Working Paper Series

FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES)

UNIVERSITY OF )ORONTO) - -

I'STITUE OF INDUSTRIALRELATIONS LIBRARY

JUN 1 2 1973

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIABERKELEY

if'

.N.EXPECTANCY THE9RY AS A PREDICTOR OF JOB PERFORMANCE,SATISFACTION AND MOTIVATION:

AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL AND A REVIEW OF LITERATURE

7Xy- Robert J. House atUniversity of Toronto

/* and 0

Mahmoud A. Wahba'//Baruch College of the City University of New York

(Working Paper 72-2l)

October 1972

Not to be quoted without the authors' permission.

ABSTRACT

The development of Expectancy theory in work and motivation is

described briefly. A model integrating these developments is proposed.

Fourteen studies are summarized in detail and evaluated, collectively,

with regard to the main constructs of the integrative model. The

distinction between two types of expectancies increases the predictive

power of the theory and the valences of intrinsic rewards are shown to be

more powerful predictors than the valences of all extrinsic rewards

except pay. Extrinsic reward has little effect on performance or satis-

faction unless multiplied by the corresponding expectancy. The implications

of these conclusions for practices are discussed. Further areas for

research are suggested.

Expectancy Theory as a Predictor of Job Performance,Satisfaction and Motivation:

An Integrative Model and a Review of Literature

Robert J. House* and Mahmoud A. Wahba**

October 1972

The purpose of this paper is threefold: First, to develop a

general model integrating various formulations of expectancy theory as

applied in work and motivation. Second, to review, collectively, the

overall findings of recent empirical research with reference to the major

constructs of the integrative model. Third, to suggest some areas in

need of further research in the theory.

Expectancy or instrumentality-valence theory has generated a

great deal of research as shown in Exhibit 1. The central concept of

expectancy theories is that the force on an individual to exert a specific

amount of effort is a function of (1) his expectations that the effort will

result in a specific outcome; and (2) the sum of the valences (personal

utilities or satisfactions) that he derives from the outcome. The theory

asserts that the function is a non-linear, monotonically increasing product

of expectations and valences (Vroom, 1964). Thus, according to this theory

of motivation, an individual chooses the behaviors he engages in and the

level of effort he asserts on the basis of: (1) the valences he perceives

* University of Toronto

** Baruch College of the City University of New York

- 2 -

to be associated with the outcomes of the behavior under consideration,

and (2) his subjective estimate of the probability that his behavior will

indeed result in the outcomes.

It has been suggested that the theory can provide the basis to

prescribe, describe and predict a wide variety of work related variables.

The theory has been proposed to predict the following variables: job

effort and job performance (Georgopoulos, Mahoney & Jones, 1957 ; Vroom,

1964; Galbraith & Cummings, 1967; Lawler & Porter, 1967; Hackman & Porter,

1968; Graen, 1969; Gavin, 1970; Goodman, Rose & Furcon, 1970; Mitchell &

Albert, 1971; Wofford, 1971); job satisfaction (Vroom, 1964; Lawler & Porter,

1968; Graen, 1969; Lawler, 1970, Wofford, 1971); organizational practices

(Evans, 1970); managerial motivation (Campbell, Dunnette, Weick & Lawler,

1970); occupational choice (Vroom, 1964; Mitchell and Knudson, 1971); the

importance of pay and pay effectiveness (Dunnette, 1967, Lawler, 1971) and,

leadership behavior and leader effectiveness (Evans, 1969; House, 1971).

In addition, Vroom (1964) asserts that the theory could easily explain the

following work related variables: occupational preference, morale, need

achievement, group cohesiveness, and motivation for effective performance.

Expectancy Theory: A Brief Description

Expectancy Theory was first proposed as an explanation of work

behavior by Vroom (1964).1 Vroom proposed three related models: the first

is a job satisfaction model; the second is a work motivation model; and the

third is a job performance model.

1 Expectancy theory derives from economic expected utility theory and frompsychological theories of choice behavior. As such, earlier versions ofexpectancy theory were applied to phenomena other than work motivation asearly as 1738. See Wahba and House (1972) for an historical review of thedevelopment of the theory and the relationship between alternative formulations.

- 3 -

First: the job satisfaction model states that the valence (or

satisfaction) of an outcome to a person is "a monotonically increasing func-

tion of the algebraic sum of the products of the valences of all other out-

comes and his conceptions of the specific outcome's instrumentality for the

attainment of these other outcomes." (Vroom, 1964:17) Instrumentality is

defined by Vroom as the degree to which a person sees the outcome in ques-

tion as leading to the attainment of outcomes. Instrumentality varies from

-1 (certainty of a negative outcome) to +1 (certainty of a positive outcome).

Second: the work motivation model states that the force on a

person to perform an act is "a monotonically increasing function of the

algebraic sum of the products of the valences of all outcomes and the

strength of his expectancies that the act will be followed by the attainment

of these outcomes." (Vroom 1964:18) Expectancy is defined as the subjective

probability that a given act will be followed by a given outcome and varies

between 0 (certain non-occurrence) and 1 (certain occurrence).

Third: the job performance model proposes that job performance

is the function of the interaction between ability and motivation as shown

in the following formula:

Performance = f (Ability x Motivation)

"It follows from such a formula that, when ability has a low value,

increments in motivation will result in smaller increases in performance than

when ability has a high value. Furthermore, when motivation has a low value,

increments in ability will result in smaller increases in performance than

when motivation has a high value." (Vroom, 1964:203)

- 4 -

Operationally, Vroom's model implies that people choose among

alternative work related actions in a manner that optimizes their expected

valence. That is, for each action, people multiply their perceived

valences of all possible outcomes, and finally choose the action with the

highest expected summation. For example, consider the case in Table 1.

Imagine an employee choosing between two actions (effective or non-effective

performance) each with two alternative financial outcomes. Suppose further,

that the employee's expectation of the occurrences of the outcomes is as

shown in the table.

Insert Table 1 About Here

According to Vroom, the force to choose effective performance is

($100 x 0.8) + ($0 x 0.2) = $80.

The force to choose non-effective performance is ($100 x 0.2) +

($0 x 0.8) = $20. Assuming that the employee is attempting to optimize his

gains, he should choose effective performance over non-effective performance.

The original Vroom model has undergone four developments in the

last few years: (1) the distinction between first level and second level

outcomes; (2) identification of intrinsic sources of valence; (3) the dis-

tinction between Expectancy 1 and Expectancy 2; and (4) elaboration to pre-

dict the effect of given additional variables in the work situation (e.g.,

the incorporation of ability and role perceptions to explain job performance,

and the concept of equity to explain job satisfaction, etc.). We will only

- 5 -

review the first three of these developments since the fourth does not

alter the general formulation of the theory.

The Distinction Between First and Second Level Outcomes

Galbraith and Cummings (1967), Porter and Lawler (1967), Graen

(1969) and H~uag,19711 distinguished between first and second level out-

comes. The first level outcome is the job behavior of the employee and is

evaluated by a rewarder (usually the employee's supervisor) in terms of its

acceptability.

First level outcomes have been given different names by various

authors. For example Porter and Lawler (1968) refer to the first level out-

come as performance, Graen (1969) refers to it as work role assumption and

House (1971) refers to it as work goal accomplishment. In general, first

level outcomes are viewed by the writers in this area as the outcome of

the subjects' effort with respect to task performance or accomplishment.

Second level outcomes are the consequences to which the first

level outcomes are expected to lead, such as reward or punishment. Accord-

ingly, second level outcomes frequently depend on someone other than the

subject himself, such as his peers or his superior. If, however, the work

system ties second level outcomes directly to first level outcomes, such as

under piece rate or commission payment for performance, the linkage between

first and second level outcomes becomes objectively certain. Thus, under

such a system the subjects' subjective probability estimate that outcome 1

will lead to outcome 2 would be expected to be higher.

Identification of Intrinsic Sources of Valence-

There has also been made a distinction between the different kinds

- 6 -

of valences associated with these outcomes. Galbraith and Cummings (1967)

extended the theory by pointing out that certain intrinsic valences are

associated with the work behavior itself. They operationalized intrinsic

valence by measuring the subject's ego involvement in his work and found

that this measure added significantly to the multiple regression coefficient

of performance of their subjects. House (1971) specified two kinds of

intrinsic valences: (1) Intrinsic valences of behavior: those associated

with task performance, such as the development of valued skills or social

satisfaction involved in interpersonal tasks; and (2) Intrinsic valences of

accomplishment: those associated with task accomplishment, such as pride

in work or the satisfaction of achieving a challenging goal.

The Distinction Between Expectancy I and Expectancy II

Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler and Weick (1970) extended the model

further by distinguishing between two types of expectancies: Expectancy I

concerning whether or not the individuals will actually accomplish first

level outcomes such as work goal accomplishment; and

Expectancy II concerning whether or not achievement of first level outcomes

will actually be instrumental in the attainment of second level outcomes.

This distinction appears to be used rather consistently by recent

investigators (Lawler & Porter, 1967; Porter and Lawler, 1968; Graen, 1969;

Campbell et al, 1970;-Mitchell & Knudson, 1971). Expectancy II is similar

too, but not identical with Vroom's construct of instrumentality.

However, the instrumentality concept lacks conceptual clarity

which is probably the reason most authors, when operationalizing the theory

(and sometimes even using the term instrumentality) merely assess the subject's

- 7 -

probability estimate that first level outcomes will lead to second level

outcomes. The conceptual problems associated with this concept is discussed

in details in Wahba & House (1972).

An Integrative Model of Expectancy

The developments referred to above, can be entegrated in the

following general model:

n nM = IVbi+ El[ IVi + i (E2i i)]

i=1. n

where:

M = Motivation to work

IVbi = Intrinsic valences associated with task behavior orperformance

IVi = Intrinsic valences associated with task accomplishment

V = Extrinsic valences associated with task or work goali accomplishment

E1 = Expectancy 1, the subject's probability estimate thathis effort will lead to first level outcomes

E = Expectancy 2, the subject's probability estimate that2 first level outcome will lead to extrinsic rewards

(second level outcomes)

The integrative model above has several theoretical and empirical

advantages. These advantages include the following:

First: The empirical validity of the model can be easily tested

by reference to the current research evidence on the subject. This is

because most of the proposed relations between the constructs are derived

from the empirical findings. As such, the model brings closer the

theoretical and empirical studies in the field.

- 8 -

Second: The model distinguishes between two types of valences;

extrinsic and intrinsic valences. Furthermore, the model distinguishes bet-

ween two types of intrinsic valences: one associated with task performance

and the second associated with task or goal accomplishment. As will be

shown later, these distinctions are empirically valid and prove useful in

the discussion of the research findings in many areas of work and

motivation psychology.

Third: The model does not utilize the concept of instrumentality.

The concept of instrumentality has been found to be logically inconsistent

with the original formulation of the theory (see Wahba & House, 1972, for

details). Rather, Expectancy 2 is used to measure the likelihood that

first level outcomes (such as performance) will lead to the attainment of a

second level outcome (such as reward). Expectancy 1 is viewed as an action

outcome association and based on direct (or simple) probability. Expectancy

2, on the other hand, is viewed as an outcome-outcome association and is

based on conditional rather than direct probability. Operationally,

Expectancy 2 is a function of the product of the probability estimation of

occurrence of the first and second outcome. The substitution of Expectancy 2

for the concept of instrumentality makes it possible to utilize the statis-

tical theory of probability for further development of the expectancy model.

In addition, this makes it possible to relate the expectancy model in indus-

trial and organizational psychology to other expectancy models in psychology

and mathematical statistics.

Fourth: The model can be used to study both job satisfaction and

work motivation. This is because work motivation is viewed as a function of

the interaction between expectancy and valence, while job satisfaction is

- 9 -

viewed as a function of the presence of various relevant valences.

Fifth: The model allows for the study of other related work

variables, such as job performance, leadership behavior, occupational choice

and others by the incorporation of some additional variables (such as ability

in the case of job performance). It should be pointed out, however, that

future studies are needed to determine the nature of the variables to be

incorporated in each case and the nature of interactions of these variables

with both expectancy and valence.

Recently, two reviews of empirical research based on expectancy

theory have been published. Mitchell & Biglan (1971) reviewed the concept

of expectancy in three areas of psychology: verbal conditioning, attitude,

and industrial psychology. In the area of industrial psychology they re-

viewed six studies. Heneman & Schwab (in press) reviewed the research

design and measurement issues connected with nine field studies.

These reviews show that the predications of expectancy theory are

generally supported. However, it is also evident that the magnitude of the

support for the theory is inconsistent from study to study. It is discom-

forting to note that the levels of the concurrent or predictive validity

coefficients (usually in the form of multiple regression coefficients) range

from .72 for predictions of satisfaction to as low as .11 for predictions of

performance. The coefficient of satisfaction is generally about .50 and the

coefficient of performance rating is generally about .30 in the majority of

the studies. Also, it was concluded by Heneman & Schwab (in press) that

research on the theory has been inadequate in three respects: the number of

independent variables studied; the measurement of these variables; and the

statistical analysis performed. It was additionally concluded that there is

- 10 -

an obvious discrepancy between the theoretical and the operational defini-

tions of the relevant variables. Mitchell & Biglan (1971) noted that the

uses of expectancy theory in industrial and organizational psychology has

been less successful than its uses in the areas of verbal conditioning

and attitude formulation.

In an earlier paper, the present authors (Wahba & House, 1972)

attributed these and other problems to some unresolved logical and method-

ological issues basic to the theory. It was pointed out that the essence

of expectancy theory in work and motivation is choice behavior. As such,

it was shown that the present formulation of the theory, and consequently the

empirical research based on it, ignores the rationality assumptions underlying

choice behavior. It was also pointed out that the major concepts of the

theory (namely, expectancy and valence) lack the necessary theoretical clari-

fication. Furthermore, it was shown that the typical formulation of the

theory is based on optimization choice criteria (most writers imply gain

maximizations, few propose satisfycing rather than maximizing). The empirical

validity of these criteria was questioned in light of recent findings in other

studies of choice behavior in general. Alternative criteria were proposed.3Whereas the papers by Mitchell & Biglan and Heneman & Schwab reviewed

some studies in detail, the present paper will evaluate, collectively, the

findings of fourteen empirical studies in light of the parameters of the

integrative model.

2The rationality assumptions discussed in the earlier paper include prefer-ence and indifference among alternatives, transitivity of preferences andindifferences, dominance, independence of irrelevant outcomes, continuity,and independence of expectancy and valence.

3Some of these alternative criteria include variance preference, probabilitypreference, the sure thing principle, the regret matrix and potential surprisecriterion.

- 11 -

Exhibit 1 summarizes the fourteen studies with the objective of

testing various propositions or parts of the theory. In the remainder of

this paper we will describe and evaluate the scientific status of the theory

in the light of these studies.

Insert Exhibit 1 about here

Expectancy 1 and 2

Despite the clarification added to the theory by the distinction

between Expectancy 1 and Expectancy 2 (El and E2) there are only two studies

which indicate that this distinction is empirically (as opposed to concep-

tually) useful (Georgopolous et al., 1957, Graen, 1969). Georgopolous et al.,

operationalized El by obtaining subject self rating of their freedom to vary

their level of performance. This inferred (as opposed to direct) measure of

El was found to be positively related to self report of performance and to

moderate the relationship between E2 and performance in a manner consistent

with the theory (i.e., subjects with high El had significantly greater rela-

tionships between E2 and performance).

Graen (1969) operationalized El by a single question to his experi-

mental subjects. He found that this measure correlated .32 with performance.

When multiplied by El, the correlation between the valence of outcomes and per-

formance ranged from .18 to .46, indicating that E1 alone generally predicted

as well as outcomes multiplied by E1. As in most other studies, the correla-

tions between the outcomes alone and the performance were not computed, and

thus the interacting effect of E1 and extrinsic valence (V) could not be

compared with the effect of V alone.3

- 12 -

Other attempts to operationalize E1 independently of the other

variables of the theory have all been based on a small number of questionnaire

items and have either failed to add significantly to the amount of performance

or effort variance accounted for in regressions4 (Mitchell & Albright, 1971)

or have been found to be very highly correlated with E2 (Lawler, 1966; Lawler

& Porter, 1967; Lawler, 1968; Porter & Lawler, 1968). These studies suggest

that E and E2, when operationalized by questions with similar format, [e.g.,

"If I work hard my performance will improve," (E2)] share common method

variance. E1 might be better measured indirectly by asking respondents to

indicate how much they personally control their own performance, or how free

they are to vary their level of effort.

E1 and E2 have been combined into a single measure, (E1+E2), in

studies by Lawler (1965), Lawler (1966), Lawler & Porter (1967), Porter &

Lawler (1968). In all of these studies this scale has been positively related

to self and supervisory ratings of the subject's performance and effort.

Lawler (1966) also found this scale to interact with subject's ability in

a manner consistent with Vroom's formulating of the theory.

The independent effects of E2 have been measured by Georgopolous

et al., (1957) and Galbraith & Cummings (1967). Georgopolous found E2 to be

positively related to self ratings of performance. Galbraith & Cummings found

it not to be a significant predictor alone, but to interact significantly with:

(a) subject's ability and valence of supervisory supportiveness and pay; and

(b) with El and valence of pay.

4Several investigators combined E1 and measures of IVa, IVb, V multiplicativelyinto a summary predictor but did not compute the effect of El alone.(e.g., Hackman and Porter, 1968; Goodman, et al., 1970.)

- 13 -

These studies suggest that new measures of E1 are needed and that

its independent effects and its independence from the other variables of the

theory remains to be determined. They also suggest that E2 is both a con-

sistent predictor alone and in combination with other independent variables.

The Distinction Between Various Types of Valences

The distinction between (a) intrinsic and extrinsic valence and

(b) intrinsic valence of behavior (IVb) and intrinsic valence of accomplish-

ment (IVa) appear to be conceptually useful. For example, these distinctions

permitted House (1971) to fit prior leadership findings together into a

meaningful and consistent pattern that could be explained by viewing the

findings from the perspective of the leader's effect on the intrinsic and

extrinsic valence and on EI and E2 of the subordinate.

House argued that prior conflicting findings regarding leader con-

sideration and initiating structure could be reconciled by considering the

amount of intrinsic valence inherent in the subject's required task behavior

(IVb) and goal attainment (IVa).Similarly, Lawler (1970) argued that prior findings showing job

enlargement to be generally more related to quality than quantity of perfor-

mance could be explained in terms of intrinsic valence increases which accom-

pany job enlargement. Specifically, he argued that such increases in valence

should, according to the theory, result in increases in vigilance and pride

of product rather than higher expenditures of physical effort. Vigilance and

pride of product should, in turn, be more related to quality than quantity of

work performed. These two applications of intrinsic-extrinsic distinction

illustrate its potential theoretical usefulness. Unfortunately, there have

been only three studies that have operationalized these distinctions.

These will be reviewed here.

The intrinsic valences. Galbraith and Cummings (1967) were the first

to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic valence and the first to opera-

tionalize the distinction. They operationalized intrinsic valence by use of a

self report ego involvement questionnaire which appears to be primarily a

measure of involvement in the task, or IVb. Galbraith and Cummings tested

various combinations of V and ability by use of stepwise regression analyses.

- 14 -

They found ego involvement to be moderatedpositively by the subject's ability

and the expectancy that work leads to peer acceptance. IVb was not found to

have significant effect on performance. Graen (1969) and Mitchell & Albright

(1971) compared the relative power of intrinsic and extrinsic valences as

predictors of performance and satisfaction. In both studies it was found

that effort and performance was more strongly related to valence of intrinsic

rewards such as work pride, self esteem, personal development, and experiences

of important achievement (IVa) than to valence of extrinsic rewards such as

pay, promotion or recognition (V). The implications of this finding are

important and will be discussed in the concluding section.

The extrinsic valences. Surprisingly, the effect of the valence

of specific extrinsic rewards alone on performance has been compared only a

few times with the effect of extrinsic valence in interaction with other

variables. The major exception to this statement concerns pay. Two of the

three studies in which such a comparison was made indicate that the valence

of monetary rewards bears a significant positive relationship to performance

for non-managers (Georgopolous et al., 1959) and for both government and

industrial managers from seven different organizations (Porter & Lawler, 1968).

Cummings and Galbraith (1967) also made such comparisons and found no indepen-

dent affect of the valence of money, group acceptance, fringe benefits, promo-

tions or supervisory supportiveness. They did find that valence of group

acceptance and pay is significant when moderated by E2 and that valence of

pay and supervisory supportiveness, in joint interaction with ability and

E was also significant.

When multiplied by their respective second level expectancies

extrinsic valences have been consistently predictive. The valences of such

widely varied extrinsic rewards as working conditions, company practices

superior recognition, pay, peer acceptance, and fringe benefits, when multi-

plied by E2, have been shown to be related to satisfaction (Mitchell & Albright,

1971) and performance (Hackman & Porter, 1968; Lawler, 1968; Lawler & Porter,

1967 Lawler, 1966). These correlations range widely (from .11 to .72) and are

highly inconsistent from study to study.

S-:iveral other studies have shown that the sum of the products of

several (as opposed to one) extrinsic valences multiplied by respective second

- 15 -

level expectancies, have had moderate (.30 to .60) relationships to satis-

faction (Graen, 1969) and performance (Goodman et al., 1970; Lawler, 1966;

Graen, 1969; Lawler & Porter, 1967; Porter & Lawler, 1968; Hackman and Porter,

1967; Lawler, 1968). Although these studies did not test for the significance

of valence alone, they are consistent with the predictions of the theory.

Summary and Conclusions

When viewed collectively, the studies reviewed above provide the

basis for several important conclusions.

First, it appears that the distinctions between E1 and E2 give

promise of increasing the predictive power of the theory. However, methods of

operationalizing E1 so as not to confound it with E2 are yet to be developed,and additional studies designed to test its predictive power are required.

Second, E2 and intrinsic valence have been shown to be important,

if not indispensable, constructs. In some studies E2 and IVb or IVc were

significant independent predictors. In other studies, extrinsic valences

were not predicative alone but when multiplied by E2 were predictive. In

all studies except one (Galbraith & Cummings, 1967) in which intrinsic

valence was measured separately, it was a significant predictor of

performance.

Third, valence of intrinsic rewards is shown to be a more powerful

predictor than the valences of all extrinsic rewards when the predictive

power of the two were compared. This finding is significant because it

suggests that management practices directed at providing intrinsic satis-

factions are more powerful than the conventionally used extrinsic rewards.

The fact that the finding is demonstrated with young (15 to 18 year old) part-

time female employees (Graen, 1969) as well as a higher occupational level

group (Mitchell and Albright, 1971) makes it even more significant since young

females would intuitively be expected to be motivated more by supplemental

income than by intrinsic job factors.

It is likely that intrinsic rewards are more motivational not only

because they are more highly valued but also because the receiver does not

have to depend on others for them. Rather, they are obtained directly from

job accomplishment. Consequently, the corresponding expectancy of attaining

- 16 -

intrinsic rewards as a result of working hard is also more likely than the

expectancy of attaining extrinsic rewards.

Fourth, the only extrinsic valence which is found to be consist-

ently predictive is that associated with pay. Pay has been shown to be

predictive alone and also when weighted by E2. All other extrinsic valences

have been shown to be unrelated to performance unless multiplied by E2.

These findings concerning intrinsic rewards, pay and other extrinsic rewards

are consistent with Graen's (1969) assertion that unless the relationship

between effort-accomplishment and rewards is concretely and unabiguously

established, the theory will not hold. Since intrinsic rewards follow

directly from effort or goal accomplishment their linkage to performance is

both clear and highly probable. Pay is generally the most tangible and con-

crete of the extrinsic rewards and most likely to be linked, in the perception

of the subject, to goal attainment in an unambiguous and concrete manner.

Other extrinsic rewards, not necessarily following directly from performance

and being less tangible than pay, are less likely to be perceived as

contingent on performance unless management makes a visible effort to estab-

lish such a linkage. When the researcher explicitly considers the subject's

E2$ we find extrinsic rewards rather consistently have a low but significant

correlation with performance.

Fifth, the above review clearly suggests more complete tests of the

theory are in order. A greater effort should be directed toward testing the

overall predictions of the theory. Most of the previous studies tested only

limited parts of the theory. Consequently, the overall predictive validity

of the theory is virtually unknown. This complete test of the theory should

be performed for managers and non-managers.

In summary, the evidence to date indicates that the

valence of extrinsic rewards has little effect on performance or satisfaction

unless multiplied by E2, and then the effect varies widely but is generally

quite low. The major exception to this statement concerns valence of pay

which has been shown to have a motivating effect on non-management and govern-

ment and industrial managers in several different organizations

(Porter & Lawler, 1968).

Only the studies by Graen (1969) and Mitchell & Albright (1971)included independent measures of E1, E2, IV, performance and satisfaction,

- 17 -

and V. Not surprisingly, these two studies yielded more information than any

of the other studies singly and perhaps in combinations.

Finally, the overall state of empiric knowledge can be summarized

as follows:

M = IV E r IVbi + i 2

That is, the predictive power of IVb alone is well established as

is the power of extrinsic rewards (V) when multiplied by E2. The predictive

power of E1 and IVa is suggested by some studies but the manner by which they

should be combined with IVb, E2, and V is still to be determined.

References

Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. C., Lawler, E. E., and Weick, K. E.

Managerial behavior, performances and effectiveness.

New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.

Dunnette, M. D. The role of financial compensation in managerial motivation.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1967,_2, 175-216

Evans, M. G. The Effects of Supervisory Behavior on the Path-Goal

Relationship, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,1970, 277-298.

Galbraith, J., & Cummings, L. An empiric investigation of the motivational

determinants of past performance: Interactive effects between

instrumentality-valence, motivation, and ability. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance, 1967, 2, (3), 237-257.

Gavin, J. F. Ability, effort, and role perception as antecedents of job

performance. Experimental Publication System, 1970, 5, manuscript

number 190A.

) Georgopoulos, B. S., Mahoney, G. M., & Jones, N.W. A path-goal approach to

productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1957, 41, 345-353.

Goodman, P. S., Rose, J. H., and Furcon, J. E. Comparison of motivational

antecedents of the work performance of scientists and engineers.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, 14, 491-495

--Graen, G. Instrumentality theory of work motivation: Some experimental

results and suggested modifications. Journal of Applied

Psychology Monograph, 1969, 53 (2), 1-25.

Hackman, J. R., & Porter, L. W. Expectancy theory predictions of work

effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,

1968, 3, 417-426.

Heneman, H. H. & Schwab, D. P. An evaluation of research on expectancy

theory predictions of employee performance (in press).

House, R. J. A path-goal theory of leadere afectiveness.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 6, (3), 321-338.

Lawler, E. E. Ability as a moderator of the relationship between job

attitudes and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 1966, 19,

153-164.

Lawler, E. E. A correlation-causal analysis of the relationship between

expectancy attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 1968, 52, 462-468.

Lawler, E. E. Job design and employee motivation. Personnel Psychology,

1969, 22, 426-435.

Lawler, E. E. Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological

perspective. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971.

Lawler, E. E. & Porter, L. W. Antecedent attitudes of effective managerial

performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1967,

2, 122-142.

Mitchell, T. R., and Albright, D. Expectancy theory predictions of job

satisfaction, job effort, job performance, and retention of naval

aviation officers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,

1971, in press.

Mitchell, T. R., and Knudsen, B. W. Instrumentality theory predictions of

students' attitudes towards business and their choice of business

as an occupation. Working paper, July 1971, University of

Washington, Technical Report 71-27.

Porter, L. W., and Lawler, E. E. Managerial attitudes and performance.

Homewood, Ill.: Irwin-Dorsey, 1968.

Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. John Wiley & Sons, 1964.

Wahba, M., and House, R. Expectancy theory in work and motivation: Some

logical and methodical issues. Working paper, Baruch College,

City University of New York, 1972.

Wofford, J. C. The motivational basis of job satisfaction and job

performance. Personnel Psychology, Autumn 1971, 24, 501-519.

Table 1

A simple two actions, two outcomes work choice situation

POSSIBLE I\\O,~NSEQUENCES !

C'ALTERNAT IVEACTIONS

EffectivePerformance Bonus ($100 X Expectancy o.8 0 Bo us

A22 $

Un-effectivePerformance Bonus ($100) X Expectancy 0.2 {No Bonus ($0) X

',Expectancy 0. 8

4-i00)

0n

L44o -a

4-iwO 0

HU cc-X

14 4.1 VO V

4-4 j CuW la. UX X C0 -

cn) Q) -H

0) 1 4.U a)U0 V0 ) 14

Cu 0O 0)4.10 '-4 0 )CuU 4-4 4-4 -' 0; V .0 -C14 0 QC-

Q CULu44 0

0-4Q-C0) Q)Cu)

40n) -U >0)4J4> -L V _.0-4'---4

-,- W C: n Q) 1 10JJ O tu O a) > L C:

0 14 > 0) . -H 0) 0) 1

40-4 --4-H 0)C4-4OC U)c: a3) cs C- co u -4cu Cu) W 0 > Cu C0 C Q)

U) u >. cu > 1-

,U C CuiE -4

C0 -4 0 > 0 0 1 4-i 0-HI- ) cu V0 0) ' 0 0 14

V C0 0-3 ) V Cu 4-4 04C1c toJ4- ) C .4 0c,-4 03) -H W Q) N 1.4W 0UO-~C/)> 4-4 0-0) 0-CL0 U

4-Q IC0-H 4-4

-a > Cu U-,H Q 0Q)

Cu. 0-- 4W U) 4-4-,4 En a C: :>. 4-n Cu )Cu 0 V 0) - 0

C0 OVCuz

VI Cu'--4 0) 0) Cu

,rS. q w 3 En Q) L4-J IH- 4.J1V 0)Va0)1.4-4 0) 0: : 0 4-4u0Q0.0 Cu.0 0

4I-40

-W1.40 >0- 4-i0) -,4

0) '-40() 4-4 4.1Va .0 1.A4.*Ua0 Cu 00)00) -H- Cu Cu VO0-1.4 Cu 00) Cu 0 CO .4a> ) fa0-

l)1.4Zs

Cu V)Cu0)0)4-i

4C4 Cu,

0) UCuV 0) CL0: 4 -H4

a) -H

H :> 0

> 14'--4 Cu Cu3) 0Cu, >> 0W

0)-HO 0~ > -H 4.-,-4- -J0-4--u V x

1) >.Q) o)J CU

Wd a

0 a) Q)40- 14 0- 1.4 0 00)0 44 U1 44 -4' '--40

C 0 CW u44 0 C > E'-4 0) 00 Cu 0 14

Cl) 0.:- 444. N 0 .4

Cu44 CueW >3 Q)C/n 0 I-'- 0 0-

0) Cu

0 c 0) e0--4 0 > C00 I) -H-, H

) Cl 4-U 14

-0< u ) :uQ) 4

4- > )

-X Cu Q0 >-

Q) cn Q) C 0o oA 4u0-r : C

a -a a s a CU4. 0 Cu -4Cn u Cu14 00 S 0-

4- >,Cu 04.1

0)J * 44--H.*H

4 44-i -,A -,

UW C: LV

o4-Cu0) H

4 0) C0 b0 40 0 >, 1 Cu 4-4 -H 044 Cu 4-i w 0 H C) 44

,a UO)wC:O Cu- 0000 U)

bSO0-HX0) C44to o -, Qo

U > Cu -H >- 0- > 0CCU0 QU 4- -H

Cu C0 00 C 0 -H Cu0 CU-H-H C14 0C FA144-i 4-J En 4-1) 0-HO u U 0 u4-4 0) ) > cu C140--H *0-4-i 0C uQ) X .0 >>X -H o 4-iCl a) E U 0) r-4 0-OH U

Oa -4- C 4Cu QXa) ucu c In c) C0 4J "Q ) ouw auCu --4 0

3 C W-4'- ) 02) 30 .0 4-4 Q)0-H.0- 0-440)) 4-i'> 04 4 X )- Cu 0

-¢)4 CU 0 0) 0n L: -H- Cu

0I

C0-HO U)0 4.1 4-4 > - )-H Cu 4 3C00 04.1 -4 0) 4o 0 -H

a}4) C00 0U1.400) 4-4>4.10)

1 0 Q) 4410)a C0 -H 3 CN-H V X 0

4i w U4QCU,C0L)--4 0)4-H10) ,1 h4.i c 4-Cuc

0) 0. CU -H Z . 0H J-i Cu 0 = cC -H

1.401I.40Cu14 0-H 0 C)> 4-4 -H1.414>0)>)14 Cu

CO4-4 04O)0 ) 0

0Cu Cuo4-4 -H U -H --4 4-1 0 4-1 -H0) Cu Cu c u.C/) 1. 0 4 Cu

a)4 1.

Sw co (L)C4u0

0 > cu -H,

4-4 Cu 0 0 Cu0 4i 4i U

Cu 0) u) cu x60 0L CaC: X Ca S4 44-H 0) 0) 0 0

1i 4-144

0)

S4 U

4)c 4-i

Cu-4-i

44 1

'--4 C0 0Cu Cu Cu Cu

Cu3>

4 --

V> '- VaN CO

4N 0

0 >4-i 4.1 r--4c Q)) En 4-is $4 Cu>04

CL0

X> W -H

CL v0 M.040.,4 X) vCX*H0 4 CuQ0 Xu Eou 0

0)) 0)c

>C 1

14') > Cu. .04

CL wc waL'aJ0 4-4 0Cuo 4. cCu > 0 .d 00 UCu 0 En

140) 0)'-H.0-014LI4 aUQ) ),c

44 4s

4

o4-4C E0cn 4-41 400) 0a 0 0) 4.1 0 >1 NU4C-

NOiC 0) C- 0UL)-L)0 04 ) ~H0

a cu>£toXco>cs0NCE Cu>CuCoHb-> -H > 4-4 0) 1

" u 3 C x-5

WU i4 C Q) C)

U CuC 4-1 0 r--4 0$ 0- Cu0CuU -H 0-H 04 C4Q ) -1H - 0 44 0- 0-4 C044 H 0Cu 0Cu 0) -H.0 Cu --4 U-H> > C u 4-4. UCut-4 4-J l- H44 ^0 Cu*C0o uo Cu ua0 -w 1C

0 -HO u0C P.r C0 > -H V4i 0) 0) 4.10 CL C O 4V C0 > 0 0-H4 -H.UQ0 -4 Cu4U Cu 041 C0Cu E0 0 UU 4-4U : Q) >4 -Cu > Cu U)>a 44

J o0V 0 44- C V OcV Cwu 4. 0 -H > 0 Cu to-HCo C aM00 aJ)-H> - -H --I Cu

0)>C14

4

0) cu a~ CN iCu V 4.1 -H W Cu.,4 ,o Q)300 00) FE0)-H 0)CuQC 1) 0U)0 V) U), O

Cu Cu 0) >0v

4- Cu -H > -H ,D4.1-4 0) 4 o vJ Cu

wv X Z u0 (a

4-

4.1

0

V0Cu

0O U U00

la. 0) C w

0)>-U 0 Cu

1.r4 OC /) >

00 0 cu -H

0) -H 4 -4

VC CuO0 .i C CuCu 0 0-V V Cl)

0H U)41 4-

V0 00)0 -r4

)V0 .-4

1-x--0 0- >r

00 Cu V:0 V 0Cu> 0C >0NX g-4

0 0Cu04.0, 0)14-H4

.00) Cu -H 0-H

>J Cu4 cCu000W) CuH

-> 0 14-H -H 0a )0)

to a) c-Cu c1 laH~0 0) 4.C14 0O 00

- 40 0 )

CuCu0 0Cu)C C N - C V

.00.C0 4.1a0--V0 0U 0)Cu

CO 4C),) 0 U 0- C:-H

Q) N,4 I.UC C

x 0 + - -

u C 0) el,

U, a).0)

C >

la,0 0-H*S ) C3 ,- CSV-HU 04.1 Cu 0>

00 4.1 -> CUV'O-4 '-4-,H4 CU '- C04 Cu .Cu 4 I014- H CU 00C-i O .0 0 --H

C C 4-i 00) CN-.O Q) SW 4O 'a rUOVnO 4-lU +VOC0 4-4) H 4- '-' 000) 4-4 1~> 0) 0 Wx 4-4 -H4

W 0E-, > -C 4.I

-,H U 4.IUC a) Q)4.0 V0 :~Cu 0 Cu 1.4 0

H -H Cun0) V U Cu .0 1 DICu 0) 4-J0- H 44.00 a-4C u *-4- u

0-w .0'--40-0-0O. Lx)0) Cu0 ) -H0-40 )Cu)0L -H 1 4.1 0. 0.0,

> 14 Cu -4 -H 00 0 4.1

n> U 4 zZ 4 3

C i) la.,{ a) Q z

00 C4 -4- MD *S a) 4i0 Cu V > C

-H0) 0) Q:w 0 --

O C1 C.) CU C:4,4 > -QH0)4i

JJCLQ

04 CLCu 0

-H 0 -H 0)

t1 o4 0 1 Vsw C C r~ u swo C) *H- :: *S- Cu

OuCuO >

W4.1 ) H-

o sw-0 0

4))-4-H C

4 C0 0 4

0z 0) -H4 HC

4-H 0 C-)-m

0) a4-0-0) 0)U

Uw bD r= UC w Cj

- >0 D

4-4 U l-

w 0>014 U0.'-- 0 0s

14 Sw 4- V

I 0 >

CO) 4.Q Q0

0) 41 -HJ Cu 0 Cu44 1 > 54- 4i00Q)O0-H1..4 1.4

.0 44 4-i 0 Va0O4JO1 U44 Cu 0S

Q) :3 w Q) 5-c V 0)-4- H4.10r-4.100-

N4N0a,0'- mAH 4.1 0-SH Cu

4-4.41 . -'-I V U

t - 0 N>~O-J0 )044

- )Cu C - 0

.04-4-4 4o 14. 1 0

1. 0I 0-H-4 0440) 44 JJ -H-4-U V I Z 0 0 4.

W QJla N to0 * Sl CUO- 4-4 4iJ-HO0r-Cu.On04 U) L)u U 0-H C44 Cu

V0 -H 0 1.4 4- 4. 0- 4.1

O J Cu a. C0441 N U_I ) 1.4 0) 0-Ho1

0)0)4JU 40C0Q)CU C- m 00 0 -H Cu 0- Cu 00 0),1,0 CL Cu ) > C o Cu-

ON El C O0 C 1C 4-,-II-4 Cu Cu 0) 0) -r 0 mCu Cu

-'t- U) 044 Cu4-C 0 >

-H4-H

.r

.Ix)

0)

0)

CuOCu0l4-40 .

Cu01) '--4(000)0 >Cu03)1. .-

V4-i

1 > :0Wa 4- 4J 4J

VCJJI CWOOOOcOC C4C- acC)V C l4J 10W4-4C sC01 01

> 0 4-4 -H 0 -

H 4-14 C)u 4-4 Cu C Cla WJ-i 14

VO4-l Cu 4.J44-i0 0 014IV C 0V

a11~ CuCu4-iV' M-0E:5V> 0 X -H 0 -H r-4H.0 -r-4 (1) H4C) V

C)4-i

as0

U) 4i4 14

00 14 0 -N*H-4 -4 4-4 'Ie

44 W C40X IC: Q > Q)Cu -H0-Z

4

to cubo u

1: C0

O - S CO C

W C u0 4 C 4-lWCT

4S -- 4Cut

CU U4 0J4-i

au

O CD 4-4

4-1114sW 4-4

W44C 4W 0

0Q - H4 11

-,, Co

14, Q)0 co coC3UuCa, av 4-alZ Z E

U)r-

J 14

-H Cu

-4 10 ) 4

u

0

4

C:a la aW oO0 C

co (-r-4p Sc )

C:) > :a

C)cn a)

0CuvXCuEaJD

0)

laa14

a) a)01-W

4-iX Cu

Z01k(3 5n4

-

-H Z

H-> 0

co

4-4

4

- H44

H 44 E00 1441 C

Q 10cO4 0 CO

> (a wO 14 0: L) 01

,a H

)-4 V3> C0

4~-4 C 0: H-

Cu

c)co 1) 4-i

01

14 14

4- .4-4

14

0 (3

Z

44

W1CuC. )Cu

0C -4 0 tO)L)co 1/) 4 Cu L/)

40 IbO la W Q)C O >m ¢ i rqCw 4-i-H

C4 CUH1

)ai

facL CL Xx u

C) ) ) uCu4-4H-' -4

4-4 C -H bOC) C C E

(1 bO -rl

) -UZ =r<.-44O4 0 4A

COJ 0

00

-4- -4 04-JO 4

4-i oo Cu

-,

0a>

- H4 -H

4-4 4-4 ;>

C)0

0u4-a -H

4-4 4-

-u a)

CL U

X

0) uC.r r- a)i la cu a.a

40O CO Cu14 54X 14a

r= r=aJJPc40 0 -H -H Cu

cu >

U) a4 Q) 4JbO 4-

a.J JJ O

C C)- * CO-4 Q o W a)

> * U)

O14014-404 ~ 4

s4 > C. (3 5 CO0 C CEn -r Ct 4- C rO

> 4 w *^ N

01 0 -

4) - 4-4 '

a4 W r- $4J

En O CO COcn) ce z u u) 10

Cu) 4-H

r-4 ()--I O~CO14C C CO

> o to ajJJCEOJ

0 CO

U-4Cu C

J- C) _I C1

0 r

4-C>0 CO)0a C

Ll-4 4 r 14 C0

0*C) 4-

-i C)XO

04CO >u C: 0Oa

0-H-1

14

a u(4-1 Q 010)

14

4-1 01)> C.)

Cu -H4.0- >

CE0H4-4Cu 0 501

cu 0) C) 1),0 -mlCH Ct0-4 4-4

'H-4.0 4.0O 0-4-4g

0,14.4

Cu

4-i

01)

0-

01)

0

4-i

00

H C0-Hci ^ a) E 0 w> W W - U4J>>iW>-H tbO 0 U _I -C Cu 0-

4-i E VW C =, "U C

-,O ,1 U) WbOH SW4O U)CD UJ ^ 1 -A -r- D: 0 CUJ (U) E0 tutC 0 la 4-4 r-4 >1-4 W4CaL w bo 10 (a Wi a) 0

C *,1 sw CD U) Q) wk LHW3 14 014 Va Cu

csciJ C O 44 cua CL o1c-C c C E4 4+ CO uw H(OE 44-4E CO4) >F 4

w 4 -i Cu Cn U CuS-0 4 -4 * 00 UC o4-U-,WLH O a. 4-4 Cu 4-4-H Cu 4-4

W44 >OE4= -4 U) Z

44 -)4W4 0 14W0W 'WE1O

4-44-4 COOu14 0 4-4XO X J

3H --WW r- o cu o sW o C C 44

C/) UC C u-H

-H > C bo U4-1 D4U o H 40 0 C) 0o 4

4-i 0 4-i-UH C 4-4 C)V

W) L0 W Q W Cu

C -H u w)1 CO UC O) 4ua) Q) c C a. Q ,l- a, C

4 H-4 Cu 4-1 4i1cuaC i QW Cu Cu .0 H

14 H-- (1b O W 4-4

Cl 14o o-14 14 . 0-

*U) o>

U1 W44U4- >U) U) 4 U) o o C C.)

4u 0 Q Q0 4 Cu

.- ,9 4U C) 4-U a04-U 4U C C 0 4U

Cu Q0 -H 5 Cu 01 Cu

wrl "SJ a, . >C)WQ u1s1-4Cu X

C o 'D > 4-4 o .o U) C f: U) o-H4 -H4 4WI 4-4 4-4 >

4-1 Cu 0 C*,- 0 C) 44 > W C: >1CU C4-1 0 0

4-o a4iu0

OU CuUWOX$4 u~ 4Jaa -'o 44 Q) av W cn C1 o UJ 400 Pn CL 4U CW

4i1Cu

.,40

0 4-4 -H

4-4

o-00WXaC) >

CO.)

-A al.,1Cl 01)4-J C 4- -H

CuCu Cu V0

Cl) C0 U)(n CLcu

I0

i

L COU4-4 > 0

1W 0 UIZ 4-4 C: 4i 4U

Cl) a z Cu

4-i 0 4U

4-4 - V= 0 1(DCu 4-4 Cu 14

4-4 4-i COl -H

o X44 -4Cu -H 44 --

01 )l. 0 "CL CI w

O (

C 0CO -1 4

0 C 0) 0 UC O4 >, >Cu - H4 Cuo( CuJ Cu 4-1-H4

c Cun 1)uC) C)44 C)-H 0C 01 1W 0

14 1 0 )1I CO

- -4 -

co

41 4

p 01p5) E444

04 >1 40

0

4-1 io N r4H cu

14,-..-

00) Q0C cuc

4 14 Q0-H co CU -4

- 4.J 0 Ez 0

SJ C0 60

4-

i-H

-*H 4-

Vi C)*

U Q)0 -H Lf)-H-A4-4 4-i

0 0)4o H -J

CY

1

C.) -. 0

Cu Co

cJ a w

I >4-I C'

as ) C O

CO0

O C.)H4 Cu

4-4 14

c: C a: *A

C) 04 I

o cuC .

lz a,}

4-I

0) 0

W- 0

Wo - (Z U)4- Q

-4 Q

Ul) Q) av CU HV CO 4 40 w C w

tC

0 V) cu

4u1 -4

Q) Q>*

HIuI

CL bC 0 Ca) o C ci Ca

C/) 0- ~-4 44

b C010C Ui) Cu

)4 14 E: .4CS4 40

UCCO U ) -

a) CZ C)OC U

CO O

av C SJ CI

> 04 b

40 "

$4 4 1Ol

iO O

CO 1 r

> > wXr a,SN- o 4 ,

-

0 0

HHCsuCJ C$4 -4 4

-h 1 0 14CO

CL U 4J1CavXZX M 4

o

U)0 44 0

10 0r

-Ito ^m

4b( C. Cu

*l

r-4 c1 0)

00 -A a) CO -

ON o C Q s4r- U) C > 'A QCN- a ) Q) a)uM --

JJ CO > QC) c- H Hr

ts4 W CJ-ro Q )

HO 0r -- 01 U 4

4-4 u

C)

o-01 COO

o0 H4 -H 4-4

00 0 -It.0 0 Cu Cu

4-4 4.J CO )0 us w 'r

o X W44*H4 w 14 04i 0Cu COVl

m 14 -Cu0co x6>. a.uu C

o r-40 0z XmCu

C:0

(1)uz

W)0 4-iO -H4CO

0.40

OHCO1z)

CIu4-)C:C D U)

C U) > 444 U).14 O

U) U) Q) - Q) Q)Q)H- 004-I O C 0 0

i 'l-4 > cu o oCtl5 C'-4H)4 C-H 3s4 a)C) 0U)4- tbO V4-W 0 -O 4-^ HC -4U) o 3 c: - 0OC: aC - -Lico --

O Q) -4 .0 C U)E > C) HC 0 U) 0

uz ) .1 (- Q)UJc,) ) 4_)4-J -LJ M 0 14-J U) 0C 0-^H 0CC1 -i) Nu*

4H U) 04(3 C O- W

[ Ql0 F .Q - cu E-4

U)))av

U) -L u

'4 4 >U 0

CUC C

4L 0 4-4~ -H 0 "-4U) a) 4J 0

OC) O4-4

CO4-s (a) n l0 toa0) aJ C

0E

I, 0CQU -4

CZ U0 U)

C4 0C,4 CU3 0n 43Il E0 (

0> 4-

0 *0

CO

NCA U 1)) )

Cl) o 4-i 0=4-H 0

CO > - w

,4 U - 4) 0uCJCICl- a)

(1)

r,4 aJ, W/ 5CD o- W1vaC HQ)

CUIO C H0 )- 4i 4

m CO 00 (1) _o 5 4U)S u

Ua U) W U)

< U) U)

0-U) 0U > 4-= C 0 0 Cu

Cu()) 5: En U C

O,4Cl 4 P)Cl -a U'-'C 4C

0-H U Q O CZ4-I a C > W

t- C:(3 X ., -,- 'S) a 0 EnW= 0 ^Q

C U4 4V4 W -4CUJJ C; CC 4-O > C

CUJ - 4 -r I4

04 -4

CnwH O nCrSl5 S t

or- UCOC -J 4-

0

O 5

I-H Z04I u4-a,5 0 :0

., Jlcu ut i+O3>W

IX r

C u)*-H C -H1

44-H ,-H

03-) 4W nU)

0$ - 4

Cwur

4O 5

43)-rI U

w C U) )cu > X a)c"0S H C

C Cu 4

U) 0sC

CUX uCU> xCU N>- O Z3

IV

X a)aU1) Vw

4X , Cu

cU U)

C --

-)

C: Cu0~-> 0

U)

C:a) XU

CU 0-

>>UXHy

.4--HU

,-4 CgU) 1-4 0

C uM-H4 4-i 0 4-i

Ow X 0004-i 0

C0

H 45 0'A

Q)H4 I

C O 43 CU

.O 5X CY) CZ*

0 4- cU)o 0UC NO C )

H-4 4-44-4 4c 4-oo a) C U) 0

J4JI-H -H 0 QCU^OC CU 0o00 4-40u

~-4

4-i r U4 -i aC Lr) O)-HX Cud Cu CUr-4 4-) CU4-

4-1 : -H 4 -l4- 4 O~COCV E > E >4-u0oc -H C Q O4-40Q CU

Cl En W E 30-4 U u Cu

cnCC

0

L4-44 U) UC C u

- 0) a-4 4 -4 0

>aJOVWQ) w

J

3 -Ho 4

U) C 4H QC

a4-J

.,- . > rco>, -H

4-4 -H4 -H4 4-iC>9 O

C: 10 aCU) Cu 4--I a.0-Va 0-H14--4aC4-i 4- 44i

0c C

O3 -OCUA 04 Cua Q Q0X

Q E

(HC CU) -0

'¢ O >0) U)

- 44 U)

a U)CU O4 Cu

4-4 H4C 0400-H CU

C UW4-- Q ,

CUa4>4i > 0C( >

-H4 -H- 4-i ~-4

u U)u

CU< ~ Cu -H 4-4 Cu

rJCU

-nCuU)

0Wb >'

a4~C s00 )

*w I

4 4-

C

Cn uo C/)

4i :j 0i

C) 44 -H Cl -H

4-i 4-i

o c>-1 -4 Cl)

a Ju .J0 U) -Hi 4-I 44 Ca.

UIO) 440 5o 5 w

i o 4- . a Co o

u cCUL ::Uco- 0L U)

cu -4 J 0 HU) > 0n >

CU4ON

OC-H 0

-Cu

o) 5

ON LI- 4-4 0

LC') U) 4-I

J

> cou0

H4

Cu CUr-45 C.)

h0CU 4--i 1))U)O

CUa) 3 ) (3 -4

4uo U)X C

4) CCU--4 -

0 Cu a) CU-'--.,4 $, '> -4 > CI_C 44 0 -H HSE C - C 000 0 CN-H 0 uU 0 -)

00

0Q O

V 4 CY)O

a~-HC) 0

Cu a H0 0 O

0 4-I C

00 V

CDJJ 4J -,4~i OCULV CU4 00 -,4 CVC a, Q -L

4 00

O- CC

-i0 En HCv .,4 L

U ObU) 4-IC5CC

00 0C

C -H H 0

Cu 4-i 4-i -H

O) .H > *H

0-) 4- 005X0 0o-oHX-40-O U)

0

a3) c;

4-O U)C -H 4-iH, 4-i U)

0 0 CuCu U)

C: Cu -H *-H0: 4 U- U)

4O -, 4- Q)

-4 n -44U)C 0 0

44CI .4 0 a0-

0 -H 0 >0Q) > U;

CU U) U 4--i

C- 4- 4-1 00

0 U 0JJ U)W0-U CU

CUzuCU U)

0044 U) U

0 Ena) CO4U.H U) 1 - V>U 0 u4 U) V

U) 0 U4-H Cu r4 C

4o --i C: -4 >uU)C a

-1-* CO C4 w C-H 04i 0

C-H 0 0O

04 0 00¢ -- wO O

rz 0 V)04-00JWUCJQ

40C4-J

U) 0 0 C-HU0E Xc U)c000-vH U) 4-i

U- -H C U- :4 0 CU 4CuX Cu X Cu Cu 00 0W 0*HCuO CU0CU%0- 0-UO-H LIO4-i 0 -H 5 0 0 U)O-H 0- CUo¢C JJ 0 0 -S -H Cu O-

0D0 I-HS0 0CU)CU *V-H Cu

CU 0 CU 000U) 0 C 0

0 0 c) CU 60 w

-0) 0o

w rawkaJ a)

o C-0CU CUH S0~4 C >-j- CO toCUV -) U) 00 CU0o

0 4i a QCU U) 0 C

-40CU3 5) 1u,H F E O U3) Z 0

- HbO -HV -CV,-C a)CJ JHUCIOM.-4J 0)

-C *HU )

be 1N-C 4-C 0 a)

a S 4iEn0 Va0 4-i - O a)C CU) a) 4-C

4-4 U) a) 4-OU

-4QU) 0 U) > 4>H U S 0

C: 4- i a)-%@H Ci -H a)O

a) Q) a) -H 4- Q

E 4-4 -C > -C Q) C 4-C0 44 CU) -H U) 0 U) 0

>fiQU >

0 V 0 a) 0 ,I 04-C a) C H4o -J 0 4-C 4-4

CoO I- H< W04-CU N 4-J Uo- U)

C2 .4-HO a)u)OJ0) V4-1

a D >-H OO@a)C 0 w U) 04-i 0-a~V) >U) 0 a)O$

04J-H. C 4-4 C 0 a 0 a C0 C,-4 C v 0_ 0-a)H a))-H W-OH f.) X 4-J oa H oC JJ4-i 4 Ci4" C w- ) C cu C>z cu )0 . > w c o o404 CcU) CIU 00 a) r-C , --3 E c-> 4-I-H 4-CJ C C a)

aWr-

4av X(1

W CO< W4-4))-X 4C0*)--4a)0 CO-Xa)fiO0 44U)^Xvoa) -C O a)4 0) U) C>4-4 V 4-C4-Li *H4-4-a ()UCO C4-Ja)cq-J uC> a-HUEnla)VO uc0U) ) 4Aa)

X 0 3 >~UC 4CO w > -4-H -4 4aJ-ri U) 0oC- C> C - Ha a) -4 ) .C 4J 44 SW 4-i CC.U4J 4-4 -rHO C CL

C>,O a)4 )" -4 > c-H,> c 3 u cU) V a) *JC- boC)> 0 X la U) CO *H U) a)4NC 0 0 " J-H -

beo -Hr- --, 0 a)Oubo U 4-J r- C: w M. U)u U) CC; CC - 4-JJ .-H V J HHA Z-H W CL 0 40 COOU)to-H>O>Wa). 4-CU) 4-4 0 -H4-J.0U) 44CU )aC.)04-CO0HO O U)C-A a)5-4-I -H -N H4-O4-C 5 U) Ca0J-H1-C4iHa 0 0-J.CHvCJJ CC4Cj4 ,1> - UEn C 0-.0 4WO)00Cab CCba-HH9o> c9cf scW<:oo3uzcXU)>C U) S C a)

-Hw

H HQ D4-C > M X CD

4-4 > (X) CU)Ca U) 44 MU)O C CO C'4jC-Ja) 00::u)M >a> HO 4-4 3 WoUQa -LJ0)4-4 - U.1- M o F- . LIL o -L Q) r- 4- o Cu Cr C) ' C)HU)OCZ-C) -14 5w wQ-)OO -1 a) OCZ l Ca l O COC) > C- V 0 - .0M C: i u w toaW() L-a)X Ca-4 -H-C:a) -O a) L4-

uM - H *H U -H U) 4.J 44 4-J ' U aQ) COO U) 4- -4 00E )U) U)M Cu) OC5Q C C c > M -Ha) U 4-J 4

C C C'J]C aD O > O -H -, U 54- C 0v-,4 tU )0 O0A'r D'r/ 0 0SHO U) 0 O CaO0 C4w1 w4 75 QW~sW) a) 44 ' i-' tA -4 Q) o U a) -r4 5:- c u

-HI:> a) C > C > ) -H C CU a) 0- ra) V V a) U 0 a) U) *H 0 -H0 0 -Ho0 -H- - 5= U) 0 C/) 4-) u - U) CO 0 Z 0 t4-4 0- 4-3 V

U) W0

c oo,ci av i3~ 0

S 0 w w C 00- 'A a) 0 cu > Q)

V-)0

0 -H3) u-La

C E $v 0w X 0 *H0 000oo 0m w w 4-i

4-U O) .I--

CU)) 4 C 0o0-CVn a)0oa)aO a

)a)

' :o0 -H a) a CO -a 0 -

.4-J -4

Cn C D O 4-,4 a) 4-4 U) 44

U) 4 0 a) a) 0cU) 1- 4u >- 0

.,4 o CV0 4-C Vo - U)Da

*) a) 0, 5 U) :04J 5 o0C 4-- CD 0 0 -r

*. 4-4 -L.

*.Vaw () C a-)4-iQ) U)0-U)C

a))W 04-O aJ C C 0U)O -H 0C.04-44 C^ 4CJ Q) -H C 0

a)U ) -H C> 4-C O (a)O= a) -H- 0 4-4 0-O 0- U)O 0a)OC *QHXC;

> a) 0 C L a O- H --H O CO HA4-C 4- n c 4.J*H ^ -i-uHOU)C )C UCO0 0 4-4 a) -H 4 4-40- H cn e toU

4-i -H -4 C -HO 4-4u b- bO 4uC

(14 CU U) -AH -H -H XU0 44 U) 4-4 -C -: U)

U)

be

.*4 C4-) U)4-Ci

0

C

ES-ia) <- -H

a) 4u- obO U

U- C n aO

Uzt H o

En _ 0I- C

C4 -H0n4CCL

U)-

E r=4O)

04U

4 04

U)C o U)Co -C/lU)

-44-J-H C> bOm Uo, C: faz

U U)4 0 C>4 0C M 4)UZW4-a) C >a)- o a

C o C

a.) u- be U-a) > -H X c U) C

n > C> -H U)

a)

U)U) la

)4:4-J)--

aL) CaVa)C: -4 -H-

a) P0 C

a)3 H

C-C> 0

4-)

C r$ C O4O a)

U) U) C C -H

C C -H

-H 0,

04

CO) 4-4 CZ C:

CO W 4a )

a) ,-4.

4J

4 0) 0) .1CZ Ci

O 4-io a)H a

CL > /-- -4 4-C C:> 4 4-4

H) /--- 4- 4-C

-H 0W

CCIO

4-I 5 4-i -C 04X - UO C/I a)^3Q. C)u

CV-' 0 C 4-4

4C 0 C CN -4 3> -, CN 44

uC C) Uo r- ¢ E - 0

a)

C C

,-H

a) 4-C

U)

0- v-H a)v

- 40:0

-HU)

4-CUQ)Uu)

4-C U) cU0 C

.0

U)

4-i

C, O

-H 0-am- Q (3)0 a)

4 -Ca3) 4-C

a)as C wJJ4

COa) w a

C HS C a) C)-,4 ,H U)HnO r -C U-tl0CO C Ea)) 4- 3U) a) 4-

C 0

C -4 cU )D )ov4- l0 U 4-C 4-4 UC

X C 0 4v-r- )

4-Ca) o 5, o v-4U)O U) U) O -

a) U) 0 U) C O4-W ^-C a)

U) 0 0 CNJ-C E

H

Q) co 4-i 4- V-V U)

4-4 > > CU C 4-)

4-C C ;>1 C 0J0 U) :J r O0O

a) H4 V Ca) U) ) 0 4-1 U)V U 4-i

C 0 X 4- V-0 U)O a) > O (a

4-4 CC -H a) a) 0-H

-4 U) -H 4-V 4-C U) 4-V C U)

a) a) -H U) 0 X X )

4- 0 a) 0

-4r-414O71%4- U)na) 4 a)

U)c

-H U) 04 b

Z 0D a)Cc n 0-4c;e

r ) CL

En-H4 L-4 a

-4 U) aJ)044 UU QC OOCa) U) 0W¢Os4Z U) 0

.,4 W40 4U) C-.J C w

U) C 0 C *H Q)CCa 0 Q0 0 4- *H CH -H 0 4J cU -4J4J OO)WU)

< a.) C -4 0a) 04 U a Q)O 0 - 0* -oMiOL4i U) n0 C44 a)U -rH 0u O w U) > En

Cc)

C-0aQ)

H 0

OU)OU)S

4,-4 0J

4i aJcn

En a0

H,- 4-44-COpU)a

C: r=

:> r4

JI0-

V~~~~

a) o * ^

V a) U cU) X

0 U 4)* 1-*

uo

u cWou

a)hI U t5C

-C5)m Xa C OO bo5 s -r Q) - (j

44 C: OC -4 ) to-I coH *q -a ) c-

O

-4 0.00m

>. C)C 4 a)4n o JH 0 0 0 11 11 U) oOeZ S C CU Z ZCa)