Abstract The intent of this paper is to discuss some of the current research and opinion concerning, and to compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of, one of the more common theories of motivation, the Equity theory. In addition, this paper will compare and contrast the Equity theory with another popular theory of motivation: the Expectancy theory. Introduction Motivational theories receive a great deal of attention in organizational behavior research, primarily because of their purported ability to explain some of the complexities of employee performance and turnover in an organization.
Most motivational theories try to integrate external factors (i. e. , an organizational compensation system) with internal forces (i. e. , personal needs and motives).
Some of the structure these theories provide can also be used in a work environment as measuring tools for individual performance in an organization. In this paper we study a major motivational theory: the Equity theory. We explore the similarities and differences between this theory and two other common theories.We will also consider current research and opinion surrounding this theory and compare its strengths and weaknesses with another common motivational theory, the Expectancy theory. Equity theory Adams first talked about Equity theory in 1963 and 1965 (cited in Ambrose & Kulik, 1999).
According to Adams, an individual assesses his relationships by analyzing his inputs to the relationship and what he receives in return compared to what other individuals contribute to the relationship and receive in return.At its core, this is a theory that is based on pe...
rceived fairness. It is a reasonable, common-sense notion that people want to be treated in a manner that they perceive to be fair, or at the very least, equal to those performing the same tasks. If the individual thinks that his outcome-to-input ratio is less or more than that of the other individuals in the relationship, then inequity arises and the individual is compelled to restore equity in order for the relationship to remain acceptable. Therefore, inequity can be either positive or negative.An individual perceives negative inequity when his outcome-to-input ratio is less than the other individuals in the relationship, and he perceives positive inequity when the opposite is true.
According to Adams, an individual will react negatively whether he perceives his situation to be creating positive or negative inequity. Therefore, individuals will seek to reach equilibrium with the others in their environment. For example, if one member of the staff works eight hours a day, and another works only seven, and the two are paid the same salary, then that both workers will feel an imbalance.It is then likely that the person working less hours will be uncomfortable with the situation and suggest methods of equalizing the situation (such as cutting the other person’s hours to seven as well). Likewise, the individual working eight hours will feel as though the situation is unfair, and may resist by slowing down at work, taking longer breaks, or asking for a raise to create the feeling of equity. In either instance, neither employee will be truly happy until the perceived inequity is resolved.
Although the Equity theory has been shown t
be an effective model for some behavior predictions, Scheer et al. 2003), made comparisons between the reactions of Dutch firms and U. S. firms on positive and negative equity to illustrate one of the dangers of assuming the universality of the Equity theory.
A test was conducted with a Dutch firm and an American firm to test the assumptions of Equity theory. The presumption that in a perceived negative inequity the individuals would feel angry and a positive inequity would produce feelings of guilt. The study came to the following conclusion: Our findings indicate that the Dutch firms, on average, do react according to Equity theory predictions but that United States firms do not.When under compensated, Dutch firms experienced hostility, and when overcompensated, they experienced guilt. In the face of inequity, either positive or negative, firms in the Netherlands exhibit lower trust and relationship continuity.
U. S. firms react just as the Dutch do when faced with negative inequity, but they do not react negatively to positive inequity. These findings suggest that it is dangerous to presume the Equity theory is universally applicable to interorganizational relationships and, specifically, to assume that positive inequity will have deleterious effects (p.
12). This, again, may be an oversimplification. In this test, the Dutch firm responded as was expected and the U. S. firm did not. This only serves to illustrate that every environment is unique, and responses cannot be assumed.
It also implies that some cultures may be more predisposed to accept positive inequity, and perhaps this can be built into a modified model for uses within that society. It does not, however, presume to determine which environments will respond in a specific way. For example, the test was conducted in the Netherlands, but no larger presumption can be made to include all of Europe, or every industry within the Netherlands. ) Chhokar et at. (2001), talked about equity sensitivity, which elaborates on Adam’s Equity theory.
The concept of equity sensitivity is used to explain why individuals from different cultural backgrounds do not behave as predicted when inequity exists and how they react to positive or negative equity. Equity sensitive individuals sense equity when inputs equal outcomes. When the input exceeds the outcome, a negative inequity arises.However, there are individuals who feel at peace with different types of inequities, and they are known as “Benevolents” and “Entitleds”.
Chhokar et al. (2001), elaborates on equity sensitivity, by stating: This construct expands upon Adam’s equity theory by hypothesizing that there are three types of individuals: (1) Equity Sensitive, who follow the traditional equity theory model of behavior and sense equity only when inputs equal outcomes; (2) Benevolents, who sense equity only when their inputs exceed their outcomes; and finally (3) Entitleds, who sense equity only when their outcomes exceed their inputs (p. 1). According to Chhokar et al (2001), it was anticipated that the United States would have a very low benevolence rating, meaning that the study anticipated Americans to have a more significant reaction to negative equity.
Actually, the United States fared far better than anticipated. Chhokar et al, states “We had assumed that
- Gender Stereotypes
- Attachment Theory
- Lesson Plan
- Problem Solving
- Organizational Behavior
- 14th century
- 17th Century
- 19Th Century
- 20Th Century
- A Hanging
- Abnormal Psychology
- Acid Dissociation Constant
- Acid Rain
- Action Potential
- Age Of Enlightenment
- Alexander The Great
- Alice in Wonderland
- American Culture
- American History
- Anatomy and Physiology
- Ancient Egypt
- Ancient Greece
- Ancient Olympic Games
- Ancient Rome
- Andrew Marvell
- Animal Farm
- Anne Bradstreet