Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Expectancy Theory
Expectancy Theory Overview
The Expectancy Theory of Motivation is one of the process theories. It provides an explanation of
why individuals choose one behavioral option over others. "The basic idea behind the theory is that
people will be motivated because they believe that their decision will lead to their desired
outcome" (Redmond, 2009). "Expectancy theory proposes that work motivation is dependent upon
the perceived association between performance and outcomes and individuals modify their
behavior based on their calculation of anticipated outcomes" (Chen & Fang, 2008). This has a
practical and positive benefit of improving motivation because it can, and has, helped leaders
create motivational programs in the workplace. "This theory is built upon the idea that motivation
comes from a person believing they will get what they want in the form of performance or
rewards. Although the theory is not "all inclusive" of individual motivation factors, it provides
leaders with a foundation on which to build a better understanding of ways to motivate
subordinates" (AETC, 2008). Expectancy theory is classified as a process theory of motivation
because it emphasizes individual perceptions of the environment, and subsequent interactions
arising as a consequence of personal expectations.
The theory states that individuals have different sets of goals and can be motivated if they believe
that:
The desire to satisfy the need is strong enough to make the effort worthwhile (Lawler, Porter. L.,
Vroom, 2009).
Tolman's Behavior and Motivation Theory
Edward Tolman was a cognitive behavioral psychologist who studied motivation and learning. He
was born in Newton Massachusetts in 1886. He was introduced to Gestalt psychology while
studying in Germany. Tolman used rats for his experiments on learning. One of these experiments
led to the theory of latent learning. This theory describes learning with no obvious reward for the
learner. Tolman also began to develop the theory of behavior and motivation. He theorized that a
motive drives a persons to behave a certain way until some intrinsic need is met. Until the need is
met the person will continue to behave in the same manner. This was the start of the motivation
theories. Vroom would add to Tolmans work with the Expectancy theory later in history
(VanderZwaag, 1998).
Vroom's Expectancy Theory
Expectancy:
Expectancy can be described as the belief that higher or increased effort will yield better
performance. This can be explained by the thinking of "If I work harder, I will make
something better".
Conditions that enhance expectancy include having the correct resources available, having
the required skill set for the job at hand, and having the necessary support to get the job
done correctly.
Instrumentality:
Instrumentality can be described as the thought that if an individual performs well, then a
valued outcome will come to that individual. Some things that help instrumentality are
having a clear understanding of the relationship between performance and the outcomes,
having trust and respect for people who make the decisions on who gets what reward, and
seeing transparency in the process of who gets what reward.
Valence:
Valence means "value" and refers to beliefs about outcome desirability (Redmond, 2010).
There are individual differences in the level of value associated with any specific outcome.
For instance, a bonus may not increase motivation for an employee who is motivated by
Scaffolding upon some of Vroom's original work, Porter and Lawler developed a theoretical model
suggesting that the expenditure or an individual's energy or efforts will be determined by the level
of expectations that a specific outcome may be obtained and the degree to which that outcome is
valued by someone (Pinder, 1984). This theory became known as expectancy theory, or VIE theory
(valence, instrumentality, and expectancy). The following information is concerned with exploring
the components of expectancy theory, analyzing the research dedicated to the theory, identifying
strengths and weaknesses, and discussing the factors that explain motivational behavior in the
workplace. It will be examined to demonstrate the application of expectancy theory in practical
terms. Each of these elements will be instrumental in better understanding one of the more popular
theories for explaining and influencing motivational behavior, particularly in the workplace.
Vroom also believed that increased effort will lead to increased performance, given the person has
the right tools to get the job done. The expected outcome is dependent upon whether or not the
person has the right resources to get the job done, have the right skills to do the task at hand, and
they MUST have the support to get the job done. That support may come from the boss, or just
being given the right information or tools to finish the job.
Although many people correlate high performance with high rewards, many times the theory is
limited because rewards are not always directly correlated with performance in many
organizations. It is related to other parameters also such as position, effort, responsibility,
education, etc
It is important to remember that there is a difference between incentives and motivators. Incentives
are non-material objects. They are manipulated by managers and leaders to get employees to do
desired tasks. Incentives may work, if the incentive is something the employee desires to work
towards. But, if the incentive is taken away, the behavior may not sustain. Motivation theories
need to accentuate motivation and not incentives for this reason Motivation implies that people
make decisions about their own behavior and what motivates them
The locus of control is different for incentives and motivation. Motivation is intrinsic control
where incentives are extrinsically controlled by people in the organization(Mathibe, 2011).
______________________________________________________________________________
(Scholl, 2002)
Diagram 2
Expectancy (EP)
"The relationship between Effort and Performance is known as the E-P linkage" (Isaac, 2001).
"The expectancy component of expectancy theory is the belief that one's effort (E), will give the
expected performance (P) goal" (Scholl, 2002). Expectancy is slated as the first component of the
VIE theory; illustrating that in order for a person to be effectively motivated, that individual needs
to perceive that their personal expenditure of effort will result in an acceptable level of
performance. The concept of perception is very important throughout this theory, as it concludes
that in order for a person to be motivated into putting effort towards a task, they need only to
believe that their effort will result in a certain level of performance, or that a certain level of
performance is attainable. An example would be, "If I salt the sidewalk, will it be safer to walk
on?" There are variables that affect an individual's expectancy perception. These variables include
self-efficacy (a person's belief in their ability to perform successfully), goal difficulty (how
attainable is this goal), and control (does the person actually have control over the expected
outcome).
Because VIE Theory involves perceptions, and expectancy is a belief about the future rather than a
concrete existence in the environment, peoples beliefs can vary greatly (Redmond, 2010). This
means that while one person perceives their efforts to lead to a great accomplishment, another
person may believe their same effort will not lead to much accomplishment at all. This difference
in perceptions is due to many factors. Two factors that can affect expectancy are ability and
interest (Redmond, 2010). "Lack of ability or interest will decrease a persons expectancy. With
proper training and a high interest level, people will have an increased level of expectancy.
Employers, for example, need to keep this in mind as they create ideas to motivate their
employees. By encouraging employees and building self-efficacy, managers can increase
employee expectancy" (Redmond, 2010).
A key question to ask to determine expectancy is:
What is the strength of the relationship between the effort I put forth and how well I perform?
If I spend most of tonight studying, will it improve my grade on tomorrow's math exam?
If I work harder than everyone else in the plant, will I produce more?
If I practice my foul shot more, will my foul shooting improve in the game?
If I make more sales calls, will I make any more sales?
The following video gives great insight in its presentation of the Expectancy Theory.
What is the strength of the relationship between the things I do and the rewards I get from my
actions?
Examples of determinations of instrumentality (Scholl, 2002):
If I get a better grade on tomorrow's math test will I get an "A" in math?
If I produce more than anyone else in the plant, will I get a bigger raise? A faster
promotion?
If my foul shooting improves will I have a shot a team MVP?
If I make more sales will I get a bonus? A greater commission?
If I make more sales will I believe that I am the best sales person or be recognized by
others as the best sales person?
Valence V(R)
Valence is the final component of VIE theory. Valence is characterized by the extent to which a
person values a given outcome or reward. It is important to note that valence is not the actual level
of satisfaction that an individual receives from an outcome, but rather it is the EXPECTED
satisfaction a person receives from a particular outcome (Redmond, 2010). This value is based
in individual differences. The value a person places on an expected outcome or reward is directly
related to who they are; their needs, goals, and values/preferences. This subjective value is based
on the individual's perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs. "The level at which an individual values an
outcome is described as it's valence" (Gerhart, Minkoff, Olsen, 1995).
A key question to ask to determine valence is:
Motivational Force
When expectancy, instrumentality and valence are met, a motivational force occurs. This force
exerts internal pressure on an individual to be motivated. The larger the force, the more a person
will be motivated to obtain the outcomes of the job (Redmond, 2010). In order for motivational
force to be high, valence, instrumentality and expectancy must also be high. If any one of those is
low, motivation will be low (Redmond, 2009).
For example, "if a person is indifferent to the outcomes or perceives them as negatively valent,
there is no reason to work hard to attain them " (Redmond, 2010). Therefore, since valence is
negative or low, then motivation will also be negative or low. For each action, expectancy,
instrumentality and valence can be assessed and a motivational force computed (Redmond, 2010).
Expectancy theory or "VIE theory" is based on the premise that motivation occurs when three
specific conditions are satisfied: effort, performance and outcome. Think of motivation as a chain
where each link represents a condition, and the intersection of each link represent its components:
expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. Within the chain, a person expects their effort to result
in some level of performance (expectancy). The perceived or expected outcome of their
performance level will be considered instrumental to the outcome (instrumentality). Finally, a
person will place subjective value on their belief about the outcome (valence). This value will
determine how satisfactory the outcome is to them.
Among the many factors that influence expectancy, such as ability or interest, perception is
perhaps the most significant factor. Perception is the engine that drives the belief of effort,
performance and outcome. Thus, if any one condition is perceived that it will be low, motivation
will be low - just as the bond between links affects the chain. Because beliefs can vary, however; a
subjective probability formula that is multiplicative in nature is used to more accurately
measure expectancy and arrive at a predicted motivational force (represented as a number). The
higher the number, the higher the motivation, with each component having its own probability
range.
VIE Formula
Range
Range Definition
0 = belief she could not perform successfully
Expectancy
0 to 1
1 = firm belief she could perform successfully
0 = no relationship between performance and outcome
Instrumentality 0 to 1
1 = outcome dependent on performance
- = avoidance of outcome
Valence
-1 to +1 0 = indifference
+ = expected outcome would be satisfactory
A motivated employee is thus the product of the perceived level of satisfaction, the confidence
to achieve, and the rewards that the employee hopes to receive on achieving the set goals. In
other words, valence * expectancy * instrumentality = motivation (Iyer, 2009).
Expectancy is a person's strength of conviction in regards to the ability to attain goals. People who
desire the rewards that management is expected to bestow upon them, on account of superior
performance, should have strong convictions regarding their ability to deliver. An employee who
is not positively oriented with respect to the perceived consequences of the attainment of goals,
will have a zero valence. Employees should feel that the efforts that he/she would like to put into
work would yield the desired results. It is ultimately a question of how confident one feels about
oneself. A self-proclaimed achiever may be immensely confident of the ability to perform
astoundingly high, while a skeptic may have an entirely different perspective. An employee who
feels that the efforts will not yield the desired results, in terms of achieving the set targets, will
have a low probability of expectancy. Probability of an event can assume values between 0 and 1.
How well an employee scores on this scale of confidence will have a direct bearing on the
employee's level of motivation (Iyer, 2009).
*Motivational Force (MF)= Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valance
When deciding among behavioral options, individuals select the option with the greatest
motivational forces (MF).
In terms of the above Motivational Force equation, when anyone of these products are zero then
the whole equations becomes zero. If a person does not have one of the three products, then overall
motivation is lacking.
To conclude this section, let's consider the following example which highlights the understanding
that thought process towards motivation is based on individual factors, and perceptions:
Example
1
Sales Department Example
Let's consider one initiative to motivate staff, the offer of promotion within a sales
department if certain sales targets are met. For one member of staff this is highly
attractive (Valence = + 0.9), but due to their portfolio of clients, and unsuccessful past
sales performance, they perceive achievement of the outcome, e.g. the sales target,
almost impossible (Expectancy = 0.1). By applying the formula we see that the
motivational force will be :
F=VxE
F = 0.9 x 0.1 = 0.09
Alternatively, another member of staff finds the possibility of promotion reasonably
attractive (Valence = + 0.6), and based on their portfolio of clients, and successful past
sales performance, they feel reasonably confident that they will achieve the sales target
set (Expectancy = 0.8). Here we see that the motivational force is far stronger in
comparison:
F=VxE
F = 0.6 x 0.8 = 0.48
______________________________________________________________________________
which task the person is more highly motivated in. Because Vroom developed the expectancy
theory to account for varying motivation across tasks, the within-subjects design studies are
considered better suited for testing the theory (Redmond, 2009). For each person, a correlation is
computed between predictions of effort made by the theory and actual amounts of effort expended
on tasks (Redmond, 2009).
From the research that has been conducted to test the theory, overall results suggest that the theory
can be useful as a predictor of the choices people will make when given different tasks, and
remains a popular theory in the workplace. The strongest support in favor of this research was
shown for valence, instrumentality, and expectancy as individual components, which showed
higher correlations and predictions resulting for within-subject design studies, rather than the
motivational force score or the total force score (Redmond, 2009).
Jay Caulfield, from Marquette University, used expectancy theory as a framework for his research
study. This study was to investigate the motivational factors that may contribute to students
providing anonymous feedback to teachers. Expectancy theory has been more effective in
predicting motivation when the subject being studied had more discretion in performing a task
(Caulfield, 2007). Since the evaluation process is completely anonymous, it makes sense that
expectancy theory is a good choice for predicting students motivation for filling out the
evaluations in the first place. The purpose of using Vrooms expectancy theory now, was to
determine the outcome the students believed would be attained by providing these evaluations
(Caulfield, 2007). The results of the study indicated that students motivation was dependent
upon the importance to them of improving the value of the class and of future classes, and the
expectation that their formative feedback would lead to increased value for them, their peers in the
classroom and for students in future classes (Caulfield, 2007). The findings conclude that it is
important that the teachers stress that the evaluations are very important tools for improving the
learning and teaching experiences in the present, and the future.
Another research example involves business students nearing their masters degree certifications at
Carnegie-Mellon University. The purpose of the study was to predict the appeal of potential
employers using a questionnaire to evaluate which goals people believed to be most important.
Goals included chance to benefit society, freedom from supervision, and high salary. After
establishing the rank of individual goal preferences, the individuals evaluated three companies of
interest to determine the degree to which each student believed they would be able to satisfy his or
her goals. After combining these two variables, an instrumentality-goal index was calculated for
each company and was given an attractiveness rating. The results of the study noticeably indicate
that companies seen as providing a means towards attaining important goals were most attractive.
This study showed that 76 percent of students chose the company that had the highest
instrumentality score. This study exemplifies how Vrooms research results are consistent with his
theory. Years later, after following the actual employment, similar supporting evidence was also
found (Miner, 2005).
Another research study in expectancy tested the hypotheses that the behavior of some individuals
are determined by personal expectancies while the behavior of other individuals are determined by
social norms. The researchers took two groups of people and gave one group personal expectations
about their behavior. The other group was given information on what the social norms were for the
time being. The researchers found that strong expectancy behavior correspondence was given for
those individuals who were aware of personal expectancies but who were not knowledgeable about
social norms. For those individuals who were attuned to social norms, their behavior corresponded
with such (Miller & Grush, 1988).
During 2009 another research study was conducted by Richard Johnson at the University of
Toledos Criminal Justice Department in order to explain patrol officer drug arrest activity and find
ways to influence work output. (Johnson, 2009) The researcher developed four hypothesis based
on the expectancy, instrumentality, valence, and overall motivation described in the Expectancy
Theory. The first hypothesis was officers will make more drug arrests if they are given direct
expectations to do so. Second, officers who have the proper capabilities through sufficient training
and equipment will make more arrests. Thirdly, officers who have the opportunity by way of their
shift or time between calls will make more arrests. And finally, officers who perceive that their
department and supervisors will provide more rewards if they make more drug arrests will more
likely be more productive. (Johnson, 2009) The data was collected through self reporting surveys
with various response rates. The dependent variable in the study was the individual drug arrest rate
of each respondent. The independent variables were drawn from and grouped based on the results
of the survey. They included, management priority for expectancy, having adequate equipment for
capability, opportunities, and for valence either rewarded or not rewarded because of the variety of
what an officer perceives as a reward. (Johnson, 2009) The data was input into a correlational
analysis with varying results. There was a significant effect between managements expectations
and the number of drug arrests. Under capability, there was significant effect between perceptions
of being properly equipped and arrests but the correlation was negative and therefore unexpected.
Opportunity did show a significant effect as well but the single greatest predictor of drug arrest rate
related to the rewards perceived to be available. (Johnson, 2009) The overall purpose of the study
was to explain the variation in arrest rate between officers by relying on evaluating organizational
factors. The results seem to indicate that each part of the Expectancy Theory plays a role, but the
overall best predictor was the end rewards or valence of the overall expectancy.
Expectancy theory has been researched and studied in various ways. According to the Oxford
handbook of motivation, expectancy theory is more often used as an organizing framework for
generating and testing context-specific hypotheses. For example, researchers have applied
expectancy theory to guide the development of models to explain Work Motivation 4 variations in
DUI arrests among police officers (Mastrofski, Ritti, Snipes, 1994), efforts by middle managers to
champion issues for senior executives to pursue (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, Dutton, 1998), home
runs hit by major league baseball players (Harder, 1991), and strategic decisions in competitive
markets (Chen & Miller, 1994) (Grant & Shin, 2011).
______________________________________________________________________________
Strengths
When using the expectancy theory within organizations/institutions, an evaluation can be made in
regard to two factors that lead to valence (the reward): the expectations of the individual and the
belief that their actions will lead to the reward. To utilize the expectancy theory accurately, the
within-subject research method is used to evaluate the motivations of the employee. This method
of the expectancy theory calculates the difference in motivational levels between tasks of one
individual, and that of another.
To use within-subject designs, participants are given many different tasks to complete. For each
task the researcher computes a force score. This score is used to predict the choices that individuals
make among the different tasks. Using these predictions of effort, researchers compute correlations
based on the predictions and the actual amount of effort exerted by individuals (Redmond, 2010).
The strength of the within-subject designs reflects the fact that Vroom developed the VIE theory to
determine different motivational levels across various tasks performed by an individual, rather than
looking at differences in motivation between different subjects(Redmond, 2010). Validity studies
show that the average validity coefficients for within-subjects designs ranges in the .50s and .60s
(Redmond, 2010).
Expectations are influenced by incentives and rewards. With proper goals set, this will trigger a
motivational process that improves performance. According to Vroom (1995), a persons
motivational force can be equated to the level of expectancy multiplied by the instrumentality
multiplied by the valance. If any one of these factors is scored as a zero, then the motivational
score will also be zero (Penn State World Campus, 2011). This can easily be seen in situations
where a person believes the amount of effort exerted on a task will not result in the desired reward,
in cases where the level of performance will not yield the desired results or that the reward will not
have the desired value as expected, the individuals motivational level will be zero (Penn State
World Campus, 2011). On the other hand, when all the components of the equation are high, the
motivational force will also be high (Penn State World Campus, 2011).
By utilizing expectancy theory, organizations are able to understand the importance of
demonstrating appreciation for their employees' work, and as a result, their employees will perform
stronger, and show more loyalty towards the organization.
Weaknesses
A major weakness of expectancy theory is using between-subjects designs. Because VIE theory
was developed to account for differences within the individual and not across different subjects,
looking at these differences does not give valid results. Validation studies have shown that
between-subjects designs result in lower prediction validities. The average validity coefficients for
between-subjects designs ranges in the .30s and .40s (Redmond, 2010). This is clearly lower than
validity coefficients for within-subjects designs.
The weaknesses of between-subject design can be seen in the differences each person places on the
effort, performance and value of rewards. Because this design is quantitative, the comparisons
between individuals are hard to measure. Another weakness can be seen in the organizational
applications of the theory. In some companys the rewards some employees receive might not be
seen as attractive as many people change their idea of a desired reward. What may have been a
good incentive at one point in time, may no longer hold its value to that individual anymore ( Penn
State World Campus, 2011).
Expectancy theory, by nature, only focuses on the extrinsic motivational factors and the conscious
decisions employees make about their performance. Many employees and leaders are not
motivated solely by extrinsic factors, such as a paycheck, bonus, or public recognition. As a result,
"the concept of instrumentality is found to be ambiguous and difficult to operationalize" (Wabba &
House, 1974). Therefore, it is critical for managers and leaders in an organization to really
understand what motivates their employees before attempting to utilize the expectancy theory
model. The model might best be used in conjunction with other models of motivation, such as the
Hierarchy of Needs and Reinforcement Theory, in order to ensure leaders are able to effectively
motivate their employees to achieve a higher level of performance. During situations like these,
managers may change the type of rewards to ensure they continue to fit the motivational needs
required to obtain the desired behavior.
Empirical research studies have been conducted that demonstrate that expectancy theory "ignores
the rationality assumptions underlying this choice behavior" (Wabba & House, 1974). The
assumptions that are made within this theory show that individuals' motivations are consciously
chosen. The concept of this assumption is that people contemplate their actions to achieve the
rewards, or in other words, it assumes that people consciously know what rewards are in their own
best interest. It is also assumed that the contemplation is designed to capitalize on rewards and
evade losses. Along these lines, an argument can be made that many individuals might demand a
reward system that is based on a short-term time horizon, while forgoing a long-term reward
system, even though the long-term system might deliver more valence. Due to the fact that not all
motivations are derived consciously, this theory cannot apply to all individuals.
Another potential weakness of the expectancy theory is that it assumes all necessities are in place,
which is not always the case. Employees need to have the ability, the resources and the
opportunity to perform their job well. An example of this would be the role genetics can play as a
biological limiting factor of performance (Walker, 2003). Just as an athlete might lack the genetic
potential to perform at an income producing level, so to an employee might lack the genetics
required to reach a desired level of performance. In this case, knowing what will motivate the
employee may not help since the scarcity of available resources makes it difficult to complete their
job. The upside of this weakness is it will illuminate areas the employers may need to revisit and
make decisions regarding the resources available and/or the employees performing the tasks.
The expectancy theory falls short of explaining how employees update and change their beliefs
over time (Mitchell & Biglan, 1971). For example, valence beliefs can change as employees realize
that their actual satisfaction with an outcome is different (e.g., lower or higher) than the
satisfaction that they anticipated (e.g., Wilson & Gilbert, 2005) (Grant & Shin, 2011). When
employers are utilizing the theory in the workplace being cognizant of the fact that peoples needs
and wants change allows them the opportunity to reevaluate the effectiveness periodically.
______________________________________________________________________________
the P-O linkage (Isaac, 2001). A leaders ability to manage the behavior associated with these
beliefs will determine how his workers perceive Instrumentality.
Organizational Applications: Valence
With valence, there are two issues a leader should concern himself with. First, the attractiveness or
value of outcomes differs amongst individuals. A leader needs to be able to identify the value of
each outcome from the perspective of the follower. There are several types of rewards that can
induce heightened motivational states for individuals. These rewards range from money, to praise,
to appreciation, to time off, and so on. Many motivational outcomes are of little or no cost to a
company, and these types of rewards become highly valuable motivational tools (Gerhart,
Minkoff, Olsen, 1995). Once a valuable outcome is identified, the motivational force equation can
be established. Second, leaders must put a lot of effort into the alignment of the followers
personal goals and those of the organization. It is extremely important that the goals of the
individual worker are assimilated into the goals of the organization. The pairing of these goals is
crucial to workplace motivation. If the follower perceives that their goals are congruent with the
goals of the organization, the follower's motivational force associated with receiving outcomes of
high valence are aligned with the furthering of organizational interests. A leaders ability to do
this will greatly enhance both their understanding of valence, as it pertains to individual followers,
as well as give them the ability to use this understanding to motivate workers on the job.
Knowing what factors motivate employees can have positive implications for businesses. Some of
these include reduced employee turnover, improved morale and higher productivity. The
expectancy theory suggests, however, that people are motivated by different things. Some people
are motivated by external rewards, such as a paycheck, paid vacation, or a great benefits package,
while others may have more intrinsic motivators, such as recognition, or a sense of belonging. A
few simple ways to discover what motivates an individual would be to either ask them directly, or
through a less confrontational method of administering a questionnaire, or survey. When the
questionnaire method is selected, it can be administered to all company employees and can better
facilitate isolating certain variables within the company overall. These isolated variables will bring
about improved desired outcomes, such as improved morale and higher productivity. One example
of this may include certain external rewards, such as an increase in pay, or some type of monetary
bonus. Some other examples might include: providing specialized training for an employee who
feels they are lacking the ability and confidence to complete a function in a satisfactory manner, or
acquiring a piece of equipment that would improve the efficiency of the employees production. By
isolating selected variables, a reward system can be more effectively designed, and can make it
possible to determine whether or not the rewards implemented are effecting positive change. The
comprehensive reward system should include several different types of rewards so individuals at
all levels of the organization with differing motivational drives can strive towards something they
perceive as valuable while the organization is continuing to meet its goals and progress.
Utilizing the VIE formula will also allow leaders to set motivating objectives for employees (e.g., a
high achiever might not be motivated to work hard if the work he/she is performing is mundane.
Giving the person harder work, or additional responsibilities might motivate him/her to achieve a
higher level of performance). The company will be better off, as more and more employees are
motivated to achieve a higher level of performance.
Additionally, the workplace can involve more participants than company and employee alone.
Labor unions are sometimes considered participants, and can also play an important role in the
workplace. Many of such unions have looked into forms of expectancy and expectancy-value
theory to build and understand their membership. Much like a company wants to learn what
motivates their employees (whether it be intrinsic or extrinsic factors), unions want to know what
draws workers to join unions or to vote them out (decertify). Over time, workers ideas of unions
change, based on different situations and adjustments in work environment. Unions can benefit
from understanding what drives these changes, and can learn how to make adjustments to the
workers perceptions and expectations of unions. If a worker perceives that joining a union will be
of low cost to them (low effort), then the worker might decide that they have the means to join.
For instance, if a union is already in place (instrumentality), and what the union offers in pay
and/or benefits is perceived as valuable (valence), the worker will be more motivated to join or
remain a member of a union (Barling, Fullagar, Kelloway, 1992).
______________________________________________________________________________
References
Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S .K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998). Out on a limb: The role of
context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 43, 23-57.
Barling, J., Fullagar, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (1992). The union and it's members: A psychological
approach. Google Books Website. Retrieved September 18, 2009, from
http://books.google.com/books?id=sfXWjBKeRagC&pg=PA110&dq=Expectancy+Theory++unions#v=onepage&q=Expectancy%20Theory%20-%20unions&f=false
Brown, S. P. & Peterson, R. A. (1994). The effect of effort on sales performance and job
satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 23-24.
Chen, M. J., & Miller, D. (1994). Competitive attack, retaliation and performance: An expectancyvalence framework. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 85-102.
Fang, C. Y. (2008). The moderating effect of impression management on the organizational
politics performance relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(3).
Cualfield, J., (2007). What motivates students to provide feedback to teachers about teaching and
learning? An expectancy theory perspective_. International Journal for the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 1(1)_.
Gerhart, B., Minkoff, H. B., & Olsen, R. N. (1995). Employee compensation: Theory, practice, and
evidence. In G. R. P. Ferris, S. D. Rosen, & D. T. Barnum (Eds.), Handbook of Human Resources
Management. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Global, ProQuest. Web. 11 Sep. (2009).
Grant, A. M., & Shin, J. (2011). Work motivation: Directing, energizing, and maintaining effort
(and research). Forthcoming in R.M. Ryan (Ed.), Oxford Handbook Of Motivation. Retrieved
from http://www.management.wharton.upenn.edu/grant/GrantShin-MotivationHandbook2011.pdf
Harder, J. W. (1991). Equity theory versus expectancy theory: The case of major league baseball
free agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 458-464.
Isaac, R. G., Zerbe, W.J., & Pitt, D. C. (2001). Leadership and motivation: The effective
application of expectancy theory. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(2), 212-226.
Iyer, A. (2009). Expectancy theory of motivation. Buzzle Website. Retrieved from
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/expectancy-theory-of-motivation.html
Johnson, R. R. (2009). Explaining Patrol Officer Drug Arrest Activity Through Expectancy
Theory. Policing , 6-20.
Lawler, E., Porter. L., & Vroom, V. (2009). Motivation and management Vroom's expectancy
theory. Value Based Management Website. Retrieved February 8, 2010, from
http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_vroom_expectancy_theory.htmlhttp://www.value
basedmanagement.net/methods_vroom_expectancy_theory.html
Mastrofski, S. D., Ritti, R. R., & Snipes, J. B. (1994). Expectancy theory and police productivity in
DUI enforcement. Law & Society Review, 28, 113-148.
Mathibe, I. R. 2011, Expectancy Theory and its implications for employee motivation, Academic
Leadership, Volume 9 Issue 2. Retrieved from
http://www.academicleadership.org/article/expectancy-theory-and-its-implications-foremployee-motivation
Matsui, T., & Terai, T. (1975). A cross-cultural study of the validity of the expectancy theory of
work motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 263-265.
Miller, L. E., Grush, J. E. (1988). Improving predictions in expectancy theory research: Effects of
personality, expectancies, and norms. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 107-122.
Miner, J. B. (2005). Organizational behavior I: Essential theories of motivation and leadership.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Mitchell, T. R., & Biglan, A. (1971). Instrumentality theories: Current uses in psychology.
Psychological Bulletin, 76, 432-454.
Penn State World Campus. (2011). Lesson 4: Expectancy Theory: Is there a link between my effort
and what I really want? Retrieved from Penn State World Campus:
https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa11/psych484/001/content/lesson04/lesson04_01.html
Pinder, C. C. (1984). Work motivation: Theory, issues, and applications. Glenview, IL: Scott,
Foresman and Company.
https://cms.psu.edu/http://www.academicleadership.org/empirical_research/466_printer.shtml
Redmond, B. (2010). Lesson 4: Expectancy Theory: Is there a link between my effort and what I
want? The Pennsylvania State University Website. Retrieved from https://cms.psu.edu"
class="external-link" rel="nofollow"linktype="raw"
wikidestination="https://cms.psu.edu/section/content/default.asp?
WCI=pgDisplay&WCU=CRSCNT&ENTRY_ID=EE76DACF5DA74D0C941151E6612A4698htt
ps://cms.psu.edu" originalalias="https://cms.psu.edu/section/content/default.asp?
WCI=pgDisplay&WCU=CRSCNT&ENTRY_ID=EE76DACF5DA74D0C941151E6612A4698htt
ps://cms.psu.edu" >https://cms.psu.edu/section/content/default.asp?
WCI=pgDisplay&WCU=CRSCNT&ENTRY_ID=EE76DACF5DA74D0C941151E6612A4698htt
ps://cms.psu.edu
Scholl, R. W. (2002). Motivation: Expectancy theory. The University of Rhode Island Website.
Retrieved from http://www.uri.edu/research/lrc/scholl/webnotes/Motivation_Expectancy.htm
Stecher, M., & Rosse, J. (2007). Understanding reactions to workplace injustice trhough process
theories of motivation: A teaching module and simulation. Journal of Management Education,
31(6), 781.
Swenson, D. Expectancy and equity theories of motivation. The College of St. Scholastica
Website. Retrieved from http://faculty.css.edu/dswenson/web/OB/VIEtheory.html
Thorndike, E. L., (1921). Educated psychology: The psychology of learning. New York: Teachers
College, Columbia University.
Department of the Air Force College for Enlisted Professional Military Education (AETC) (2008).
Noncommissioned Officer Academy Student Guide: Unit Manager Attribute, Volume 1:
UM03SG-8
VanderZwaag, L ., (1998), Edward C. Tolman, Muskingum University. Retrieved from
http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/tolman.htm.
Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.
Wabba, M. A. & House, R. J. (1974). Expectancy theory in work and motivation: Some logical
and methodological issues. The Tavistock Institute Website. Retrieved
from http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/2/121
Walker, J. (2003). Self Realization Approach. SR Consulting, Performance & Sport Psychology
Website. Retrieved February 9, 2010, from http://srconsulting.net/about_sr_theory.html!story5.jpg!
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 131-134.
https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa11/psych484/001/content/lesson04/lesson04_01.html
5. Equity Theory
Equity Theory Overview
This theory proposes that a person's motivation is based on what he or she considers to be fair
when compared to others (Redmond, 2010). As noted by Gogia (2010), when applied to the
workplace Equity Theory which focuses on an employee's work-compensation relationship or
"exchange relationship" as well as that employee's attempt to minimize any sense of unfairness that
might result. Because Equity Theory deals with social relationships and fairness/unfairness, it is
also known as The Social Comparisons Theory or Inequity Theory (Gogia, 2010).
Equity theory of motivation, developed in the early 1960s by J. Stacey Adams, recognizes that
motivation can be affected through an individual's perception of fair treatment in social exchanges.
When compared to other people, individuals want to be compensated fairly for their contributions.
Three terms are important in this theory:
("Motivation theories," 2009)
Comparison Other
Inputs Outcomes
Input: Anything of value that a person brings to a job. For instance- experience, education, skills,
characteristics, motivation. (Redmond, 2010)
Outcome: Benefits that a person is awarded from a job. For instance- pay, security, insurance,
promotion/advancement. (Redmond, 2010)
Comparison Other: Person or standard that an individual's input/outcome ratio is compared to.
(Redmond, 2010)
Benevolent: A giver, or person who is tolerant of under reward equity. (Huseman, et. al.,1987)
Equity Sensitive: A person who must have an equity balance or else they will experience a stressor
until they rebalance (Huseman, et. al.,1987)
Entitled: A person who feels that others owe them, therefore are over rewarded. (Huseman, et.
al.,1987)
Distributive Justice: Outcomes are spread evenly and fairly throughout an organization. (Stecher
and Rosse, 2007)
Underpayment Inequity: Also known as negative inequity. This occurs when the ratio of one's own
inputs and outcomes is greater than or less than favorable than the ratio of a comparison other.
(Redmond, 2010)
Overpayment Inequity: Also known as positive inequity. This occurs when the ratio of one's own
inputs and outcomes is lower than or more favorable than the ratio of a comparison other.
(Redmond,2010)
Equity Theory attributes the source of a person's motivation to a comparison that has been made
which causes the person to feel inequity (Gogia, 2010). Ratios are used to compare inputs and
outcomes. When a person compares their input/outcome ratios with the ratios of another and
perceives these ratios as not equal, he or she will feel inequity and may be motivated to reduce it
(Gogia, 2010).
Types of Inequity Felt
Result:
Hourly work (salaried position):
Greater input (e.g., effort) to reduce
the perceived inequality regarding the
quantity and quality of goods
Result:
Hourly work (salaried position):
Less input (e.g., effort) to produce less
number and poor quality of goods
Behavioral Options-
Changing their input to match outcomes (e.g., leaving early or slacking off) ("Motovation
theories," 2009)
Change outcomes to match inputs (e.g., asking for a pay increase, stealing) ("Motovation
theories," 2009)
Pursuading others to change inputs (e.g., complaining to superiors) ("Motovation theories,"
2009)
Withdrawal (e.g., tardiness or turnover) ("Motovation theories," 2009)
Cognitive Options-
Distort one's own inputs or outcomes (e.g., "I'm not really working that hard," "I have a lot of
free time") ("Motovation theories," 2009)
Distort the inputs or outcomes of others (e.g., he/she gets more money than me but they have to
live in Buffalo) ("Motovation theories," 2009)
Change the comparison others ("Motivation theories," 2009)
Equity theory can be broken down into four basic propositions (Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles,
1987).
1. Individuals develop their perception of fairness by calculating a ratio of their inputs and
outcomes and then comparing this to the ratio of others (Huseman, et. al., 1987). Inputs are the
value proposition of individuals, such as their productivity, time, and education. Other examples
include the experience, knowledge, ability, qualifications and ambition of the individual (Cory,
2006). Outcomes are the rewards an individual receives. These rewards can be tangible, such as
financial compensation, or intangible, such as recognition or job security. The comparable other
could be a co-worker, a relative, the industry norm, a friend, or even a group of individuals
(Adams, 1963). The comparable other can even be oneself in a past job (Adams, 1963). For
example, an individual may not perceive he is being treated fairly when he works 40 hours per
week (input) and receives $500 in pay (output) while his co-worker works 30 hours per week and
receives $650 in pay.
2. If the comparative ratios are perceived by the individual to be unequal, then inequity exists
(Huseman, et. al., 1987). According to equity theory, an individual needs to perceive that the ratios
of their contributions are weighted fairly: determined by equal ratios. Equity is all about balance
(Spector 2008). Equity is present when a person feels that they are receiving the appropriate
amount of outcomes from their inputs, when compared to their chosen comparison other. Inequity
exists when there is a perceived difference in the ratios of inputs and outcomes. Two specific types
of inequity exist: underpayment inequity and overpayment inequity. Underpayment inequity occurs
when an individual perceives that their ratio is smaller than their comparison other: they are getting
less for their inputs. For example, if someone feels they are putting in more effort or working
harder than a co-worker, yet they earn equal or less compensation, their perceived ratios will be
different and that person will experience underpayment inequity. In contrast, overpayment inequity
tips the scales in the other direction. For example, someone will feel they are being paid too much
considering their work, when compared to the work and compensation of a co-worker. This can
cause feelings of guilt and the ratios used for comparison are based upon the perception of an
individual, and not an objective measure of inputs and outcomes. Additionally, the choice of a
comparison other is also the subjective selection of the individual.
3. As the difference in inequity increases, the tension and distress felt by an individual will
increase (Huseman, et. al., 1987). Smaller differences of inequity are more tolerable than
significant differences of inequity. Not every person will experience equity or inequity in the same
way because people have varying tolerance levels or sensitivity to perceived situations of inequity.
Three types of individuals have been identified along an equity sensitivity spectrum: benevolents,
equity sensitives, and entitleds (Huseman, et. al., 1987). Benevolents are more tolerant of
underreward (Huseman, et. al., 1987). Equity sensitives follow the norm of equity theory and
prefer their ratios to be equal to their comparison other (Huseman, et. al., 1987). Entitleds prefer to
be in over-reward situations and want their ratio to exceed that of their comparison other
(Huseman, et. al., 1987). Entitleds frequently have the attitude that the world owes them a favor, so
they will freely accept and seek out over-reward situations.
4. The greater tension an individual feels due to perceived inequity, the harder they will work to
decrease their tension and increase perceived levels of equity (Huseman, et. al., 1987). Most
individuals will attempt to achieve equity by adjusting their own inputs and outcomes, or
attempting to change the inputs or outcomes of the comparison other. Individuals can use
behavioral processes or cognitive processes in order to attempt to restore equity. Examples include
decreasing productivity at work, finding a new job, asking for a wage increase, changing the
comparative other, or attempting to distort or justify changes in their perceptions of inputs and/or
outcomes (Adams, 1963). The means of reducing inequity will vary depending on the situation and
will not all be equally satisfying to an individual (Adams, 1963).
Equity Theory Components
Adams' equity theory is based on a ratio consisting of inputs to outcomes (Adams, 1963). Inputs
consist of contributions by an individual. An attribute is only considered an input if it is perceived
as relevant by the individual (Adams, 1963). Inputs can include abilities, effort, performance, age,
seniority, education, and other attributes. Outcomes are the rewards an individual receives for their
inputs (Adams, 1963). Outcomes can include pay, benefits, status symbols, and even intrinsic
rewards (Adams, 1963). The value of an outcome is determined by the recipient (Adams, 1963), so
no outcome has a specific objective measure. For example, an individual might rate their college
degree as a more valuable input than the college degree of another person due to their perception
on a college's prestige. Or an individual makes more money than a co-worker but has a less
flexible schedule; they might value the flexible schedule more than their extra income. An
individual calculates their subjective value of inputs and outcomes then compares it to others
ratios in order to determine if it is equitable.
Equity theory can be applied in almost any exchange situation, so there are a multitude of
components that can be listed as inputs or outcomes. There also can be significant difficulty in
determining these exact components due to their subjective nature (Siegel, Schraeder, & Morrison,
2007). Siegel, et al. found that there might be patterns to how individuals cognitively frame inputs
and outcomes. For example, employees tend to distinguish inputs based on whether they are
controllable, such as communications or attendance, or non-controllable, such as seniority or job
training (Siegel, et. al., 2007). Employees also distinguish differing characteristics of outcomes
(Siegel, et. al., 2007). Outcomes are evaluated on whether they are economic or non-economic and
whether they are personalized or generalized outcomes (Siegel, et. al., 2007). It is important to
understand if there are general guides for how employees evaluate inputs and outcomes, in order to
help prevent perceptions of inequality. It is important for managers and employers to find a
suitable measure between them (Cory, 2006).
If managers can help prevent perceptions of inequality they can help prevent their employees from
becoming de-motivated. Swinton (2006) developed a list of ways an employee can express
motivation. This list is produced below.
Typical Inputs:
Effort
Loyalty
Hard Work
Commitment
Skill
Ability
Adaptability
Flexibility
Tolerance
Determination
Enthusiasm
Trust in superiors
Support of colleagues
Personal sacrifice
Time
Honesty
Devotion
Organization
Typical Outputs:
Financial rewards (salary, benefits, perks, etc.)
Intangibles that typically include:
Esteem
Recognition
Reputation
Responsibility
Sense of Achievement
Praise
Thanks
Sense of Advancement/Growth
Job Security
Peer respect
Self respect
Well-being
Stronger relationships
There needs to be a balance between the inputs and outputs received.
The employee must also be content when trying perceive these all in balance.
However, if an employees perceived input is greater than their perceived outcomes, they can
become de-motivated and engage in disruptive behaviors (Swinton, 2006). Examples of disruptive
behaviors include decreasing productivity, theft, increased breaks, or absenteeism. Management
can do a lot to prevent perceptions of inequity, the assessment of inputs and outcomes will remain
based on individual's subjective perception (Adams, 1963).
Although management can do a lot to prevent perceptions of inequity, the assessment of inputs and
outcomes will remain based on an individuals subjective perception (Adams, 1963).
Equity Sensitivity
Individuals are happier and experience less tension when they are equitably rewarded, as opposed
to experiencing underreward or overreward (Austin & Walster, 1974). Equity theory is based on
the norm of equity which assumes that everyone is equally sensitive to equity and inequity
(Huseman, et. al., 1987). This means that everyone experiences the same level of tension when
they experience the same level of inequity; however, this isnt always true. Research has found
that other norms may exist which are dependent upon factors such as age or personality (Huseman,
et. al., 1987).
The Equity Sensitivity Construct describes a spectrum of varying sensitivities to equity and
inequity (Huseman, et. al., 1987). The idea of equity sensitivity determines the extent to which an
individual will tolerate inequity. There are three categories of individuals identified along the
equity sensitivity spectrum: benevolents, equity sensitives, and entitleds (Huseman, et. al.,1987).
Benevolents are givers and are more tolerant of underreward inequity (Huseman, et. al., 1987).
Equity sensitives are in the middle of the spectrum, and behave in accordance with the norm of
equity and equity theory. Equity sensitives experience tension with inequity and will seek to
restore a balance of equity in their relationships (Huseman, et. al., 1987). On the other end of the
spectrum is the entitleds. Entitleds prefer to be overrewarded. As the name indicates, entitleds are
individuals who frequently have an attitude that they are owed and thus are entitled to great
outcomes.
Equity sensitives will experience distress when faced with either type of inequity: underreward or
overreward. Benevolents will experience distress and possibly guilt when they in a situation of
over-reward. Because benevolents dont necessarily seek out underreward, they might not
experience distress when in an equitable relationship. Entitleds experience distress when in an
equitable or underreward situation.
The Equity Sensitivity Construct is useful to understanding equity theory and individual behavior;
however, the three categories of equity sensitivity dont account for all individual differences in
preferences and behavior.
Individuals might show different equity sensitivities in different contexts (Huseman, et. al., 1987).
For example, an individual might be equity sensitive in their personal relationships, preferring an
equitable balance; however, they might be an entitled at work and feel comfortable with
overreward.
In addition to preferring different outcome ratios, equity sensitivity groups also differ in their
preference for types of outcomes (Miles, Hatfield, & Huseman, 1994). Specifically there are
differences in preference for extrinsic tangible outcomes versus intrinsic outcomes (Miles, et. al.,
1994). Entitleds have a stronger preference for extrinsic tangible outcomes (Miles, et. al., 1994). A
specific example of this is in the realm of pay: entitleds rate pay higher in importance than the
other two equity sensitivity groups (Miles, et. al., 1994). Conversely, benevolents rate extrinsic
outcomes lower in preference and show a stronger preference for intrinsic outcomes (Miles, et. al.,
1994). It is possible that some of these differences can be attributed to other factors such as age.
Younger workers and older workers value different things and the meaning of work varies by age
(Smith, 2000). With this is mind, it is possible that age, or other external factors, might play a part
in which equity sensitivity group an individual is likely to be in.
Where does Perceived Inequity Come From?
According to equity theory, perceived inequity comes from social comparisons (Adams, 1965).
Specifically, we form a ratio of our inputs to outcomes and compare it with others' input/outcome
ratios (Redmond, 2010).
Equity Theory states that people strive hard to achieve and maintain a state of equity or fairness in
order to maintain internal, psychological balance (Adams, 1965). However, when ratios are
different, a state of inequity exists, and employees will be motivated to bring it back into balance.
There are two types of inequity; underpayment and overpayment.
Examples of Inequity
Underpayment Inequity:
Sarah was hired at Corporation X to work in their Human Resources department after she
graduated with a bachelors degree in Human Resources Management. As of current, Sarah has
been with Corporation X for 3 years and is in line to move into a management position within the
next six months. About three months ago, Corporation X hired another team member in the HR
department to assist Sarah in her daily duties as they were getting too much for one person. The
new team member, Alison graduated the same year as Sarah with a bachelors degree in
Communications and doesnt have any experience in HR relations. One day at lunch Alison
reveals her salary to Sarah and tells her that she is surprised a company would pay her that salary
with no experience in HR. Sarah realizes that she doesnt make quite as much as Alison. She is
immediately leaded to feeling undercompensated considering she does most of the work and
Alison just helps. Sarah realizes that she needs to make Alison accountable for more projects so
her inputs match her outputs.
Overpayment Inequity:
Sarah was hired at Corporation X to work in their Human Resources department after she
graduated with a bachelors degree in Human Resources Management. As of current, Sarah has
been with Corporation X for 3 years and is in line to move into a management position within the
next six months. About three months ago, Corporation X hired another team member in the HR
department to assist Sarah in her daily duties as they were getting too much for one person. The
new team member, Alison graduated the same year as Sarah with a bachelors degree in Human
Resources Management and until recently worked for another company in their HR department.
One day at lunch Alison reveals her salary to Sarah and tells her that she is surprised a company
would pay her that salary starting out in their HR department even though she has experience
elsewhere. Sarah realizes that she makes a few more dollars than Alison. She is immediately
leaded to feeling overcompensated considering she does most of the same work Alison does and
gets paid more. Sarah realizes that she needs to be accountable for a few more things than Alison
so her inputs match her outputs.
or group of employees might pressure a co-worker to slow down or work less. An individuals
power to change the inputs or outcomes of their comparative other might be limited, so working to
change their own inputs or outcomes is usually attempted first.
Cognitive Processes to Restore Equity
Cognitive processes involve developing justifications for the inequity to make it seem equitable,
distorting perceptions of inputs and outcomes, changing the comparative other, or any other
method that attempts to reframe the perception of the situation. In some ways, cognitive processes
can require less effort than behavioral processes; however, they can also be more difficult to
accomplish due to the necessity of distorting ones own perceptions.
For example, a principal at an elementary school may perceive inequity because the high school
principal earns more income and benefits even though they work in the same school district and
have the same occupation. The principal could choose to engage cognitive processes to restore
equity instead of behavioral processes. The principal could justify that the high school principal
has more credentials or manages a larger number of teachers. In this way, no actual change of
inputs or outcomes occur but the elementary school principal justified changes in the perception of
inputs. Another cognitive process alternative would be to choose a different comparative other.
The elementary principal could select other elementary school principals in the same district. This
might provide a more equitable comparison, which decreases the principals perception of inequity
and underreward.
Both cognitive processes and behavioral processes can be effective in reducing ones perception of
inequity. An individual will most likely use a process that is relatively easy and the most satisfying
in restoring a perception of equity.
Research on Equity Theory
In the four decades since John Stacey Adams pioneered the Equity Theory of motivation, an
extensive amount of research has been conducted testing the validity of this theory. Equity Theory
has been used to test several types of dyadic relationships like marriages, teacher/student and
employee/employer relationships. The research has tested parts of the theory including the effects
of over and under payment equity, equity sensitivity, and the behavioral and cognitive methods of
reducing the dissonance caused by feelings of inequity. Within the work setting Equity Theory has
been researched in several important areas. Outlined below, research related to determine the
effects of perceived equities or inequities on the level of worker motivation or satisfaction will be
discussed.
Countless studies have been conducted between the introduction of equity theory by Adams in
1963 and today. Four examples of equity research contributions will be discussed below: Lawler
& OGara 1967; King, Miles, & Day 1993; Sweeney & McFarlin 2005; and Schultz, Schoenherr,
& Nebhard 2006. Each of these research studies focused on key pieces of Equity Theory in
practice: work output when inequities are present, sensitivity to equity or inequity, and work
outputs as measured against ones peers.
Greenberg (1988) hypothesized that employees reassigned to offices of higher status would be
more productive than those reassigned to offices of equal status employees. Similarly, workers
reassigned to offices of lower status were expected to be less productive than those reassigned to
offices of equal-status workers (Redmond, 2010). Greenberg was correct in his hypothesis and
now had results showing that money was not the only driving factor for equity theory.
Critics of this study point out that this was a short-term study that shows no long-term results.
1990: Employee Theft as a Reaction to Underpayment Inequity: The Hidden Cost of Pay
Cuts
In this study, Greenberg (1990) looked at employee theft as a reaction to inequity. A
manufacturing company had lost two large contracts which forced the company to temporally
reduce pay of their employees in Plants A and B while employees in Plant C did not have to reduce
pay. Plant A workers received a 90 minute meeting to explain these pay cuts while workers of
Plant B received only a 15 minute meeting. Greenberg (1990) hypothesized that Plant B would
experience a large increase in employee theft, Plant A would experience a slight increase, while
Plant C's theft rate would stay the same. Two categories of dependent measures were used, data on
employee theft and self-report measures were reported as well (Greenberg, 1990).
Once again, his theories were correct. Plant B experienced a large increase in theft while Plant A
experienced a smaller increase. Plant C's employee theft remained the same (Greenberg, 1990).
1993: The Equity Sensitive Construct
Gauging the level of tolerance for inequities is an important field of study in Equity Theory. From
an employer's perspective, it may often be necessary to know which employees will be sensitive to
any level of inequities derived from work policies or practices. In the study, A Test and
Refinement of the Equity Sensitivity Construct, researchers hoped to test, both in an experimental
and field setting, a "refinement of the equity sensitivity construct" (King, Miles & Day, 1993,
p.301). The proposition of the study was that some individuals are uniquely sensitive to
perceptions of equity or inequity and will, in turn, react accordingly based upon their perceptions.
The equity sensitive construct, according to the researchers, is defined as the investigation of a
person's "perception of what is and what is not equity, and then uses that information to make
predictions about reactions to inequity" (King, et. al., 1993, p.302).
The study classifies people as either "benevolents, equity sensitives, or entitleds" (King, et al.,
1993, p. 302), depending on how sensitive they are to the equity rating. Equity sensitives will
follow Adam's model of the Equity Theory, but the benevolents and entitleds will be at opposite
ends of the "equity sensitive spectrum" (King, et. al., 1993, p.302). Thirteen separate hypotheses
were evaluated in this research study.
The researchers first administered tests to the participants to determine their level of equity
sensitivity. The participants were then assigned randomly to either under reward or over reward
conditions. The results showed that all of the researchers' hypotheses were consistent with the
equity sensitivity construct. The researchers did find that the "manipulations of outcomes was a
stronger cause of dissatisfaction than was manipulation of inputs" (King, et. al., 1993, p. 310),
essentially indicating that the participants were more sensitive to inequities when they didn't feel
they were rewarded as much as their peers. The researchers confirmed that there is "strong support
for the equity sensitivity construct and its incorporation into equity theory to enhance its predictive
power" (King, et. al., 1993, p. 310). The results of this research further help make Equity Theory
germane to the workplace, allowing employers to make initial assumptions about how employees
may react to potential or perceived inequities, based upon their employees' beliefs and personal
norms.
2005: Wage Comparisons with Similar and Dissimilar Others
Wage satisfaction and social comparison relationships has been the subject of several research
studies over the past 30 years. Paul D Sweeney and Dean B. McFarlin of University of Dayton
conducted a study, Wage Comparisons with Similar and Dissimilar Others (2005), in order to
determine if social comparisons can predict an employees satisfaction with their wage. Sweeney
and McFarlin hypothesized based on the Equity Theory that as employees compared their wages to
similar others; their wage satisfaction would vary based on that social comparison. (Sweeney &
McFarlin, 2005)
Four individual survey-based studies were conducted to test the hypothesis that wage satisfaction
would more likely be affected by comparison to similar others in order to determine if their wage
was fair. In the first two studies, subjects were asked to compare satisfaction with others in a
similar occupation within and outside of their current organization. In the third and fourth studies
wage satisfaction was compared with employees who had similar and dissimilar occupations.
Study 1
235 engineers at a Midwest utility company were mailed surveys to collect salary, age, sex, marital
status, tenure, and job grade. The survey also collected data from scale rated questions pertaining
to satisfaction of their pay and their perception of how others are paid with similar jobs outside the
organization. The researchers found that wage is a strong predictor of wage satisfaction but
comparisons to similar as well as dissimilar others also was an important and equal predicator as
well. (Sweeney & McFarlin, 2005)
Study 2
During this study researchers attempted to replicate their findings from study 1 by using a large
sample of US federal government workers from the Office of Personnel Management. The data
was collected from a random stratified sample of workers where demographic information and
scaled rated questionnaire responses were submitted by participants. (Sweeney & McFarlin, 2005)
Upon statistical analysis of the data, the researchers once again found that wage itself was the most
reliable predictor of wage satisfaction but both internal and external comparisons were also highly
important predictors of the variation in wage satisfaction. (Sweeney & McFarlin, 2005)
Study 3
During this study the construct of similarity was viewed based on similar and dissimilar
occupations. The data for this study came from Economic incentives, values, and subjective well
being research project of the Survey Research Center of the Institute of Social Research, the
University of Michigan (1975). The survey-based data were collected using a multistage area
probability sampling procedure where each data point came from someone who was at least 18
years old and employed. Like the first two studies the questions were scale based and represented
perceptions about their wage and their relative satisfaction. As in the first two studies, the highest
predictor of wage satisfaction was based on the income level itself and comparisons with both
similar and dissimilar occupations predicted variability in wage satisfaction. (Sweeney &
McFarlin, 2005)
Study 4
This study was researched in order to replicate the results of Study 3 and pulled data from the same
University of Michigan research project while using an entirely different sample using the same 18
and older and employed criteria. The results and conclusions were the same as Study 3.
The results of all of the studies were surprising to the researchers. The most important predictor of
wage satisfaction was the level of income and although comparisons to similar others did show a
strong correlation, so did comparisons to dissimilar others. Defining the similarity construct as an
occupation or organizational comparison did not change the strength of income being the strongest
predictor of satisfaction. According to Adams Equity Theory (n.d.), employees would have
detected a discrepancy of their efforts and wage ratios with similar others which would lead to
dissatisfaction. Also, Adams theory would explain that our social comparison of the most similar
others would have the greatest impact but in the case of wages there seems to be the other primary
factor of income level and what that means to an employee that determines level of satisfaction.
2006: Work Motivation on an Assembly Line
During 2006, another research study applying Equity Theory in the workplace was conducted by
professors from Cornell's School of Management, Eastern Michigan University's College of
Business, and Penn State University's Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering.
The cross-functional research offered a unique perspective toward best practices in "modeling and
understanding [assembly] line design" (Schultz, Schoenherr & Nembhard, 2006) in the work
entitled, Equity Theory Effects on Worker Motivation and Speed on an Assembly Line. The study
was completed on the basis that equity theory indicates that workers react to and modify their work
behavior based upon the speed or rate of the work of the people around them. The hypothesis
under evaluation was: "In additive interdependent work situations, workers will adjust their speed
toward the speed of their coworkers, creating a correlation among processing times" (Schultz, et.
al., 2006, p.9).
Data was examined for three production lines of a major automobile manufacturer. One hundred
forty-eight workers' task times for a period of six months' work was recorded and reviewed. The
results found that, on average, a person will adjust his or her "time by 41% of how much faster, or
slower, their nominal time is in relation to the coworkers" (Schultz, et. al., 2006, p. 15). The
researchers believed that the positive correlations found between the speed of a worker and the
speed of his or her coworker were consistent with Equity Theory, as workers desired to decrease
gaps between their work pace (inputs) and the work pace of their co-workers. The study results
were purported as important in design of assembly lines such that work stations should be arranged
as to take advantage of this equity theory effect by allowing workers only to be able to see the
employees who are the fastest in the plant.
Both classical and contemporary research supports the validity of Equity Theory and its application
in the work setting. While Equity Theory is supported as fact when reviewing the actions and
behaviors of those who feel they are subject to inequities, additional research into how Equity
Theory can be used proactively to increase the motivation and behavior of workers is necessary.
2009: Dishonesty in the Name of Equity
In 2009, Gino and Pierce conducted a research study in order to determine when it is that people
act dishonestly to either help or hurt others. They had two experiments. The first was to analyze
the effects of emotional reactions to inequity. The second was to analyze how far individuals
would go to help one another.
The participants in this study were mostly students from Carnegie Mellon University. They were
divided into groups and either did or did not receive money. They then had to grade problems
completed by the individual with whom they were paired. If the solver got the problem right, he
would get money. They tried to determine if individuals would be dishonest in reporting whether
or not the solver actually completed the problem correctly. They found that individuals did help
when there is equity (having money or not). They also found that having negative inequity causes
them to have a much stronger influence on reporting the performance of the solvers (Gino &
Pierce, 2009).
This study found that individuals are more likely to engage in dishonest behavior when they have
inequity of wealth (Gino & Pierce, 2009). The implications of this study suggest that managers
should try to keep equity between employees, because when inequity occurs, dishonesty will also
occur.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Equity Theory
Equity Theory is a good resource for organizations to consider when it comes to understanding
social comparison amongst employees. However, as with any theory, there are strengths and
weaknesses in terms of both practice and research. Thus, in order to understand the use and
applicableness of the Equity Theory as an explanation and/or as a motivator in the workplace it is
vital that these strengths and weaknesses be reviewed and evaluated.
Strengths
The following factors add to the strength and validity of Equity Theory.
Research
The following factors illustrate some of the problems with Equity Theory.
As illustrated above, the Equity Theory possesses both strengths and weakness, the examination of
which is necessary for the correct use of the theorys application in the workplace. Equity Theory,
with its strong empirical support, can be used in the workplace as a vital tool in reviewing
motivation and understanding employee behaviors. Furthermore, the weaknesses of the theory
shed crucial light upon what it is that needs further research and examination, thus providing us
with the knowledge of the information we ought to seek in order to further understand the structure
of workplace motivation.
Application of Equity Theory in the Workplace
It is in the best interest of the employer to ensure that their workforce remains motivated and
productive. Equity theory assesses employee motivation on the basis of an individuals subjective
perceptions, so it can be difficult for an employer to determine how employees perceive their
inputs, which outcomes they value, and who they select for their comparison other. While it is
difficult, if not impossible, to predict with whom employees might compare their inputs and
outputs, there are measures that an employer can take to reduce feelings of inequity or combat
perceptions of inequity in the workplace.
In terms of handling the distribution of rewards, employers should be attuned to distributive and
procedural justice. Distributive justice involves ensuring that outcomes are fairly distributed in the
organization (Stecher and Rosse, 2007). Procedural justice deals with whether or not the process
used to allocate the rewards is fair (Redmond, 2009). A low level of distributive justice is
associated with increased amounts of organizational counter-productive work behaviors (Kwak,
2006). Low levels of procedural justice correlate with increased organizational and interpersonal
counter-productive work behaviors (Kwak, 2006). Increased levels of distributive or procedural
justice can help prevent perceptions of inequity as well as any counter-productive work behaviors.
While the meaning of procedural justice will vary from organization to organization, there are
several common themes that will help to establish a just process. Giving employees a voice in the
decision-making process, making unbiased decisions, and being consistent in the application of
rules lends to a procedurally just process. People feel affirmed if the procedures that are adopted
treat them with respect and dignity, making it easier to accept outcomes they do not like (Deutsch,
2000, p.45). High levels of procedural and distributive justice wont necessarily prevent employees
from having a perception of inequity or unfairness in the workplace; however, an employer can
also prevent repercussions from perceptions of inequity. For example, Skarlicki and Folger (1997)
found that employees that are treated with respect are more likely to tolerate unfair pay. Whether
the pay or compensation is actually unfair might be irrelevant. To the employee a perception of
unfair compensation is the same as actual unfair compensation. So, if an employee has a perception
of inequity in their compensation they might be more willing to tolerate their perception of unfair
pay if they are treated with respect by their employer. Then they will be less likely to decrease their
inputs or engage in counter-productive work behaviors to compensate for a perception of
underpayment inequity. So, in addition to establishing fair distribution and procedures in an
organization, employers should always treat their employees with respect. This can help maintain
or increase motivation and prevent problems that stem from perceptions of under reward.
Employers also need to remember that employees can value different outcomes. For example,
younger employees tend to value more pay (Miles, et. al., 1994). Even if an employee receives a
higher salary than their co-worker they could still develop a perception of inequity if that coworker has a flexible schedule, and a flexible schedule is more valuable to them than extra salary.
To combat this problem, employers can implement two strategies. First, they could continually
request feedback from employees to determine what they value and how they would prefer to be
compensated. Another strategy used by employers is to offer a choice in benefits. For example, one
employee might want to use a health flexible spending account while another employee might
prefer to have a dependent care flexible spending account. Employers can offer choices on health
or dental insurance as well as other choices among benefits. This type of plan, called a cafeteria
style, allows employees to select outcomes that they value most. This can help prevent perceptions
of inequity because each employee has the outcomes that they value the highest. This helps
increase their ratio of inputs to outcomes when compared to their co-workers.
Employers can also utilize intangible rewards such as a pat on the back, a luncheon, or even simple
praise in front of co-workers. These simple intangible rewards can help balance a measure of
inputs and outcomes.
Utilizing equity theory to understand how employees measure their inputs and outcomes can help
employers prevent problems related to perceptions of inequity, such as reduced productivity or
theft. In addition to reducing or preventing negative behavior, employers will maintain satisfied
and motivated employees.
Global Application of Equity Theory
While there have been various attempts at breaking down the cultural barriers that have developed
within organizations across the globe, one factor that continues to need research is how cultural
differences influence the equity theory (Fadil, Williams, Limpaphayom, and Smatt, 2005).
Although the equity theory, as posed by Adams, has been recognized by many to be on target, it
was not until the 1980s that it was tested on non-Western cultures. Once research was conducted
on the equity theory and how it pertains to the Eastern culture, results found that equality rather
than equity was preferred (Leung and Bond, 1982, 1984; Leung and Park, 1986; Mahler,
Greenberg and Hayashi, 1981 as cited in Fadil et al, 2005).
The Eastern cultural view of the equality rule states that rewards will be given out equally to all
those involved in the groups performance regardless of individual inputs or personal efforts
(Fadil, et. al., 2005). Based on this information it was thought that a more detailed look at how
equality fits into the equity theory model would be very beneficial. This would enable
international managers and global organizations to have a more clear understanding of how the
equity theory can be applied across Western and Eastern cultures as well as regions throughout the
world (Fadil, et. al., 2005).
Equity vs. Equality
Under the equality model rewards are equally given out to all participants despite individual inputs.
Therefore, the outcome is preset. This is opposite the equity theory which states that individual
outcomes or rewards will be in proportion to individual inputs and efforts (Fadil, et. al., 2005).
Researchers found that individuals may be inclined to have varying views on the concepts and
orientation of equity based on their socio-historical period, cultural background, and even
individual personality types (Sampson, 1980 as cited in Fadil, et. al., 2005).
Individualism vs. Collectivism
Individualism (Western) and Collectivism (Eastern) are cultural dimensions that separate the
regions of the world, with the major difference being their cultural view on group membership.
Collectivistic cultures make a clear distinction between their in-groups and out-groups compared to
those in the individualistic cultures. (Hui, Triandis, and Yee, 1991 as cited in Fadil et al, 2005).
The Culturally-Sensitive Equity Model
Inputs
Outcomes
Choice of a
Referent Other
Methods of
Reducing Inequity
Individualism
Effort, education, intelligence, experience
Pay, autonomy, job status, fringe benefits
Range of individuals due to loosely tied in-groups
Altering inputs or outcomes of the individual or the comparison other
Collectivism
Group membership, loyalty, support, respect
Harmony, acceptance, social status, solidarity, cohesion
May choose out-groups as a group referent, not an individual
May alter inputs of self; however, due to shame control they are unlikely to occur
The Culturally-Sensitive Equity Model serves to show how the equity theory not only applies to
the Western culture, but also Eastern, collectivistic cultures (Fadil, et al., 2005). The model also
encompasses the more collectivistic cultural notion of equality. Lastly this model illustrates how
the inputs and outcomes components of the equity theory can include group-based rewards as well
as the importance of in-groups and out-groups via group membership. The Culturally-Sensitive
Equity Model can be used as a tool for international managers who either have employees,
customers, or suppliers in both the Western and Eastern regions of the world. Through the use of
this model, these managers can gain a global understanding and have a true appreciation for the
various inputs and outcomes that motivate their employees based on orientation and cultural
perspectives.
Workplace Considerations
When looking at how the notion of equality fits into the equity theory it is important for
organizations to understand that in some cultures this idea is favored. By accepting that some
employees may be accustomed to an equality environment, in which everyone gets the same
rewards regardless of individual input, managers may be more prepared to handle conflict or issues
that arise within their own organizational culture. Conflict between co-workers could arise if some
employees believe in equality, while others follow the equity theory, expecting their individual
contributions to be individually rewarded.
The Culturally-Sensitive equity model can be used as a tool for international managers who either
have employees, customers, or suppliers in both the Western and Eastern regions of the world.
Through the use of this model, these managers can gain a global understanding and have a true
appreciation for the various inputs and outcomes that motivate their employees based on
orientation and cultural perspectives (Fadil et al., 2005).
Food For Thought...
I worked at a hospital in the patient administrative services department, where I was the
youngest worker (at 24 years old). However, my coworkers (three other women) were well into
their fifties. We all got along great. I noticed a feeling of inequity between us because I was
getting paid more. I did not feel the same inequity as I had experience and the years of schooling
required to fill this position. My three coworkers had no formal education, or training for this
position. Do you think it was fair that I was being paid more than they were for the same work
being done?...Just food for thought ;-)
I worked at the District Court (Summer Only) for 3 summers in a row. There were people both
men and women who had been with the company between 5 and 15 years. The administrative
assistant went on vacation, there was no back up admin assistant to work while she was away.
Many of the long tern employees had never been trained to work the administrative assistant
position and had no idea what she did. Everyone was wondering who would get sent to work her
spot because the person who did was getting a raise for the time worked. The Division Chief
decided to chose me the summer employee to fill her position and when the raise was given I was
making more money than many of the permanent full time workers. :)
I worked for an airline as an aircraft mission dispatcher. I worked in a section of a company
were I was the only male in the group, and the oldest (by close to five years). I had a dispatching
license and many years of experience (with another employer), however none of my coworkers had
a license. During lunch one day, one of my coworkers mentioned that they were unhappy with
their compensation from the company. They told me how much they were making and it was
three dollars more than me! I had no idea that there was such a disparity in our incomes, and I had
higher inputs (my previous work experience, and an aviation dispatching license, both of which
this employee did not have) to the company, while only lagging behind in years of service. Was I
correct in feeling a sense of inequity in this situation? Just food for thought
References
Adams' Equity Theory (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_96.htm.
Adams, John S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and, Social
Psychology, 67(5), 422-436.
Austin, W., & Walster, E. (1974). Reactions to confirmations and disconfirmations of expectancies
of equity and inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 208-216.
Bauer, T, & Erdogan, B. (n.d.). Process-based theories. Retrieved from
http://www.flatworldknowledge.com/node/28833#web-28833
Cory, C. (2006) Equity theory and employee motivation, Buzzle, Retrieved from
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-24-2006-100325.asp.
Deutsch, Morton (2000) Justice and conflict. In M. Deutsch and P.T. Coleman (Eds.), The
Handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice , San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers.
Fadil, P.A., Williams, R.J., Limpaphayom, W., & Smatt, C. (2005) Equity or equality? A
conceptual examination of the influence of individualism/collectivism on the cross-cultural
application of equity theory. Cross Cultural Management, 12 (4), 17-36.
Fontaine, C. (2010). Motivation theory and practice. [Web].Retrieved from
www.professorfontaine.com/files/Motivation.PPT
Gogia, P. (2010, September 14). Equity theory of motivation. Retrieved from
http://www.businessihub.com/equity-theory-of-motivation/.
Greenberg, J. (1988). Equity and workplace status: a field experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 4, 606-613.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: the hidden cost of
pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 561-568.
Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1983). Deterrence in the workplace: Perceived certainty, perceived
severity, and employee theft. Social Forces, 62, 398-418.
Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The
equity sensitivity construct. The Academy of Management Review, 12 (2), 222-234.
Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (March 2005). Wage comparisons with similar and dissimilar
others. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 113-131.
Swinton, S. (2006) Adams equity motivation theory: Put workplace psychology into action and
increase motivation. Retrived from http://www.mftrou.com/support-files/adams-equity-motivationtheory.pdf.
Labels
equity
motivation
adams
inequity
behavior
Child Pages (3)
Hide Child Pages | Reorder Pages
Page: Equity Case Study
Page: Equity Theory Case Study Fall 2011 Team 4
Page: Spring 2012 equity case
2. Need Theories
Needs Theories Overview
Needs-based motivation theories are based on the understanding that motivation stems from an
individual's desire to fulfill or achieve a need. Human beings are motivated by unsatisfied needs,
and certain lower needs must be satisfied before higher needs can be satisfied. In general terms,
motivation can be defined as the desire to achieve a goal, combined with the energy determination
and opportunity to achieve it. This Wiki explores Abraham H. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
theory, Clayton P. Alderfer's Existence Related Growth (ERG) Theory, and the expansion of David
McClelland's Need Theory by Henry A. Murray.
Abraham Maslow
Abraham Maslow was born April 1, 1908, the first of seven born to his poorly educated Jewish
immigrant parents. Encouraged by his parents to seek academic success, he began studying law at
the City College of New York. After transferring briefly to Cornell, Maslow returned to New
York before marrying and moving to the University of Wisconsin. While attending UOW he
began his work in psychology, studying the behaviors of rhesus monkeys with Harry Harlow.
Though the objective was to study attachment behaviors, Maslow noticed the monkeys behavior
was driven by different sets of needs. This was the underlining basis for the beginning of
his interest in personal need and motivation. (Boeree, 2006) After earning his Bachelors,
Masters, and Ph.D. in psychology, Maslow returned to New York where he began teaching at
Brooklyn College. Additionally, he served as the chair of the psychology department at Brandeis
University from 1951 to 1969, during which time he became involved with Kurt Goldstein and his
theory of self-actualization, which ultimately led to the development of Maslows own Hierarchy
of Needs theory. (Boeree, C. George, 1998, 2006)
experience internal motivation are influenced by factors that cause a sense of accomplishment and
pleasure, while externally motivated people are commonly influenced by factors controlled by
others, such as money and praise. (Deci & Ryan, 1985) Maslow's hierarchy is commonly displayed
in a pyramid fashion, with the basic needs at the bottom and the higher needs at the top. The needs
were depicted in this way to show the significance of each need on the others, with the most
important and broadest category being the physiological needs at the base. (Redmond, 2010)
Basic-Order Needs:
1. Physiological Needs are basic needs that are physiologically necessary for ones survival, such
as oxygen, food, shelter, and sleep. These needs must be met before moving to satisfy needs higher
in the order.
2. Safety Needs include the desire to feel safe and secure and to ensure that basic physiological
needs will remain met. Examples of this need include shelter or housing, physical ability to defend
ones self, the need to have limits or law (or a conscience), and a regular routine that an individual
is comfortable with. Once ones physiological needs have been met, s/he will move on to the
safety needs.
Higher-Order Needs:
3. Social Needs include friendship and companionship. One must know that they are not alone in
the world and be able to communicate feelings and needs with other individuals.
4. Esteem Needs - An individual eventually needs to feel that they have a social status. This goes
beyond just having social relationships; the individual must feel that in work or at home they are
making
a
contribution.
5. Self-actualization Needs - This is the final and highest level of needs. Meeting this need is
characterized by continuously focusing on personal growth, problem solving, life appreciation, and
peak experiences for oneself. (Huitt, 2004)
Maslows concept of self-actualization (SA) represents everything that one is capable of
becoming. (Value Based Management.net, 2009) When observing SA, it is important to note that
the category does not complete Maslows Hierarchy of Needs. Many researchers thought that
Maslow believed achieving the SA category would result in the completion of the progression.
Researchers found this unattainable because SA is elastic; as one nears their SA, their abilities
develop and grow which makes their true potential even greater. However, O'Connor and Yballe
(2007) indicate that Maslow intended his theory to be an ongoing process that involves dozens of
little growth choices that entail risk and require courage. (p. 742)
Maslow believed that in order for the higher-order needs to be successfully met and not affect
basic needs, an individual must first acquire the basic-order needs, referred to as fulfillment
progression. (Redmond, 2010)
Clayton P. Alderfer
Clayton P. Alderfer, born September 1, 1940, earned his B.S. degree in 1962 at Yale University
and his Ph.D. in 1966. Alderfer has contributed greatly to Applied & Professional Psychology
though his instruction at Cornell University, Yale University, and Rutgers University. Early in his
career, while studying needs in organizations, he formulated the Existence, Relatedness, and
Growth (ERG) Theory, for which he is best known. He went on to serve a fourteen-year term as
editor of the Journal of Applied & Behavioral Science, and his contributions to the field of
organization psychology have been recognized though various awards; namely, the Harry
Levinson Award for Excellence and the Janet Helms Award. (Rutgers, 2010) Today, Clayton P.
Alderfer continues to contribute to organizational psychology through his self-established
consulting firm, Alderfer & Associates. (Alderfer, 2010)
2. Relatedness Needs: Social relationships and external esteem (e.g. involvement with family,
friends, co-workers)
3. Growth Needs: Internal esteem and self-actualization, the most abstract of needs as they do
not involve physical aspects. (e.g. desire to be creative or productive)
While Maslows theory was interpreted as portraying that satisfied needs are no longer a
motivation (OConnor & Yballe, 2007), Alderfers ERG theory clearly states that all categories of
needs can become more important as they are satisfied. Additionally, individuals may place
greater emphasis on any single category as opposed to the rigid hierarchy of moving from one need
to the next (Alderfer, 1969). The main difference between Maslow's Needs Hierarchy and
Alderfer's ERG Theory is the order in which needs are met. Alderfer believed that needs are met
simultaneously and in no specific order, while Maslow's theory states that needs are met one by
one and in a specific order (Alleydog, 1998). An example of Alderfer's ERG Theory is a starving
artist, who may place greater emphasis on creating art (growth) than on existence needs like food
or shelter. (Redmond, 2010) An employee who seeks a promotion or increased responsibilities
may be attempting to satisfy all needs by increasing pay (existence), developing a larger social
network (relatedness), and increasing self-esteem (growth).
The following illustration depicts Alderfers ERG theory. Notice as one progresses from existence
needs through relatedness needs to growth needs, s/he experiences satisfaction. However,
regression through the needs levels results in frustration. The idea of frustration-regression is
explained as reverting to a lower level need when a higher level need is not met. (Redmond, 2010)
Along the same lines, Borkowski (2009) theorized that a person regresses to lower needs to once
again achieve a feeling of satisfaction.
(Redmond 2010, p. 6)
There are, however, exceptions to frustration-regression. According to Brian Redmond, from
the Pennsylvania State University, there are two exceptions to frustration-regression. The first
exception is "failure to fulfill existence needs leads to greater existence." (Redmond, 2010) An
example of the first exception is if one needs to sleep and is unable, s/he will develop a larger,
more powerful need for sleep. The second exception to frustration-regression is "fulfillment of
growth needs leads to greater growth needs." (Redmond, 2010) An example of this would be
winning the lottery; if one wins the lottery, one will then need to pursue increased wealth.
Maslow did realize that not everyone followed his pyramid of needs. While there are many types
of people and personalities, introversion and extroversion are common distinctions. Huitt (2004),
created the following chart to represent the collaboration of both Maslow's and Alderfer's theories,
with levels of introversion and extroversion.
of
Needs.
Retrieved
from:
[http://ways-
David McClelland
David McClelland, born May 20, 1917, earned his doctorate at Yale University in 1941. He
became a major contributor to the study of human personality and motivation in both education
and industry. McClelland contributed to education through his instruction at Wesleyan University,
Harvard, and Boston University. He contributed to industry through McBer, the consulting agency
which he started in 1963 and which helps managers to assess and train employees. McClelland is
best known for his work on achievement motivation models and their practical applications,
namely the Thematic Apperception Test and Need Theory. (Chapman, 2009)
Achievement Motivation (nACH) - Those with a high need for achievement are attracted to
situations offering personal accountability; set challenging, yet attainable, goals for themselves;
and desire performance feedback. (Stuart-Kotze, 2009)
Authority/Power Motivation (nPOW) - Individuals with a need for authority and power desire to
influence others, but do not demonstrate a need to simply have control. These individuals possess
motivation and the need to increase personal status and prestige.
Affiliation Motivation (nAFF) - Finally, those with a need for affiliation value building strong
relationships, admire belonging to groups or organizations, and are sensitive to the needs of others.
(Stuart-Kotze, 2009) This type of person is a team player and wants to be respected and liked.
According to McClelland, most people possess and portray a mixture of these characteristics.
Some people display a strong bias toward a particular motivational need which, in return,
influences their behavior and influences their working/management style. McClelland believed
that those who resembled the "affiliation motivation model" had diminished objectivity as a
manager. He attributed this weakness to their need to be accepted and liked, which can impair
decision making. A person who fits the "authority motivation model" is more devoted to an
organization, and also possesses a better work ethic. Those who seek power within a leadership
role may not even know how to get along with others and how to compromise. Lastly, individuals
who fit the "achievement model" are more likely to be overachieving and overbearing (Accelteam.com, 2010). These types of people prefer tasks that are challenging and also prefer to work
alone. McClelland also believed that an individual's need grouping changes as they grow, and
those who do not naturally possess specific needs can acquire them through training and
experience (Mendenhall, Punnett & Ricks, 1995).
Figure: Distribution of Need Behaviors, Typical behaviors associated with motivational type.
(Adapted from Swenson, 2000)
individual performance. The case study by Cangemi (2009) demonstrates one instance of how the
concept of needs can provide a framework for front line managers to change employee behavior.
The managers awareness of employee needs and the possibility of these needs changing over time
enabled them to modify their management style to improve organizational outcomes. The
important thing to remember is that individuals have varying needs and managers can leverage
those needs to increase employee motivation.
McClelland used the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) to measure motivation under the
impression that motivation was a more efficient predictor of achievement than intelligence. In the
TAT, subjects are shown pictures of ambiguous scenes and asked to create a story based on the
pictures. The theory on the TAT is that the content of the subject's story will reveal the individuals
needs, attitudes, and behavioral patterns. The TAT was developed during the 1930s by American
psychologists Henry Murray and Christiana D. Morgan at Harvard while exploring the underlying
force of personality. Such forces included internal conflicts, dominant drives, interests, and
motives. McClelland and his associate created a scoring system to measure an individuals score
for each motivational model. The score assigned can infer the types of jobs the person is best
suited for. The TAT is the only tool that has been discovered to quantify implied motivation
accurately.
When studied by other researchers, Mclellands theory has found support, with an emphasis on the
need for achievement. For example, a meta-analysis performed by Stewart and Roth (2007) found
that entrepreneurs typically had higher needs for achievement than did managers. The autonomy
and challenging demands of entrepreneurship are conducive to satisfaction of this need. In
addition, Park, Lee, and Kabst (2008) demonstrate that achievement, affiliation, and power needs
are important predictors in organizational commitment (OC) and job involvement (JI). Those with
strong achievement needs demonstrate higher levels of performance and are more goal-oriented.
While both average and above average employees exhibit similar needs profiles, the need for
achievement is higher for those with higher OC and JI. Value can be found in Mclellands theory
but determining the levels of individual needs and subsequently matching those needs to a job
situation presents a challenge for practitioners.
The biggest strength of Maslows need theory relates to its intuitive nature. Intuitive nature is the
awareness of emotions. It is this strength that supports practitioners in using the theory despite the
lack of supportive evidence (OConnor & Ybatel, 2007). Each person has an individual
motivational framework which they work and behave; this framework differs from person to
person and even for a single individual from day to day (Redmond, 2010). Practitioners of the
theory, those who put it into practice when working within their organizations, understand this
flexible, individualized theory as a dynamic solution to motivating members of an organization.
Another strength of Maslow's theory is the fact that it focuses on the individual's own constructs
and experiences instead of focusing on the mentally ill.
Weaknesses, on the other hand, stem from the difficulty of being able to support the theory
empirically (Wahba & Bridwell, 1976). Because of the lack of specificity included in Maslows
theory, it is easily applied in various ways making it difficult to test and study. Moreover, just as
norms between individuals fluctuate, so do norms between cultures. Elements like esteem and selfactualization may have vastly different meanings across different cultures making it difficult to
standardize Maslows theory and the definitions of the components. Maslow's Heirachy of Needs
Theory was developed by American theorists and research was done only with Americans.
Different culturers often value differerent needs. In collective socieites, or societies in which
family members and other in-group members look after earch other in exchange for loyalty,
belonging is a basic need while self-esteem is less important (Ciani and Gambrel, 2003).
Therefore, researech supports the notion that Maslow's hierarchy may not accurately represent
individiual needs in a collective culture. Another weakness to Maslow's theory is the fact that there
are exceptions to the theory. For example, what about the firefighters, policemen, and the military,
who risk their lives, everyday, to save others. This exception show that there are certain types of
people who sacrifice their own basic needs for the welfare of others.
Some believe that Maslow himself saw the weaknesses of his theory later in his life. Many believe
that Maslow intended to modify his theory by adding a sixth need on top of his pyramid - above
self-actualization. This is the need of self-transcendence and would address issues with religion
and putting others safety above one's own. Maslow believed what he called "transcenders" would
be highly religious people - regardless of their chosen religion, an indication that he thought of his
theory had multi-cultural applications. Regarding cultural differences, he stated, "Culture is
definitely and absolutely needed for their actualization; but also culture can fail to actualize them,
and indeed this is just what most known cultures actually seem to do and to have done throughout
history." (Maslow, Farther Reaches of Human Nature, 326). He believed that transcendence and
striving for these types of needs were instinctive to every human. Maslow also believed that
transcenders strived for exciting and elaborate situations, called "peaks". The need to reach these
peaks could explain why some people perform certain jobs such as policeman or firefighter in
which they put their lives at risk for others. "For the transcenders, peak experiences and plateau
experiences become the most important things in their lives, the high spots, the validators of life,
the most precious aspect of life" (Maslow,Farther Reaches of Human Nature, 283).
Maslow's book, Farther Reaches of Human Nature, published after his death, convinced others that
he had intended to modify his pyramid. Mark Koltko-Rivera states that "considering the construct
of self-transcendence can help us better understand the motivational underpinning of both altruism
and religious violence, as well as human wisdom" (Koltko-Rivera, 2006). Many believe that his
theory should not only be altered to include this new need, but also that textbooks and other
educational sources should be updated as well.
become stronger in areas that caused the setback, while other cultures focus on the regressive side
of failing to achieve.
Application
Workplace
of
Need
Theories
in
the
This case provides an example of the conceptual model of Maslows theory applied to a real
situation. The managers at the plant were mostly engineers, accountants, and chemists and had
little to no training in human behavior. This model presented them with a blueprint to address the
issues of lost productivity and disgruntled workers. The managers now understood the reason
behind the employees behavior and the actions necessary to change that behavior.
This case describes a consultant who presented Maslows theory to the management team of a
large manufacturing plant. The needs of the labor force had changed over the years and the old
management techniques showed little regard for the employees and were causing unrest after 20
years of peace between labor and management. The needs of the older employees, who were
largely illiterate or possessed little education, were on a lower level of Maslows scale, namely the
survival levels of physiological and safety needs. They just wanted a paycheck to survive. A
newer generation of workers entered the plant and the strong arm management approach met
resistance. New workers had a higher education level and no longer sought satisfaction of their
lower level survival needs. The newer generation came to the plant with needs involving
recognition, fulfillment, and personal growth, which correspond to the higher level needs of
Maslows scale. After presenting his findings to the companys leadership, the situation had
improved significantly at the manufacturing facility (Cangemi,2009).
> Example Case of Application of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs in the Workplace:
A study done by James R. Lindner, a research associate of Ohio State University, about employee
ranked motivation factors in correlation with Maslows and others theories of needs and motivation.
"Specifically, the study sought to describe the ranked importance of the following ten motivating
factors: (1) job security, (2) sympathetic help with personal problems, (3) personal loyalty to
employees, (4) interesting work, (5) good working conditions, (6) tactful discipline, (7) good
wages, (8) promotions and growth in the organization, (9) feeling of being in on things, and (10)
full appreciation of work done. A secondary purpose of the study was to compare the results of this
study with the study results from other populations." Twenty-three employees of the twenty-five
employees of the company being researched participated in the study. The following needs, in
order of high ranking to low ranking, were found to be motivational factors of these workers:
interesting work, good wages, full appreciation of work done, job security, good working
conditions, promotions and growth in the organization, feeling of being in on things, personal
loyalty to employees, tactful discipline, and sympathetic help with personal problems. When
comparing these to Maslow's model, it is interesting to see the relationship; interesting work- selfactualizing factor, good wages- physiological factor, full appreciation of work done- esteem factor,
job security-safety factor (Lindner, 1998).So this study shows that Maslow's theory and other
needs theories can be applied in some situations.
In a case study that was done in a real estate organization, the ERG Theory was upheld and
reinforced when the employees were unable to attain the higher level needs and as a result they
regressed to the lower level needs to attain fulfillment.
In this study, the real estate organization hired new finance managers with the hope that they could
replace the managers that had been in these positions who were not performing satisfactorily. The
new finance managers were satisfied with the existence needs (salary and working conditions) and
within a short time were satisfied with relatedness needs (rapport within the departments and
management). Within six months of employment the finance managers became frustrated due to
upper management not trusting them to complete a task without supervision. As a result of this the
finance managers regressed back to lower level needs and asked management for new titles and
larger offices. Management granted the request to appease the finance managers as they had been
complaining to upper management. While the existence and relatedness needs of the Finance
Mangers were met, they could not achieve their growth needs so they placed more emphasis on the
lower level needs (Buhler, 1988).
foward as far as they could just so there was an advantage. He explanes that the nACH would try
to make the game even more challenging by standing further away or coming at it at more difficult
angles. McClelland believes there is something else going on other than just setting goals
and completing them. Some high nACH individuals need to apply more challenge to their lives
and every time a challenge is met successfully they need a stronger more challenging task. He
calls this the "balanced challenge" and it is use to keep the person in good shape
mentally. (Chapman, 2009) This shows why it is a good idea to know what needs a person has to
properly motivate them in the right manner and to expect that not all employees are motivated by
challenge.
Successful entrepreneurs often rate high in nAch. Some companies have been able to successfully
grow the nAch within their workforce. General Electric (GE) is an example of such a company.
GE managers are rewarded with praise and financial incentives for fact-based bottom-line
numbers. They are grilled on weekly and monthly results. Routinely the bottom ten percent of
managers is removed to make room for more people who strive to achieve better performance
results. (Hill & McShane, 2008, p. 322)
McClelland suggest that the best managers have a high nPOW. McClelland says, a good manager
is one who, among other things, helps subordinates feel strong and responsible, rewards them
properly for good performance, and sees that things are organized so that subordinates feel that
they know what they should be doing. Above all, managers should foster a strong sense of team
spirit among subordinates, of pride in working as part of a team. If a manager creates and
encourages this spirit, his or her subordinates certainly should perform better. People with high
nACH typically do not find the same type of success in management. McClelland says, "There is
no reason on theoretical grounds why a person who has a strong need to be more efficient should
make a good manager. While it sounds as if everyone ought to have the need to achieve, in fact, as
psychologists define and measure achievement motivation, the need to achieve leads people to
behave in ways that do not necessarily engender good management. For one thing, because they
focus on personal improvement, achievement-motivated people want to do things themselves. For
another, they want concrete short-term feedback on their performance so that they can tell how
well they are doing. Yet managers, particularly in large, complex organizations, cannot perform by
themselves all the tasks necessary for success. They must manage others to perform for the
organization. And they must be willing to do without immediate and personal feedback since tasks
are spread among many people."
Recent Developments
Maslow's Hierarchy Revisited
Kenrick, Griskevicious, Neuberg, & Schaller (2010) recently updated Maslow's pyramid of needs
to reflect a controversial, yet possibly, a more up to date approach that is based on findings in the
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/08/19/maslows.pyramid.gets.a.much.needed.renovation
References
from http://www.accel-team.com/human_relations/hrels_06_mcclelland.html.
2. Alderfer & Associates. (2010) Organizational Diagnosis & Consultation. Retrieved from
http://www.clayalderfer.com/index.php/clay/info/about-clay/
3. Alleydog. (1998). Motivation. Retrieved from
http://www.alleydog.com/topics/motivation.php
4. Arnolds, C.A. & Boshoff, C. (2002). Compensation, esteem valence and job performance:
From http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OGT/is_2_2/ai_113563670/?
tag=content;col1.
19. Kenrick, D.T., Griskevicious, V., Neuberg, S.L., & Schaller, M. (2010). Renovating the
pyramid of needs; contemporary extension built upon ancient foundations. Perspectivesof
Psychological Science, 5(3), 292-314.
20. Koltko-Rivera, Mark E. (2006). Rediscovering the Later Version of Maslow's Hierarchy of
Needs: Self-Transcendence and Opportunities for Theory, Research, and Unification.
Review of General Psychology, 10(4), 302-17.
21. Lahey, B.B. (2001). Psychology an introduction. Boston: McGraw.
22. Lindner, J. R. (1998). Understanding Employee Motivation. Journal of Extension, 36 (3).
Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1998june/rb3.php
23. Maslow, A. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 5.
24. Maslow, A. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
25. Maslow, A (1971). Farther Reaches of Human Nature. New York, 1971.283, 326.
26. Maslow's Pyramid Gets a Much Needed Renovation. (2010, August 18). Targeted News
Service. (Document ID: 2115959581)
27. McClelland, D.C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist,
20, 321-333.
28. Mendenhall, M. E., Punnett, B. J., & Ricks, D. A. (1995). Global Management. Cambridge:
Blackwell.
29. NetMBA.com (2010). Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. NetMBA: Managment.
http://www.netmba.com/mgmt/ob/motivation/maslow/
30. NetMBA.com. (2007). McClelland's Theory_._ NetMBA: Business Knowledge Center.
http://www.netmba.com/mgmt/ob/mcclelland/
31. O'Connor, D., & Yballe, L.. (2007). Maslow Revisited: Construction a Road Map of
Human Nature. Journal of Management Education, 31(6), 738-756. Retrieved January 21,
2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1392302941).
32. Park, Y., Lee, C., & Kabst, R.. (2008). Human Needs as Predictors for Organizational
Commitment and Job Involvement: An Exploratory Empirical Study**. Management
Revue, 19(3), 229-246. Retrieved September 3, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global.
(Document ID: 1615081831).
33. Redmond, B.F. (2010). Need Theories: What Do I Want When I Work? Work Attitudes
and Motivation. The Pennsylvania State University World Campus.
34. Rutgers (2010). Catalog. Clayton P. Alderfer, Professor Emeritus.
http://catalogs.rutgers.edu/generated/gsapp_current/pg18337.html
35. Stewart, W., & Roth, P.. (2007). A Meta-Analysis of Achievement Motivation Differences
between Entrepreneurs and Managers*. Journal of Small Business
Management, 45(4), 401-421. Retrieved September 2, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global.
(Document ID: 1378966581).
36. Stuart-Kotze, R. (2009). Motivation Theory. Retrieved from http://www.goal-settingguide.com/motivation-theory.html.
37. Swenson, D. X. (2000, 2 24). David McClelland's 3-Need Theory Achievement, Affiliation,
Power. Retrieved 09 07, 2009, from The College of St. Scholastica:
http://faculty.css.edu/dswenson/web/LEAD/McClelland.html
38. Whittington, J.L. & Evans, B. (2005). The Enduring Impact of Great Ideas [Electronic
Version]. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 2, 114.
39. Value Based Management.net. (2009, 3 23). Abraham Maslow biography - Hierarchy of