Work-Related Expectancies scale

Abstract

The Work-Related Expectancies scale is a psychological measure developed by Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Davis-LaMastro (1990). Its primary function is to quantify the degree to which employees hold beliefs that superior job performance will result in tangible rewards and positive reinforcement. The measure assesses employee expectations (instrumentality) about the relationship between high performance and outcomes such as increased pay, promotions, job security, heightened influence, supervisory approval, and professional recognition. This instrument is fundamentally rooted in Expectancy Theory, focusing on the performance-to-outcome link in organizational settings.

Keywords

Work-Related Expectancies, Job Performance, Employee Motivation, Organizational Rewards, Expectancy Theory, Job Satisfaction, Approval, Recognition, Pay, Promotion.

Authors

Robert Eisenberger, Peter Fasolo, Veronica Davis-LaMastro.

Purpose

The central purpose of the Work-Related Expectancies scale is to systematically assess an employee’s perception of the contingency of the reward system within their organization. It aims to describe the strength of the instrumental link—the belief that sustained high performance will reliably lead to desired professional and personal outcomes.

Specifically, the instrument provides researchers and practitioners with distinct measures of two key types of expected outcomes: extrinsic rewards (pay, promotion, and security) and intrinsic/social rewards (influence, approval, and recognition). Understanding these expectancies is critical for diagnosing motivational issues and predicting behaviors such as diligence, commitment, and innovation in the workplace.

Construct

The scale measures the psychological construct of Work-Related Expectancies, which operationalizes the Performance → Outcome (P→O) link derived from Vroom’s Expectancy Theory. This theory posits that an individual’s motivation is significantly determined by the expectation (instrumentality) that their performance level will indeed lead to specific, valued rewards.

The measure is multidimensional, capturing two distinct facets of performance-based instrumentality:

• Tangible/Extrinsic Rewards: Expectations concerning financial benefits, career advancement (pay, promotions), and job stability (security).
• Socio-Emotional/Intrinsic Rewards: Expectations concerning social reinforcement from supervisors (approval, recognition) and increased power or input (influence).

Validity

The validity of the Work-Related Expectancies scale was supported through initial psychometric testing, including factor analysis and correlation with established psychological constructs. Initial research confirmed the proposed two-factor structure, which demonstrated consistency across diverse organizational groups.

Both dimensions—expectancies for pay/promotion and expectancies for approval/recognition/influence—demonstrated significant nomological validity. They showed positive correlations with critical organizational variables, including perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, participation in decisions, and job involvement. Conversely, both expectancy factors correlated negatively with indicators of organizational stress, specifically role conflict and role ambiguity (Eisenberger et al., 1990; Smith & Brannick, 1990). This pattern confirms that strong performance expectancies are associated with positive psychological states and reduced workplace strain.

Reliability

Internal consistency reliability for the Work-Related Expectancies scale was assessed using Coefficient alpha (Cronbach’s alpha). The reliability estimates provided strong support for the scale’s internal consistency across its subdimensions.

Reported Coefficient alpha values for the two subscales—Pay/Promotion Reward Expectancies and Approval/Recognition Expectancies—ranged between .77 and .89 (Eisenberger et al., 1990; Smith & Brannick, 1990). These values meet or exceed standard psychological research thresholds, indicating that the items within each factor consistently measure the underlying construct.

Factor Analysis

A detailed factor analysis of the nine scale items revealed a clear bifactorial structure for work-related expectancies. This structure provides empirical evidence supporting the separation of extrinsic and intrinsic reward types perceived by employees.

The two factors identified were:

1. Pay and Promotion Rewards: This dimension encompasses items related to extrinsic, tangible career and financial advancements.
2. Approval and Recognition: This dimension captures items related to socio-emotional support, supervisory acknowledgment, and increased influence.

The authors established that this two-factor solution was robust and consistent when tested across different samples, including both hourly workers and managerial staff, confirming its structural validity across organizational levels (Eisenberger et al., 1990).

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychometric scale

Format: Nine items scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale.

Language Available: English (Original publication)

Population Group: Employees and organizational personnel

Age Group: Working adults

Population Details: Originally validated on samples including hourly workers and managers.

Test Methodology: Used primarily in organizational psychology research to assess motivational instrumentality and predict job attitudes.

Keywords

Instrumentality, Job Security, Supervisory Approval, Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, Organizational Behavior, Psychometrics, Extrinsic Rewards, Intrinsic Rewards.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source content.

Correspondence Address: Not specified in source content.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was published in 1990. Items were derived from an article published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, copyrighted by the American Psychological Association (APA). Permission for use in research generally requires adherence to APA guidelines or specific permission from the authors/publisher.

Test Year: 1990

Copyright Holder: American Psychological Association (APA)

Reference’s

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51-59.

Smith, C. S., & Brannick, M. T. (1990). *[A confirmatory factor analysis of the Work-Related Expectancies scale.]*

Items of the Work-Related Expectancies scale

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Responses are obtained on a 5-point Likert-type scale where 1 = definitely not part of my job and 5 = extremely true of my job.

Pay/promotion expectancy items:

1. It is more likely that I will be given a pay raise or promotion at [company name] if I finish a large amount of work
2. It is more likely that I will be given a pay raise or promotion at [company name] if I do high-quality work
3. Getting work done quickly at [company name] increases my chances for a pay raise or promotion
4. Getting work done on time is rewarded with high pay at [company name]

Approval/recognition/influence expectancy items:

1. Completing my work on time gets me greater approval from my immediate supervisor at [company name]
2. My immediate supervisor at [company name] gives me more recognition when I get a lot of work done
3. If I get my job done on time, I have more influence with my immediate supervisor at [company name]
4. My immediate supervisor at [company name] pays added attention to the opinions of the best workers
5. When I finish my job on time, my job is more secure at [company name]