Avenue for Equity Restoration and Performance Changes - Essay Example

Leadership Of LEADERSHIP INTRODUCTION A number of theories have been proposed to explain individual motivation to perform in organizations. Equity theory and expectancy theory are two approaches that have generated a considerable amount of research, but under some conditions, these two theories produce opposite predictions. According to equity theory (Adams, 1963, 1965; Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978), outcomes will be perceived as fair when the ratio of outcomes to inputs is equal across individuals. Inequity exists when the outcome–input ratios between a focal person and a comparative referent are unequal. Inequity is posited to create tension, which motivates an individual to restore equity. This restoration of equity can be accomplished in a number of ways. Outcomes can be altered, objectively or psychologically; inputs can be altered, objectively or psychologically; comparative referents can be changed; or an individual can leave or psychologically withdraw from the situation. As Greenberg (1989) pointed out, however, equity research offers little guidance as to when psychological adjustments rather than objective adjustments will occur. Complicating the matter further, psychological adjustments are difficult to measure and validate. Equity theory predictions about reactions to inequity have been tested primarily in laboratory experiments. The typical experiment involves (a) subjects performing a task, (b) distribution of a monetary reward and performance feedback, and (c) measurement of performance on a subsequent iteration of the task. Situations of inequity are set up through the manipulation of rewards and performance feedback, and individual responses to these inequitable situations are measured. As reviews of equity research have pointed out (Goodman & Friedman, 1971; Greenberg, 1982, 1987; Walster et al., 1978), these laboratory studies have shown that equity perceptions can significantly alter individuals performances. However, these studies have been largely “one-shot affairs” (Homans, 1982, p. xv) and have typically not allowed time for performance–outcome expectancies to develop among subjects. Subjects who decrease their performance when faced with perceived underreward probably do not view this decrease in performance as leading to decreased future rewards. DISCUSSION By the 1950s, several new models of work motivation emerged, which collectively have been referred to as content theories, since their principal aim was to identify factors associated with motivation. Included here is Maslows (1954) need hierarchy theory, which suggests that, as individuals develop, they work their way up a hierarchy based on the fulfillment of a series of prioritized needs, including physiological, safety and security, belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization (Tolman, 2003). Maslow argued that the first three needs on the list represent deficiency needs that people must master before they can develop into a healthy personality, while the last two represent growth needs that relate to individual achievement and the development of human potential. Alderfer (1972) later adapted this model to encompass just three needs: existence, relatedness, and growth. Maslows theory contends that man has five basic categories of needs which are ranked and satisfied on a hierarchy ranging from lower-order to higher-order needs -- first the physiological needs, followed by the safety and security, affiliation, esteem and self-actualisation needs respectively. Although Maslows theory is intuitively appealing, various criticisms have been levelled at it. De Cenzo & Robbins (1988:315), for instance, are of the opinion that Maslow did not provide sufficient empirical substantiation for his theory. Steers & Porter (1991: 38) conclude from a review of seventeen studies that no conclusive evidence has emerged to support two central aspects of Maslows theory. Firstly, that no evidence emerged that human needs are classified in five distinct categories, or that these categories are structured in any special hierarchy (Steers & Porter, 1991). Secondly, that lower-level needs must be satisfied before higher-level needs are activated. A central aspect of Maslows theory, namely the progressive satisfaction of needs on a hierarchy from lower-order to higher-order needs (in other words, need-progression), is thus questioned. A variety of research studies have related need-progression to job level ascendance (Haywood-Farmer & Leenders, 1986; Hong, Yang, Wang, Chiou, Sun & Huang, 1995). It has been suggested that at lower levels of employment the focus of employees would be on endeavours to satisfy the lower-order needs (namely physiological, safety and security, and affiliation) and as employees move up in the organisational structure their focus changes to the satisfaction of the higher-order needs (esteem and self-actualisation) (Tolman, 2003). A second need theory of the same era, first introduced by Murray (1938) but more fully developed by McClelland (1961,1971), ignored the concept of a hierarchy and focused instead on the motivational potency of an array of distinct and clearly defined needs, including achievement, affiliation, power, and autonomy. McClelland argued that, at any given time, individuals possess several often competing needs that serve to motivate behavior when activated. This contrasts with Maslows notion of a steady progression over time up a hypothetical hierarchy as individuals grow and mature. By far, most of the attention in McClellands model focused on the needs for achievement (defined as behavior directed toward competition with a standard of excellence) and power (defined as a need to have control over ones environment). McClellands conceptualization offered researchers a set of clearly defined needs as they related to workplace behavior, in contrast to Maslows more abstract conceptualizations (e.g., need for achievement versus need for self-actualization) and, thus, has found considerable popularity in research on individual factors relating to work motivation. Another motivation theory at odds with the need-progression proposition is the need theory of McClelland (1962). According to this theory, many needs are acquired through the individuals interaction with culture. McClelland singled out three needs that are important motivators of behaviour, namely the needs for achievement, power and affiliation. It has been suggested that due to the learned nature of these needs, different people have different configurations of needs (Ivancevich & Matteson, 1999). In other words, a particular configuration at a particular time can include both higher and lower-order needs, thus debunking the need-progression theory. Much of the research on the job level ascendance-need satisfaction relationship, however, appears to favour the need-progression proposition. Porter (1962,1963), for instance, conducted a series of studies on the influence of job level on need satisfaction. These studies have shown that need fulfilment deficiency decreases as employees move from lower management to middle and top management (Tolman, 2003). Porter (1962: 383) concludes that the vertical location of the manager in the organisational structure is a determinant of the degree to which that manager feels he can satisfy certain psychological needs, more particularly the higher-order needs (esteem, autonomy and self-actualisation). In a follow-up study Porter addressed the doubt with regard to the progressive satisfaction of needs as job level increases. Porters results indicated that as job level decreased from top to lower management, autonomy, esteem and self-actualisation needs were less likely to be fulfilled. There were, however, no significant differences, between the various job levels as far as security and social needs were concerned. Many of the ideas emerging from the 1960s and 1970s have subsequently been extended and further developed to reflect an expanded pool of research findings and more sophisticated research methods. Indeed, the 1980s witnessed a series of refinements and extensions of existing theories (Triandis, 2005). For example, researchers made great strides in conceptual developments and empirical work focusing on social learning theory, as they did in new work focusing on goal-setting theory, job design, reward systems, punishment, procedural justice, innovation and creativity, and cross-cultural influences on work behavior. However, by the 1990s, intellectual interest in work motivation theory --at least as measured by journal publications--seemed to decline precipitously. As evidence of this, consider the number of theoretical (as opposed to empirical) articles published in leading behavioral science journals over the past decade. You will find few articles that focus on genuine theoretical developments in this area. Instead, you will see minor extensions, empirical tests, or applications of existing theories (Triandis, 2005). While clearly helpful, this hardly leads to breakthrough developments in our understanding of the principles underlying work motivation. At the same time, a review of the most recent editions of textbooks in the field of management and organizational behavior reveals that most of the theories discussed date from the 1960s and 1970s, with only fleeting references to more recent work. (It is also curious that some early motivation theories that have subsequently been widely discredited continue to permeate such texts.) In short, while other fields of management research (e.g., leadership, decision making, negotiations, groups and teams, and organization design) continue to develop conceptually, substantive theoretical developments focusing on work motivation have not kept pace (Triandis, 2005). An outside observer might conclude from this situation that either we have lost interest in the subject of work motivation (perhaps because it is no longer a pressing issue in organizations) or that we solved the work motivation problem long ago, thereby eliminating the need for additional work. Neither of these conclusions seems very plausible. On the contrary, in the new economy, replete with its dot.coms, e-commerce, and increased globalization (as well as the more traditional manufacturing and service firms), a motivated workforce is frequently cited as a hallmark of competitive advantage. (Triandis, 2005) Indeed, MIT economist Lester Thurow observed over a decade ago that successful companies (and countries) will compete in the future based principally on the quality of both their technology and their human resources. A motivated workforce becomes a critical strategic asset in such competition. Why, then, has there been so little intellectual activity focusing on this important topic? Perhaps we have yet to develop the breakthrough ideas that can push us to the next level of understanding. While theoretical developments on work motivation may have declined in recent years, the world of work has changed dramatically. Indeed, one can argue that the past decade has witnessed greater workplace changes than any other decade in memory. Companies are both downsizing and expanding (often at the same time, in different divisions or levels of the hierarchy (Triandis, 2005)). The workforce is characterized by increased diversity with highly divergent needs and demands. Information technology has frequently changed both the manner and location of work activities. New organizational forms (such as those found in e-commerce) are now commonplace. Teams are redefining the notion of hierarchy, as well as traditional power distributions (Triandis, 2005). The use of contingent workers is on the rise. Managing knowledge workers continues to perplex experienced managers across divergent industries. And globalization and the challenges of managing across borders are now the norm instead of the exception. CONCLUSION The results presented here suggest that individuals faced with inequitable under reward will choose the avenue of decreased performance to the extent that it does not affect future rewards. If decreasing performance will adversely affect future rewards, then alternative avenues for restoring equity will be undertaken. This analysis tested only one avenue for equity restoration, performance changes. REFERENCES Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422–436. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267–299). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Adams, J. S. (1968). Effects of overpayment: Two comments on Lawlers paper. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 315–316. Glassock, S. & Gram, K. 1995. Winning ways: establishing an effective workplace recognition system, National Productivity Review, 14(3): 91-102. Goodman, P. S., & Friedman, A. (1971). An examination of Adams theory of inequity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 271–288. Greenberg, J. (1982). Approaching equity and avoiding inequity in groups and organizations. In J.Greenberg & R. L.Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 389–435). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Homans, G. C. (1982). Foreword. In J.Greenberg & R. L.Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. xi–xviii). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Pinder, C. 1998. Work motivation in organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Porter, L. W., Bigley, G. A., & Steers, R. M. 2003. Motivation and work behavior (7th ed.): Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin/McGraw-Hill. Prokopenko, J. 1987. Productivity Management: a practical handbook. Geneva: International Labour Office. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55: 68-78. Tolman, E. C. 2003. Principle of purposive behavior. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of science, vol. 2: 239-261. New York: McGraw-Hill. Triandis, H. C. 2005. Motivation and achievement in collectivist and individualistic cultures. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, vol. 9: 1-30. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Shore, L.M. Newton, L.A. & Thornton III, G.C. 2000. Job and organisational attitudes in relation to employee behavioural intentions, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, II: 57-67. Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Read More