy I formation would appear to have less potential than those directed at expectancy
II. Possibly, expectancy I formulation could be enhanced by job related
training directed at the job incumbant rather than the supervisor.
In summary, this research found that expectancy II was strongly related
to supervisory behavior and was also related to organization practices and
to the generalized expectancies (locus of control) of the individual. On the
other hand, expectancy I (although related to organizational variables) is
not related as strongly to work environmental variables. These conclusions
clearly call for replication in settings other than a medical environment.
Further research should focus on subdimensions of expectancies that deal
with classes of reward outcomes, especially intrinsic versus extrinsic outcomes. Developments in methodology should include longitudinal and
experimental designs to evaluate causality. In addition, relationships between expectancies and objective environmental measures should be investigated. The preliminary results reported here, however, provide insight
that may be useful in directing managerial policy and management development efforts to maximize the motivational climate among employees.
REFERENCES
1. Behling, O., and F. A. Starke. "The Postulates of Expectancy Theory," Academy of
Management Jotirnal, Vol. 16 (1973), 373-388.
2. Berger, C. J., L. L. Cummings, and H. G. Heneman. "Expectancy Theory and Operant
Conditioning Predictions of Performance Under Variable Ratio and Continuous Schedules of Reinforcement," Organizational Behavior and Htiman Performance, Vol. 14
(1975), 227-243.
3. Blalock, H. M. Social Statistics (New York: McGraw-Hill, I960), 383-389.
4. Campbell, J. P., M. D. Dunnette. E. E. Lawler, III, and K. E. Weick. Managerial
Beiiavior, Performance, and Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970).
5. Dachler, H., and W. Mobley. "Construct Validation of an Instrumentality-ExpectancyTask-Goal Model of Work Motivation." Journal of Applied Psyciiologv, Vol. 58 (1973),
397-418.
6. Dansereau, F., J. Cashman, and G. Graen. "Expectancy as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Job Attitudes and Turnover," Jottrnal of Applied Psyciioiogy, Vol.
59 (1974), 228-229.
7. Downey, H. K., J. E. Sheridan, and J. W. Slocum. "Analysis of Relationships Among
Leader Behavior, Subordinate Job Performance, and Satisfaction: A Path-Goal Approach," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 18 (1975), 253-262.
8. Evans, M. "The Effects of Supervisory Behavior on the Path-Goal Relationship,"
Organizational Beiiavior and Human Performance, Vol. 5 (1970), 277-298.
9. Evans, M. "Extensions of a Path-Goal Theory of Motivation," Journal of Applied
Psyciioiogy, Vol. 59 (1974), 172-178.
10. Fleishman, E. A. Relationsiiip Between Supervisory Beiiavior and Leadership Climate
(Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Personnel Research Board, 1951).
11. Goodman, P. S. "Antecedent Factors Affecting Valences, Instrumentalities, and Expectancies" (Working paper, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1973a).

558

Academy of Management Journal

December

12. Goodman, P. S. "Antecedents of Expectancies and Instrumentalities" (Working paper,

Carnegie-Mellon University, 1973b).
13. Graen, G. "Instrumentality Theory of Work Motivation: Some Experimental Results
and Suggested Modifications," Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, Vol. 53
(1969), 1-25.
14. Guilford, J. D. Psychometric Methods (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954).
15. Hackman, J. R., and E. E. Lawler. "Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 55 (1971), 259-286.
16. Harman, H. M. Modern Factor Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967),
269-273.
17. Heneman, H. G. Ill, and D. P. Schwab. "Evaluation of Research On Expectancy Theory
Predictions of Employee Performance," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 78 (1972), 1-9.
18. House, R. J., and G. Dessier. "The Path-Goal Theory of Leadership: Some Post Hoc
and A Priori Tests" (Paper presented at the Second Leadership Symposium: Contingency
Approaches to Leadership, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, 1973).
19. House, R., and J. Rizzo. "Toward the Measurement of Organizational Practices,"
Journal of Applied Psyciioiogy, Vol. 56 (1972a), 388-396.
20. House, R., and J. Rizzo. "Organizational Practices Questionnaire" (Unpublished organizational questionnaire. University of Toronto, 1972b).
21. House, R. J., H. J. Shapiro, and M. A. Wabba. "Expectancy Theory as a Predictor
of Work Behavior and Attitude: A Re-evaluation of Empirical Evidence," Decision
Sciences, Vol. 5 (1974), 481-506.
22. Imparato, N. "Relationship Between Porter's Need Satisfaction Questionnaire and the
Job Descriptive Index," Journal of Applied Psyciioiogy, Vol. 56 (1972), 397-405.
23. James, L. R., M. W. Stebbins, E. A. Hartman, and A. P. Jones. "An Examination of
the Relationship Between Psychological Climate and the VIE Model for Work Motivation" (Working paper, Texas Christian University, 1975).
24. Jorgenson, D. D., M. D. Dunnette, and R. D. Pritchard. "Effects of the Manipulation
of a Performance-Reward Contingency on Behavior in a Simulated Work Setting,"
Journal of Applied Psyciioiogy, Vol. 57 (1973), 271-280.
25. Kaiser, H. F. "Varimax Rotation for Primary Mental Abilities," Psychometriica, Vol.
25 (I960), 153-158.
26. LaFollette, W. R., and H. P. Sims, Jr. "An Assessment of the House and Rizzo Organization Practices Questionnaire in a Health Care Environment" (Unpublished working
paper, Indiana University Graduate School of Business, 1974).
27. Lawler, E. E. III. Pay and Organizational Effectiveness: A Psychological View (New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1971).
28. Lawler, E. E. III. Motivation in Worii Organizations (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing, 1973).
29. Lawler, E. E. III., and L. Suttle. "Expectancy Theory and Job Behavior," Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 9 (1973), 482-503.
30. Lefcourt, H. M. "Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement: A Review,"
Psydiological Bulletin, Vol. 65 (1966), 206-220.
31. Lewin, K. A Dynamic Tiieory of Personality (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1935).
32. Lewin, K. "The Conceptual Representation and the Measurement of Psychological
Forces," Contributions to Psychological Theory, Vol. 1 (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1938).
33. MacDonald, A. P. "Internal-External Locus of Control," in J. P. Robinson, and P. R.
Shaver, Measures of Social Psychological Attittides (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for
Social Research, 1974).
34. McKemey, D. R. "A Factor Analysis Approach to the Determination of the Dimensions
of Expectancy" (Unpublished working paper, Indiana University, 1974).
35. Mitchell, T. R. "Expectancy Models of Job Satisfaction, Occupational Preference and
Effort: A Theoretical, Methodological, and Empirical Appraisal," Psydiological Bulletin, Vol. 81 (1974), 1053-1077.
36. Mitchell, T., and D. Albright. "Expectancy Theory Predictors of Satisfaction, Effort,
Performance, and Retention of Naval Officers," Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, Vol. 8 (1972), 1-20.
37. Mitchell, T. R., and A. Biglan. "Instrumentality Theories: Current Uses in Psychology,"
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 76 (1971), 432-454.

1976

Volume 19, Number 4

559

38. Nie, N., D. Bent, and C. Hull. Statistical Padcage for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1970).
39. Pennell, R. "The Influence of Communality and N on the Sampling Distributions of
Factor Loadings," Psychometriiia, Vol. 33 (1968), 423-439.
40. Porter, L. W., and E. E. Lawler, III. Managerial Attitudes and Performance (Homewood, 111.: Irwin, 1968).
41. Pritchard, R. D., and P. J. DeLeo. "Experimental Test of the Valence-Instrumental
Relationship in Job Performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 57 (1973), 264270.
42. Pritchard, R., and M. Sanders. "The Influence of Valence, Instrumentality, and Expectancy on Effort and Performance," Jottrnal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 57 (1973),
55-60.
43. Reinharth, L., and M. A. Wahba. "Expectancy Theory as a Predictor of Work Motivation, Effort Expenditure, and Job Performance," Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 18(1975), 520-537.
44. Reitz, H. J. "Managerial Attitudes and Perceived Contingencies Between Performance
and Organizational Response," Academy of Management Proceedings, 31st Annual
Meeting, 1971, pp. 227-238.
45. Rotter, J. B. "Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement," Psychological Monographs, Vol. 80 (1966), 1, Whole No. 609.
46. Saunders, D. R. "Moderator Variables in Prediction," Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 16 (1965), 209-222.
47. Schuler, R. "The Path-Goal Theory of Leadership: Some Support and Suggestions"
(Unpublished manuscript, Cleveland State University, 1974).
48. Scott, W. E., Jr. "The Development of Semantic Differential Scales as Measures of
Morale," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 20 (1967), 179-198.
49. Sheridan, J., J. Slocum, and M. Richards. "Expectancy Theory as a Lead Prediction
of Job Behavior," Decision Sciences, Vol. 5 (1974), 507-522.
50. Sims, H. P., and A. D. Szilagyi. "Leader Reward Behavior and Subordinate Satisfaction and Performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 14
(1975), 426-438.
51. Sims, H. P., A. D. Szilagyi, and R. T. Keller. "The Measurement of Job Characteristics,"
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 19 (1976), 195-212.
52. Smith, D. C , L. M. Kendall, and C. L. Hulin. The Measurement of Satisfaction in Woric
and Retirement (Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1969).
53. Szilagyi, A. D., and H. P. Sims. "Expectancies and Locus of Control Across Multiple
Occupational Levels," Journal of Applied Psychology, in press.
54. Szilagyi, A. D., and H. P. Sims. "The Cross Sample Stability of the Supervisory Behavior Description Questionnaire," Journal of Applied Psydiology, Vol. 59 (1974a),
767-770.
55. Szilagyi, A. D., and H. P. Sims. "An Exploration of the Path Goal Theory of Leadership in a Health Care Environment," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 17 (1974b),
622-634.
56. Tolman, E. C. Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men (New York: Appleton-Century,
1932).
57. Turney, J. R. "Activity Outcome Expectancies and Intrinsic Activity Values as Predictors of Several Motivation Indexes for Technical-Professionals," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 11 (1974), 65-82.
58. Turney, J. R. "Expectancy X Valence and Intrinsic Activity Value as Predictors of
Motivation in a Technical-Professional Organization" (Reprinted from the Proceedings,
80th Annual Convention, American Psychological Association, 1972).
59. Vroom, V. H. Woric and Motivation (New York: Wiley, 1964).