What theory asserts that a persons motivation is based on what he or she considers to be fair when compared to others?

Motivation plays an important role in predicting the success of individuals and their ability to perform in the workplace.  Psychologists have sought to discover exactly how motivation is influenced.   Many theorists (such as Maslow, Herzberg, McGregor, and McClelland) have contributed significant research on human behavior in efforts to gain better insight on the impact motivation has on human performance.  The results of which have been tested in practice by manager’s who seek to improve productivity, performance, and motivation of their employees.  In today’s business environment, the application of more contemporary theories of motivation have been brought to light.  Theories such as John Stacy Adams’ Equity theory and Victor Vroom’s’ Expectancy theory have substantial relevance in understanding motivation in today’s complex work environment. The purpose of this paper is to provide a comparative analysis of these two theories in particular and to discuss the implications each has on managers in an increasingly global market.

Each individual on this planet is driven by something.  This motivation or drive can be caused by intrinsic desires to succeed, or external factors such as recognition, status, or monetary gain.  No matter what the cause, it is safe to say that what motivates one will not necessarily motivate another.  As such, there is a wealth of research available on the concept of motivation and its influence on human behavior. The major researchers into motivation were Maslow (1954), Herzberg et al.(1959), Vroom (1964), Alderfer (1972), McClelland (1961) and Locke et al. (1981) –whose work is still taught to business students today (Bassett-Jones et al., 2005). 

Abraham Maslow (1954) attempted to synthesize a large body of research related to human motivation (Huitt, 2007) and posited a hierarchy of five basic motivational needs: physiological, safety, love and belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization.  These needs are placed in a hierarchy and suggest that before a more sophisticated, “higher order” need can be met, certain primary needs must first be satisfied (Bowman, 2010).  Maslow considered the myriad of personality dimensions related to motivational needs (Huitt, 2007).  However, he recognized that not all personalities followed his proposed hierarchy.

In a reaction to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Clayton Alderfer distinguished three categories of human needs that influence worker’s behavior; existence, relatedness, and growth (Bowman, 2010).  Alderfer’s ERG theory paralleled that of Maslow.  Like Maslow, Alderfer recognized that basic human needs have to be met in order to progress and satisfy higher order needs.  Alderfer posited that these three levels of human needs are not the same for everyone and that the importance of each category may vary for each individual (Alderfer, 1969).

Conversely, Herzberg proposed two factors influencing motivation at work (hygiene factors and motivators).  According to Herzberg (1966), maintenance (or hygiene factors) need to be met to avoid dissatisfaction but do not motivate by themselves (Bowman, 2010). An example of a hygiene factor is pay, which alone is not cause for satisfaction.  However, is required to avoid dissatisfaction.  On the other hand, motivators such as recognition, achievement, and advancement can either have a positive or negative effect on individual attitudes.

The collective works of the major researchers in motivation theory hold validity in their own right.  It is not surprising that their theories are vigorously studied and applied by businesses looking to improve motivation as a means to increase productivity.  At the very least, the research related to motivation provides a foundation on which managers can build on (to motivate staff).  To further understand the impact that motivation has on today’s organizations, it is important to examine some of the more contemporary theories such as the equity and expectancy theories posited by Adams and Vroom.

Equity Theory

Adams (1965) developed a theory on motivation to attempt to explain behavior influenced by the norm of equity (Lane, Irving M. & Messe, Lawrence A., 1971).  His research indicates that people who discover that they are in an inequitable relationship attempt to reduce their resultant distress by restoring either “actual” or “psychological/perceived” equity to their relationship (Adams, 1965).  The essential structure of Equity Theory is that it consists of four interdependent, or interlocking, propositions.

The first proposition is that people will attempt to maximize outcomes (where an outcome equals reward minus punishment).  The second proposition is that people in groups may maximize collective reward by devising systems for equitable apportionment of resources and will reward group members who treat others in an equitable fashion and punish group members who treat each other inequitably.  The third proposition is that people who find they are participating in inequitable relationships will become distressed at a level that is directly proportionate to the level of in-equitability exhibited.  The fourth proposition is that people will attempt to eliminate distress and resolve equity when they find themselves in an inequitable situation. 

Equity theory states that a person should be concerned about the way rewards are distributed in a group (Lane et al., 1971).  An equitable distribution gives each person a reward (outcome) that is proportional in their inputs (qualities that are perceived to be a person’s contribution to the group).  An example of Equity theory in practice is when a worker discovers that they receiving less pay than they feel is appropriate for a particular job or task; they take action to restore equity.  The action taken could be lowering personal effort or input into the job. They could also attempt to raise their outcomes by stealing from the organization or lower the employer’s outcomes by damaging company equipment. 

Expectancy Theory

Vroom’s (1964) Expectancy theory has held a major position in the study of work motivation (Van Eerde, W. & Thierry, H., 1966).  Also known as Valence, Instrumentality, Expectancy (VIE) theory, examines the relationship between worker motivation and each of these three components.  According to Vroom (1964), valence refers to the perceived value of an outcome (such as the perceived value of a reward). For example, if a worker does not value a particular reward then they will be less likely to improve performance to attain said reward.  The concept of instrumentality refers to the perceived likelihood that one outcome will lead to another (e.g., that greater rewards will result in greater job satisfaction).  Lastly, expectancy refers to the perceived likelihood that a behavior will lead to an instrumental outcome (e.g., working harder will equal greater reward).

Expectancy theory shows a heavy linkage between rewards and the amount of work needing to be done to achieve the reward.  According to Vroom’s (1964) theory, an employee will exert more effort when they believe that their increased effort will result in a positive reward.  For instance, if an employee believes they will receive a pay raise or a promotion if they receive a positive performance appraisal, they will be motivated to improve their overall job performance.  However, if the employee receives no reward following a positive appraisal, they will be demotivated to continue performing at a higher level.

Equity verses Expectancy

Expectancy theory holds that individuals seek to maximize their positive outcomes.  In contrast, Equity theory posits that individuals seek to find balance between their inputs and outcomes. (Vecchio, 1981).  Equity theory recognizes that individuals are concerned with both the absolute amount of rewards and the relationship of that amount to what others receive.  The theory proposes that employees make comparisons. Employees compare their own job inputs and outcomes with those of others and any inequities can influence the degree of effort that employees exert.  For example, employees weigh what they put into a job situation (input) against what they get from it (outcome) and then compare their input-outcome ratio with the input-outcome ratio of others.  If they perceive equity, they feel that their situation is fair, and that jus­tice prevails.  If the ratios are unequal, inequity exists and they will view themselves as either under-rewarded or over-rewarded.  While Expectancy theory emphasizes self interest in the alignment of rewards with employee's wants, Equity theory also considers the equity or inequity within a group.

 Expectancy theory argues that the strength of a tendency to act in a certain way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual (Vroom, 1964).  There are three variables: attractiveness (the importance the individual places on the potential outcome or reward that can be achieved on the job); performance-reward linkage (the degree to which the individual believes that performing at a particular level will lead to the attainment of a desired outcome); and effort-performance linkage (the perceived probability that exerting a given amount of effort will lead to performance).  Harder (1991) pointed out a major distinction between the Expectancy theory and the Equity theory. Under the Equity theory, if an individual perceived himself to be under-rewarded then he will be motivated to decrease the inequity by decreasing his performance. On the other hand, the Expectancy theory suggests that the individual may increase her performance if he perceives the outcome strongly to be desirable.

Conclusion

 Motivational theories are useful tools that can help managers design a rewards system and identify what motivates their employees.  Each motivational theory has profound implications on managers operating in today’s global environment.  Managers find themselves juggling employee job satisfaction, motivation, and performance while attempting to adapt to new cultural requirements that come with globalization.  Additionally, managers face the challenge of building a culture conducive to high morale and efficiency in their evolving organizations.  Substantially, part of this challenge is discovering what the motivators are for their employees and implementing an effective reward structure to accommodate everyone.

According to Adams (1965), managers must consider that employees will make situational comparisons between themselves and their coworkers.  If an employee finds an inequity during this comparison it can impact their motivation significantly. As such, it is important that managers understand that although they may not treat each employee the same, they must treat them fairly.  By following an established code of conduct managers must ensure an environment of equality and fairness as they issue rewards based on standard.  Moreover, by establishing a standard of rewards and incentives, employees will know what to expect from their employers. They will understand that by exhibiting certain work ethics and meeting specific goals they will receive a predetermined reward. 

As stated previously, Expectancy theory shows a heavy linkage between rewards and the amount of work needing to be done to achieve the reward.  Managers will be better able to predict performance and employees will know their position at any given time within the organization if standards are established and expectations are delivered consistently. Similarly, it is important that managers understand the theories of motivation.  By having a solid understanding of theory they will be more prepared to address motivation by applying their knowledge on the job.  While there is no guarantee that they will be successful in putting theory into practice, they will certainly increase their ability to recognize motivational issues and better prepared to affect change.

 References

Adams, J.S. (1965): Inequity in social change. In L Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology. (2) New York: Academic Press.

 Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational  Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 142-175.

 Bassett-Jones, N., & Lloyd, G. C., (2005): Does Herzberg’s motivation theory have staying power? Journal of management Development. 24 (10) 929- 943. Retrieved August 1, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 10.1108/026217105627064).

 Bowman, R.S., (2010):  Job satisfaction, morale, and cultural diversity: motivation at work. North Central University, Prescott Valley, Arizona.

Herzberg , F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: John    Wiley & Sons.

 Harder, J.W. (1991): Equity theory versus Expectancy theory: The case of major league baseball free agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 458-464.

 Lane, I.M., &Messe, L.A. (1971): Equity and the distribution of rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 20(1), 1-17.

 Maslow, A. (1954): Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.

 Susan J. Linz, Linda K. Good, & Patricia Huddleston. (2006): Worker morale in Russia: an exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(5), 415-437.  Retrieved August 18, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1091744731).

 Van Eerde, W. & Thierry, H. (1996): Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (5), 575-586.

 Vecchio, R.P. (1981). An individual-differences interpretation of the conflicting predictions generated by equity theory and expectancy theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(4), 470-481.

Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.