The objective of this newspaper is to discuss some of the current research and opinion with regards to, and to compare the strengths and weaknesses of, one of the more prevalent theories of motivation, the Equity theory. In addition , this kind of paper can compare and contrast the Equity theory with an additional popular theory of inspiration: the Expectancy theory.
Motivational theories be given a great deal of interest in organizational behavior exploration, primarily due to their purported ability to explain a number of the complexities of employee efficiency and proceeds in an organization. Most motivational theories try to integrate exterior factors (i. e., a great organizational reimbursement system) with internal makes (i. e., personal requirements and motives). Some of the composition these hypotheses provide may also be used in a work place as computing tools for seperate performance within an organization.
In this newspaper we analyze a major motivational theory: the Equity theory. We explore the similarities and differences between this kind of theory and two other common hypotheses. We will even consider current research and opinion encircling this theory and compare its pros and cons with another common motivational theory, the Expectancy theory.
Adams first talked about Equity theory in 1963 and 65 (cited in Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). According to Adams, a person assesses his relationships by analyzing his inputs to the relationship and what he receives in exchange compared to the other individuals contribute to the relationship and receive in return. At its main, this is a theory that may be based on identified fairness. It is a reasonable, common-sense notion that people want to be cured in a manner that they perceive to become fair, or perhaps at the very least, equal to those performing the same tasks.
If the individual feels that his outcome-to-input proportion is less or more than those of the different individuals inside the relationship, after that inequity develops and the person is forced to restore fairness in order for the partnership to remain acceptable. Therefore , inequity can be either positive or perhaps negative. A person perceives adverse inequity when his outcome-to-input ratio is no more than the additional individuals in the relationship, and he interprets positive inequity when the opposing is true. According to Adams, an individual will certainly react adversely whether he perceives his situation being creating positive or unfavorable inequity. Consequently , individuals can seek to reach equilibrium together with the others inside their environment.
For example , if one particular member of the staff works ten hours per day, and an additional works just seven, as well as the two happen to be paid a similar salary, then simply that equally workers can feel an disproportion. It is in that case likely the fact that person doing work less several hours will be not comfortable with the condition and suggest methods of equalizing the situation (such as reducing the different person's several hours to several as well). Likewise, the working eight hours can feel as though the specific situation is unjust, and may withstand by scaling down at work, choosing longer breaks, or requesting a raise to develop the feeling of equity. In either example, neither worker will be really happy before the perceived inequity is solved.
Even though the Equity theory has been shown being an effective style for some tendencies predictions, Scheer et ing. (2003), manufactured comparisons between reactions of Dutch companies and U. S. organizations on great and bad equity to illustrate one of the dangers of assuming the universality of the Value theory. A test was conducted with a Dutch company and an American firm to test the presumptions of Value theory. The presumption that in a recognized negative inequity the individuals would feel angry and a positive inequity would create feelings of guilt. The research came to the subsequent conclusion:
Our findings show that the Dutch firms, on average, do react according to Equity...
Sources: Ambrose, M. L., & Kulik, C. T. (1999). Old Friends, New Faces: Motivation Analysis in the nineties. Journal of Management, 25(3), 231-292.
Chhokar, J. H., Zhuplev, A., Fok, D. Y., & Hartman, T. J. (2001). The Impact of Culture about Equity Tenderness Perceptions and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Five- Country Study. Worldwide Journal valuable - Primarily based Management, 14(1), 79-98.
Harder, J. Watts. (1991). Fairness theory versus Expectancy theory: The case of major league baseball cost-free agents. Record of Utilized Psychology, 76(3), 458-464.
Scheer, L. E., Kumar, In., & Steenkamp, J. At the. (2003). Reactions to Perceived Inequity in U. S i9000. and Dutch Interorganizational Interactions. Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 303-316.
University of Phoenix. (ed. ). (2001). Organizational Behavior [University of Phoenix, az Custom Edition]. Boston: Pearson Custom Submitting.
Copyright (c) 2003, Mahmud Zaman
All legal rights reserved