Process Theories of Motivation - Essay Example

? Productive behaviour and the ‘process theories’ of motivation: Why do, (if they do) people actively perform in a ‘positive’ manner to achieve organisational goals? Introduction Aristotle (2010, p. 38) said “every action must be due to one or other of seven causes: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reasoning, anger, or appetite”. These are called the motivating forces for the actions of the people. For the people to actively perform in a positive manner to achieve organizational goals, the performance needs to be in line with the organizational goal and objectives. The factors influencing alignment of performance to the organization goals are multifarious which include organizational culture, dissemination of information, integration problems and lack of accountability. Performance related to resources and financial performance in any organization is closely linked to the performance of the human resources, and therefore motivation plays a crucial role in performance management. According to Li-Qun (2006) Human Resource Management (HRM) activities range from attracting high quality employees, placing them in appropriate positions, training them to work in the firm's specific way, and motivating them to devote more enterprise to organisational goals. In managing employee performance, operational planning, monitoring of performance, establishing support services required for performance, review of performance and rewarding good performance are the important steps involved. While Content theories of motivation are related to satisfaction of needs, Process theories of motivation deals with the thought processes that influence human behaviour, and this paper seeks to analyze the issue with reference to the process theories of motivation to find out  why do, (if they do) people actively perform in a ‘positive’ manner to achieve organisational goals; whether the ‘process theories’ of motivation provide valid, reliable and predictable explanations for productive behaviour. Motivation The question “What motivates people to actively perform in a positive manner to achieve organizational goals” signifies the need for a profound conceptual analysis of the underlying factors involved in motivation. Krishnaveni & Ramukumar (2006) state “A person's behavior is the outcome of several factors or motives. Motivation is one of the important factors affecting human behavior”. The motivation is the corner stone in the analysis of human behavior which prompts the people to achieve the goals set. The answer perhaps lies in the strategies a company adopt to motivate its employees which may include simplistic approach of carrot-and-stick policy to widely prevalent stock options. Chew, Girardi & Entrekin (2005) state “Several studies of progressive HRM practices in training, compensation and reward have revealed that these can lead to reduced turnover, absenteeism, better quality work, and better financial performance”.   The crux of the issue is that the de-motivated atmosphere is like a disease which spreads very faster and engulfs the whole organization in due course of time. The permutations and combinations of variety of factors add to the complexities further. Viorel, Aurel, Cristian & Stefania (2009, p. 326) state “The European Employee Index was developed by some human resources specialists in the northern European Countries … which offered the best international benchmark ... According to this model, the employees’ motivation, their job satisfaction and sense of loyalty are the result of a large number of factors directly related to the employees’ perception of job and work environment”. Process theories of motivation When a person is rightly motivated to accomplish a task, the results would be phenomenal and the steps taken in the process involves psychological approach and planning to get the people motivated. The process seeks to study and analyze how the employees interact with each other, for example in the case of a meeting, as against the content that is the decision taken in the meeting. The interaction with each other in the meeting may be related to a problem intended to be solved in the meeting, the content being the actual solution to the problem. However, it is important to note that the process has a profound impact on the content, and the quality of the process is bound to reflect on the content. Process theories of motivation are based on the psychological and behavioral processes involved in the motivation of people. Landy & Conte (2010, p. 373) state “The first formal work motivation theory to suggest that people weighed options before choosing among them was the path-goal theory of Georgopoulos, Mahoney, and Jones (1957). They reasoned that if a worker saw high productivity as a path to the goal of desired rewards or personal goals (e.g., a pay increase or promotion, or increased power, prestige, or responsibility), that worker would likely be a high producer. Conversely, if low productivity was seen as a path to desired rewards (i.e., less stress, more time with family, approval of co-workers), that worker would likely be a low producer”. Options before the people such as hike in pay, promotions, prestige and authority influences the people’s behavior to actively perform in a positive manner and forms the basis for achieving the organization goals. The process theories of motivation seek to explain the underlying causes in organizational behavior which underline the basic linkage between the productivity which could be logically considered as ‘input’ and the rewards as ‘output’ in the process. Several theories of motivation have been propounded such as Equity theory, Expectancy theory and goal setting theory. The main focus of various theories revolves around the need for influencing the behavior of the people or the question, how to motivate the people to actively perform in a ‘positive’ manner to achieve organisational goals. Equity Theory of motivation (1963) “John Stacey Adams, a workplace and behavioural psychologist, put forward his Equity Theory on job motivation in 1963”. (RTU, 2010) According to this theory, the perception of inequalities can result into behavioral changes. When there is discontent arising out of unfair treatment or no equity in dealing with the workers, the situation will prompt a person to be less motivated. According to this theory, in respect of the inputs by the employees in terms of skills and efforts and the outcome in the form of salary, status and other benefits, if there is mismatch perceived by the employees in comparison with the coworkers, the individuals reduce their efforts or ask for more compensation to strike a balance between the inputs and rewards, and may go to the extent of taking legal action for the rectification of the situation. Otherwise, it results into their change of own perception or lead them to quit. Yamaguchi (2003, p. 324) states “According to equity theory (Adams, 1963a, b, 1965; Walster et al, 1978), a person can be satisfied with his/her input (i.e. efforts) and outcomes (i.e. rewards) is in equilibrium and the ratio is in balance between him/herself and his/her counterparts (or referent others) in their transactions. When the ratio is not balanced, people feel distress or “tension” (Adams, 1965) due to perceived inequity”. In the perception of imbalance by the employees in the input output relationship, increased inputs results into dissatisfaction if the inputs are greater compared to the outputs. The range of inputs varies from hard work, skill, loyalty, and flexibility to tolerance and sacrifices and the outputs may be financial or non-financial. While the financial rewards include pay and benefits, non financial rewards are mostly intangible in nature and include power, recognition, authority, and job security. Being realistic, equity theory of motivation should work effectively when the distinction is clear, that is, the productivity of the employees who are well rewarded tends to be higher and the under rewarded employees lower. Anderson &Patterson (2008, p. 224) points out “people with a prosocial value orientation are motivated to maximize both their own outcome and the outcomes of others. People with an individualistic orientation are motivated to maximize their own outcome without consideration of others’ outcomes. Finally, people with a competitor orientation are motivated maximize their own outcome at other people’s expense”. Therefore, the equity theory does not take into account the orientation of the people which is inherent in their behaviour, by using a common denominator. The advantages and the disadvantages in respect of the theory are contingent upon the application of the theory and its appropriateness with reference to the situation. In the equitable treatment to the employees as envisaged in this theory, the rewards are distributed proportionately in relation to the contributions made by the employees. The chief advantage of the theory is due to the fact that wherever the inputs are measurable in terms of punctuality, quantity produced, quality of the work and rejections, for example as in the case of production in the shop floor, the rewards in these cases could be computed on an equitable basis and would be comparable. However, when the computation process becomes difficult or determination of contributions involves several subjective opinions on the part of the management staff, the rewards based on such assessments may be unsatisfactory and could lead to complaints. The main disadvantage could be the assessment of fairness of intangible outputs, as it varies from person to person based on several factors such as cultural background, education and experience.  Individuals with different cultural backgrounds may not behave in uniform manner when inequity exists.  Another important variable is the experience of the employees which has not been factored into the inputs. Since the experience and wisdom accumulated by the employees during the course of employment over the period of time cannot be ignored. If the reward is in the form of pay based on performance and by and large measureable, the relevance of equity theory is enhanced. If the basis is understood and accepted by the employees, the equity theory of motivation provides valid, reliable and predictable explanations for productive behaviour. Expectancy Theory of motivation People in general would predict the future outcomes based on the realistic expectation according to their perceptions. People are motivated by the attractiveness of the outcomes and its probabilities. Gunkel (2006, p. 14) writes “Victor Vroom (1964), in his theory, states that motivation is based on the assumption that behavior is purposeful and directed. In other words, individuals act in a way in which their utility is maximized”. The important three variables according to the theory are attractiveness or desirability of the outcome, correlation of performance to the reward and correlation between effort and performance and therefore, the factors governing the theory are attractiveness, expectancy and instrumentality. An individual is motivated to perform when the perception about outcomes are high. This theory is to a greater extent, similar to the positive reinforcement theory holding out that the reward influences an individual’s behavior. Milonowski (2003) used a modified version of Expectancy Theory (Vroom, 1964) to develop a model to identify what a knowledge and skill based pay program needs to do in order to motivate skill acquisition and states “simply offering teachers a pay increase or bonus will not necessarily motivate them to acquire the needed skills” (p. 4) and concludes, “a program can be designed to provide significant incentives for knowledge and skill development while retaining some rewards for seniority”. (p. 30) In the case of teaching, correlation of performance to the reward and correlation between effort and performance cannot be established with reasonable accuracy. The application of theory would be beneficial only where the management can establish this relationship fairly well. The disadvantages in respect of expectancy theory arise out of perceptions of the people. Under expectancy theory different people may be motivated differently based on the attractiveness and the probabilities of the outcomes from their angle. The expectations realistic from their point of view may be reasonable or even unreasonable. The expectations or aspirations of an incumbent and the aspirations of the people next in line could be inconsistent. Some outcomes are desirable and some or not. For example, working hard for longer hours could be aimed for increments in salary and promotion. But, this outcome is likely to affect the personal and social life. Also, the degree of importance attached to various possible outcomes are conditioned by several factors such as age, additional responsibilities involved, additional training required or learning new skills. But, the understanding and recognition of these factors on the part of the management are nevertheless important in devising their strategies. The expectations could be fulfilled with a balanced approach without negative impact on the employees as far as possible for making people to actively perform in a ‘positive’ manner to achieve organisational goals. For example, when a person aspires for promotion and another one for increment both may be satisfied by the respective outcomes, instead of interchanging the outcomes between these employees! Another major drawback observed is the non-recognition of the need for integrating moral principles into practice. Fudge & Schlacter (1999, p. 295) “Many businesses still face the challenge of turning their moral principles into practice…thereby preserving not only preserving the integrity of the business conventions and institutions, but also the personal, cultural an environmental concerns which fall outside of them”. Motivation of employees ethically is very important in dealing with the complex social issues for a sustainable development. However Fudge & Schlacter (1999, p. 303) also suggests that the corporate environment could be structured so that ethical performance could be linked to the rewards. Equity theory focuses on fairness and justice and under this theory an individual will be motivated to decrease the performance if the individual is under-rewarded. Under the Expectancy theory a person may increase the performance, because the individual could perceive the outcome as strongly desirable. Different process theory models could be used in an organization in different divisions based on the requirements in each case. Porter-Lawler Theory of motivation Miner (2007, p. 68) states “Porter and Lawler (1968) present a model that draws heavily on Vroom but goes beyond the limited concept of motivational force to performance as a whole”. It is an extension of the expectancy theory. According to the Porter-Lawler Theory, the effort made in accomplishing a task is determined by the value of rewards on completion of the task and its probability as perceived by the employees. The abilities and traits and the role perceptions of the individuals influence the efforts and performance. Satisfaction is derived when the rewards received are equal to or in excess of the expectations. This performance incentive model provides valid, reliable and predictable explanations for productive behavior as it is related to value of rewards, its probability, the efforts, perceived rewards in an equitable manner and satisfaction. Gunkel, M (p.15) states “A distinctive feature of the Porter-Lawler model is the fact that it recognizes that performance can lead to extrinsic rewards, intrinsic rewards or both”. As it is an extension of the expectancy theory, the criticisms to the expectancy theory are applicable to this theory also. In an incentive system, a person expects that he will be paid certain amount on completion of specified number of units which is performance- to-outcome expectancy. It makes difference only when an element of attractiveness is introduced in the system. But, Miner (2007, p. 70) argues that if the person has just inherited a fortune, the pay involved or the additional pay as an outcome may not act as a motivating factor. Goal-Setting theory of motivation Locke & Latham (2002, p. 705) states “Goal-setting theory was formulated inductively largely on the basis of our empirical research conducted over nearly four decades. It is based on Ryan’s (1970) premise that conscious goals affect action’. Process theories like equity theory, expectancy theories or its variations in general are oriented towards individuals, their perceptions and expectations in motivating the people to actively perform in a ‘positive’ manner to achieve organisational goals. However, taking into account the collective bargain in the backdrop of unionism, there are practical difficulties in giving shape to a policy which is oriented towards individuals’ performance. What is acceptable to the majority needs to be considered under most of the circumstances. For example, Lin. (2009, p.45) argues that Chinese pay great attention to harmoniousness and do not like to destroy relationship of collectivity. Therefore, the motivator aim at individual in west is not applicable in china any more. Chinese enterprises should consider the collective motivation. It is pertinent to note that only the majority point of view has a strong backing of all the employees in the organization, and would be eventually crucial in formulation or implementation of the strategies relating to labor. In Goal setting theory, the participation of all the employees is taken into account, which is in line with the union culture prevailing in the businesses and the industries. Participation of the employees in the goal setting process has been highlighted in the Goal Setting Theory of motivation. Schunk (2004) states “Effective goal setting requires that people set a long-term goal, break it into short-term, attainable sub-goals, monitor progress and assess capabilities, adjust the strategy and goal as needed, and set a new goal when the present one is attained”. Goals are instrumental in motivating the employees to higher level of performance. However, involving them in the goal setting process ensures commitment on the part of them and the targets become achievable, even under difficult situations. The principal benefit in this goal setting theory of motivation is the understanding of the employees about the goals. Unlike the equity or expectancy theories of motivation goal setting theory is grounded on the principle of involvement of the people in the organizational goal setting process, and in this respect this theory provides valid, reliable and predictable explanations for productive behavior, though it does not deal comprehensively with the input output relationship. However, the involvement of the employees in the goal setting process means breaking up of the goals into smaller components based on the factors such divisions in the organization, geography and hierarchy, for the measurement of inputs for example as in the case of equity theory and establishing the various parameters in relation to measurement. Since the performance is greatly linked to the acceptance of the goals, especially in unionized environment, combination of this theory with the other input-output based theories would yield better results. Locky & Latham (2002, p. 706) state “Goal-setting theory appears to contradict Vroom’s (1964) valence–instrumentality– expectancy theory… because difficult goals are harder to attain than easy goals, expectancy of goal success would presumably be negatively related to performance”. It is pertinent to note that motivation is based on the assumption that behavior is purposeful and directed according to expectancy theory of motivation, and in the goal setting process purpose and direction is made clear through the involvement of the people. Though there may be differences in the process among the companies, the principle of employee participation is the basic objective. Tang et al (2009, 109) state “While there is variation from organization to organization in goal types as well as in goals, there are some common goal types that must be satisfied in order for organizations to achieve a satisfactory performance”. Therefore in combination with the other theories of motivation Goal setting theory would be useful in achieving the organization goals by improving the productive behavior. Process theories of motivation and Productive behavior The process theories of motivation to a greater extent provide valid, reliable and predictable explanations for productive behavior. For example, these theories could eminently form the basis for the introduction of incentive system in production. The rewards are linked to performance and these theories provide the relationship which governs the productive behavior of the people. However, to ensure that the motivating factors discussed by the various process theories of motivation are successfully introduced and implemented, recognition of the role of HRD (Human Resources Development) and effective communication system is important in improving the productive behaviour. For example, in the case of equity theory of motivation, whether the treatment is equitable or not depends upon the perception of the employees and they need to know the basis and get convinced. The management has to effectively communicate with the employees about the fairness and other relevant details. Ansar (2009) states “In order to keep an organization staff motivated and productive based on process theories there must be good communication between workers and management”. It is very important to note that any incentive program, productivity bonus or standards to be established in respect of performance cannot be finalized without explicit support of the unions. Reynolds (2008) states “Economists who study unions—including some who are avowedly prounion—analyze them as cartels that raise wages above competitive levels by restricting the supply of labor to various firms and industries”. Any scheme which is unilaterally introduced by the management without consulting the union would be vehemently opposed. Therefore, the motivation theories which have been representative of the sentiments prevailing in the society at some point of time in the corporate history have to undergo changes or to be modified in line with the developments taken place over the period of time. The cultural background of a person could also influence a person’s productive behavior. The psychological aspects of a person such as guilt feelings or fear, which are complex in nature, also play a role in motivating the people to do certain things in a specific manner or style. Strengthening the HRM and communication system is very important to increase the level of motivation in an organization. Guest, (201, p.5) states “…the development of research that has emerged as more central in the past decade concerns the key role of workers and the importance of workers' perceptions and behaviour in understanding the relationship between HRM and performance”. Conflicts in an organization are common phenomena and free and open interaction at all levels aids motivation by reducing misunderstandings. How does motivation relate to communication? American Jewish University (2004) in a paper starting with this question states “Since employees respond best to communication when they are content with their positions, the key factor is to determine a methodology to achieve this level of happiness and satisfaction”. In directing the behavior of the employees and in dealing with the psychological issues involved in the process, the motivational theories would be useful for making the people actively perform in a ‘positive’ manner to achieve organisational goals. Use of theories of motivation by corporate companies The corporate companies have been successful in formulating their policies on the basis of process theories of motivation to improve the productive behaviour for the achievement of their organizational goals. Vodafone The company website of Vodafone states “We encourage our employees to take time to recognise the contributions, big and small, being made by our people everyday”.  Some of the measures taken by the company include recognition e-cards’ to say ‘thanks’ or ‘well done’, star awards by giving vouchers and other benefits and pioneer awards who make difference to delivering the company’s strategy. Also, the scheme for buying company shares to enhance the commitment of the employees and the pension scheme whereby the company contributes 1.5 times of the employees’ contribution up to a maximum of 7.5%, life insurance worth three times of the salary on investment decisions made by the employees, performance-related pay schemes that focus on company and individual performance measures and other range of benefits and awards through which the company recognizes the contribution of the employees. All these activities have encouraged the people to actively perform in a ‘positive’ manner to achieve organisational goals by giving equitable treatment in line with the theories of motivation. Performance-related pay schemes in line with the equity theory focus on company and individual performance measures and it is stated “these measures are transparent and monitored on a regular basis so you'll know exactly how your performance and the company's influence the level of reward you receive” (Vodafone website, 2008). The success in application of the equity theory of motivation in practice hinges on transparency in the measurement of performance for the purpose of rewards. Once the method is properly communicated and well understood by the employees, the programs will act as a great motivating factor to the productive behavior. Also, in accordance with the expectancy theory, the prediction of the future outcomes are possible based on the realistic expectations and the people are motivated by the attractiveness of the outcomes and its probabilities. The position is further strengthened since the efforts made in accomplishing a task is determined by the value of rewards on completion of the task and its probability as perceived by the employees as proposed in Porter-Lawler Theory of motivation (1968). Participation of the employees in the goal setting process has been highlighted in the Goal Setting Theory of motivation (1970). Goals are instrumental in motivating the employees to higher level of performance. In any performance-related pay schemes which are in vogue in any company, it is implied that the performance level is linked to the organizational goal has been accepted by the employees and they are least indirectly involved in the goal setting process. Ultimately, understanding the goals and the rewards associated with the achievement of these goals are important. By and large, the company has adopts the Process theories of motivation which provide valid, reliable and predictable explanations for productive behavior, and encourages people in a positive manner to achieve organizational goals. Xerox Corporation In the case of Xerox Corporation, the concept as envisaged in the goal setting theory of motivation has been successfully employed in the revival process. The Xerox Corp’s revival is a landmark in corporate history, an example of motivating the people to actively perform in a ‘positive’ manner to achieve the organisational goals. Participation of the employees in the goal setting process has been highlighted in the Goal Setting Theory of motivation. Trust in the strategies of the management by the employees of an organization is a powerful motivating factor in stimulating them to actively perform in a positive manner to achieve the organizational goals, and the employees have been involved in the revival process by convincing about its plans and goals. ICMR (2004) states “Even before the reorganization plan was revealed to the public, Allaire [former CEO] and Mulcahy [became CEO in 2001] spent a lot of time traveling in the US and overseas to meet and talk with as many Xerox employees as possible and prepare them for the changes that were going to happen”. The management’s efforts in explaining to the employees what they planned to do and how it would affect the employees made it possible for the management to execute the proposed strategies with the complete backing of the employees, who were motivated enough to support the revival plan after getting convinced about the efficacy of the strategy and their role in implementation of the strategy. The involvement of the employees in formulating the strategies eliminates resistance and ensures active performance of the employees in a positive manner in the achievement of the organizational goals. DocShare (2009, p.1), states “The core of the strategy revolves on the efficient employee involvement, competitive benchmarking and continual improvement. This turnaround strategy further propelled Xerox in the recommended direction and had given the company the success it deserved”. The elimination of the ‘resistance factor’ which could act as a barrier to change has been useful in the revival process. The company has successfully integrated the theories of motivation in practice by linking outputs to the inputs effectively. According to the company website, salaries and benefits include “Competitive salary, Performance Related bonus system, Choice of contract (Renewable fixed term or permanent - you decide!), Relocation package, Private Health insurance, Private Pension, Life Assurance, and more”. The financial and nonfinancial rewards aim to improve productive behavior and encourage the people to actively perform in a ‘positive’ manner to achieve organisational goals. Conclusion Process theories of motivation are effective in providing valid, reliable and predictable explanations for productive behavior in most of the situations, and encourage people in a positive manner to achieve organizational goals. A study by Hassan, Hagen & Daigs (2006) revealed that a positive and significant relationship between five strategic human resources management practices (job security, selective hiring, self-managed teams and decentralization, extensive training and development programs, and comparatively high compensation contingent on organizational performance) and the company's labor productivity. In motivating the employees for better performance to achieve the organizational goals, failure to review the performance standards or the goals, in the light of the changes in the processes or environment, on a regular basis could be considered as a major drawback in the implementation process. Regular follow up ensures timely intervention to make the necessary adjustments, discard the inefficient methods, rectify the defects in the system and revise the goals wherever necessary, well before the problems can contribute for de-motivation among the employees. Establishing effective communication, both vertical and lateral, through proper reporting system and restructuring the organization in line with the goals to reflect proper vertical and horizontal alignment within the organization is essential. The companies are successfully adopting theories of motivation in encouraging people to actively perform in a positive manner to achieve organizational goals since these theories provide valid, reliable and predictable explanations for productive behavior. Word count: 4803 References American Jewish University, 2004, Improving Management/Employee Communication: Part I - Theories of Motivation, viewed 27 March 2011, Anderson, W. D. & Patterson, M. L., 2008, ‘Effects of Social Value Orientation on Fairness Judgments’, The Journal of Social Psychology, Volume 148, Issue 2, pp. 223-245. Ansar, M. 2009, The process theories of motivation, Helium: Psychology. 30 July 2009. viewed 5 March 2011, Aristotle, 2010, Rhetoric, Translator: Roberts, WR, Editor: Ross, WD, Cosimo Classics, 2010. ISBN: 978-1-61640-307-2. Chew, J., Girardi, A. & Entrekin, L. 2005, ‘Retaining core staff: the impact of human resource practices on organisational commitment’. Journal of Comparative International Management, 1 December 2005, viewed 3 March 2011, DocShare, 2009, Case Study Xerox Corporation, viewed 3March 2011, Fudge, R. S. & Schlacter, J. L., 1999, ‘Motivating employees to act ethically: An expectancy theory approach’, Journal of Business Ethics, Feb 1999, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp.295-304. Guest, DE. 2011, ‘Human resource management and performance: still searching for some answers’, Human Resource Management Journal, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp. 3-13, 13 January 2011, viewed 5 March 2011, Gunkel, M. 2006, ‘Country-Competitive Incentive Design: A Comparison of Employees’ Performance Reward Preferences in Germany and the USA’, International Management Studies, Hrsg: Wolff, B., DUV Gabler Edition Wissenschaft. Hassan, M., Hagen, A. & Daigs, I. 2006, ‘Strategic human resources as a strategic weapon for enhancing labor productivity: empirical evidence’, Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 1 January 2006, viewed 4 March 2011, ICMR 2004, Xerox Corp's Turnaround Strategy, viewed 5 March 2011, Krishnaveni, R. & Ramukumar, N. 2006, ‘Impact of Developmental Climate on Individual's Behavior in the Organization[dagger’, South Asian Journal of Management, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp. 46-60. Landy, FJ. & Conte, JM. 2010, Work in 21st Century: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3rd edition, Wiley-Blackwell. Lin, S. 2009, ‘The Differences of Sino-American Culture and Effects on the Motivation Pattern in Chinese Enterprises’, International Journal of Business and Management, Volume 4, Issue 1, viewed 4 March 2011, Li-Qun, 2006, ‘Strategic human resource management: determinants of fit’. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management. 1 December 2006, viewed 5 March 2011, Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. 2002, ‘Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation’, September 2002. American Psychologist Vol. 57, No. 9, pp. 705–717. Milonowski, A. 2003, ‘The Varieties of Knowledge and Skill-Based Pay Design: A Comparison of Seven New Pay Systems for K-12 Teachers’, Education Policy Analysis Archives, Voume 11, Number 4, viewed 26 March 2011, Miner, J. B. 2007, Organizational Behavior: From Theory to Practice, M. E. Sharpe, Inc. Reynolds, M. O., 2008, Labor Unions, Library of Economics and Liberty, viewed 7 April 2011, Regional Training Institute (RTU), 2010, BSCC : Adams ' Equity Theory, viewed 7 April 2011, Schunk, D. H. 2004, Self-Regulation through Goal Setting, ERICDIGESTS.ORG, viewed 5 March 2011, Tang, Z. et al 2009, ‘The Impact of Organizational Goal Setting on the Industrial Munificence-Goal Attainment Relationship’, International Journal of Business and Management, Volume 3, Issue 3, viewed 5 March 2011, Viorel, L., Aurel, M., Cristian, M. & Stefania, PR. 2009, ‘EMPLOYEES MOTIVATION THEORIES DEVELOPED AT AN INTERNATIONAL LEVEL’, Annals of the University of Oradea : Economic Science, Volume 4, Issue: 1 pp. 324-328, viewed 3 March 2011, Vodafone 2008 Why Vodafone, Rewards and benefits, viewed 25 March 2011, Xerox Corporation, Training, Development and Leadership, 2010, Report on Global Citizenship, Company’s website, viewed 5 March 2011, Xerox, 2011, Employment in Xerox Ireland, Company’s website, viewed 5 March 2011, Yamaguchi, I., 2003, The relationship among individual differences, needs and equity sensitivity, Journal of Management Psychology, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp. 324-344. Read More