Equity, Expectancy, and Goal setting are the three motivational theories discussed throughout this paper. Equity theory is defined as social comparisons to others in the workforce. Here we review a field experiment of 198 employees and their relation to being reassigned in different offices that are either overpaid or underpaid. This gives us an idea of how environmental factors effect job performance. Expectancy theory is also discussed in terms of job enrichment. We see that the people, who volunteered, had both high locus of control and higher order need satisfaction.
Also, employee involvement programs were found to have the same characteristics as those who perused job enrichment. Goal setting theory, which is based on developing and setting up achievement objectives, is reviewed in sense of the relationship in the complex and dynamic organizational setting. Here we review the research of over 550 subjects involved in the study and see if there is any conclusive evidence between participation and performance. This paper aims to review the articles so that it can be better understood, give some insight on what other research should be done, and the application of this research to organizations.
Discussion of Theory
Motivation is the degree to which an individual is personally committed to expending effort in the accomplishment of a specified activity or goal (Eisenberg & Goodall, Jr., 1997, pp. 244-45). Organizations strive motivate their employees by using different applications. The Equity theory can be describe as the ratio of effort to reward. The employee will compare their ratio with the other workers ratio. If the employee sees himself or herself as under compensated, they could correct the matter by declining their quality, productivity, and increasing their absenteeism.
Quality of work is hard to measure because of communication in the workforce. Every worker is different, thus communication for each worker has to relate with his or her personality. It would be easy for another co-worker to take the conversation out of context. The organization has successfully accomplished this theory when employees fell that their ratio is equal to their co-workers.
Expectancy theory makes the assumption that if I perform really well, I will get a reward. Given this explanation, the employee will act in a certain way according to the expected reward. Managers within the organization have control over the rewards. Motivation will increase when there is a clear-cut understanding of the reward. Each worker will differ in their intensity of motivation based on whether they feel they have the required skills to accomplish the task. I would argue that this in conjunction with goal setting is the most productive way of motivating workers in any organizational setting.
One of today’s most used motivational techniques includes the goal-setting theory. This theory, in conjunction with the concept of management by objectives, seeks to include the manager and employee to set clear and specific goals. The communication between the manager and employee allows for feedback and offers the feeling of importance to the employee. Goal setting will only be most effective when management can provide enough feedback to the employees. This feedback will assure the workers of their continued progress towards their goals.
Application of the Equity theory in the workforce
Jerald Greenbergs study of Equity and Workplace status: A field experiment, took 198 employees in a large underwriting department of an insurance company and randomly reassigned them offices of different status. All of the employees had the same job as they did before, other than the size of the policies they could approve. Greenberg tested the hypothesis, derived from the equity theory, that the status value of the temporary offices would create increases, decreases, or no change in organizational out come levels (Greenberg, 1998, p.606). The employees were able to randomly select from a drawing what office they would be reassigned to.
The office had three different status-rankings, underwriter trainees, associate underwriters, and underwriters. The characteristics of the offices ranged from a small desk with limited room to a larger desk with added room. Greenberg administered a questionnaire three times: a week before the reassignment, a week into the reassignment, and one-week after the reassignment to help measure their performance. MSQ was used to measure job satisfaction as well as other questions such as How pleased or displeased are you with each of the following aspects of your current work environment: privacy, desk-space, floor-space, noise level, lighting, furnishings, and overall atmosphere (Greenberg, 1998, p.606)?
It was found that the subjects did recognize that they were in a different office whether it is one of high status or low status. When measuring performance it was found that there was no difference between the groups two weeks prior to the reassignment. During the first week of reassignment it was found through the use of the Newman-Keuls tests that those who were overpaid increased in productivity and those who were underpaid decreased in productivity. Subjects that were equitably paid essentially did not differ.
Greenberg stated that the results of the study provided support for his hypotheses and found that one of the most interesting aspects to come from the study was that conditions of overpayment and underpayment were able to be created by manipulating nonmonetary outcomes elements of the work environment associated with organizational status (Greenberg, 1998, p.611). In his conclusion, Greenberg stated that he was not surprised to find that the workers job performance paned out the way it did and the use of the equity theory was successful (Greenberg, 1998).
Critical evaluation of Jerald Greenbergs findings
Equity comparison occurs on two levels. The first is an individual’s subjective assessment of whether the effort required will be commensurate with the benefits achieved. The second comparison occurs on a social level using those around, as a yardstick against which to measure the individual’s own sense of equity. The second comparison can be used in this case. Greenberg’s field experiment, which was focused more on workspace elements, is one that many don’t focus on when using the equity theory. His findings suggest that the workers performance is effected by, or based on, the environment in which they work.
This is evident in Figure 1. Figure 1 shows the relationship between the equitably paid (subjects that were reassigned to the same office they occupied before), One-step overpaid (subjects that moved one-step up from the office they occupied prior to reassignment), Two- step overpaid (subjects that moved two-steps up from the office they occupied prior to reassignment), Controlled, One-step under paid, and Two-step under paid. These are in relation to the first and second weeks prior to re-assignment, first and second week during re- assignment, and the first and second week after re-assignment. From this data one can conclude that the employees performance is more inclined to be based on the environment in which they work in. The individuals who were subjected to the offices that were overpaid by one or two steps felt that they had a reason to excel because of the environment that they
