John Stacey Adams Theory and the Vroom Expectancy Theory - Assignment Example

Question 1 John Stacey Adams, a behavioral and workplace psychologist proposed the equity theory in 1963 (Adams 1965). According to Adams, employees are most productive when they perceive that they are being treated fairly. The equity theory is built on the premise that employees, and people in general seek to maintain equity (fairness) on their jobs between the inputs they bring and the outputs they receive from the same (Adams 1965). Nature is and has always been concerned with the creation and maintenance of equilibrium, and will often even resort to chaos in an attempt to restore order. Every creature in nature also possesses this same trait. Humans, therefore, being the most intelligent of all of nature’s creations would go a step further to ensure that their perceptional and psychological equilibrium is maintained in order for man to be comfortable with himself and others in his surroundings (Shukla 2011). Adams’ equity theory recognizes this innate peculiar behavior of nature (in general) and equates it to the behavior of human minds (in particular) to take a stab at explaining why humans feel discontented even when the output they get exceeds the input they invested (Guerrero and Andersen et al. 2013). This theory can be summarized in the following equation: Individual outcomes Relational partner’s outcomes Individual’s own inputs Relational partner’s inputs Since people always view themselves not merely as individuals, but as an individual in a community and who they perceive themselves to be is affected by their society, employees must be treated in the same way (Businessballs.com 2013). Each individual employee will therefore consider that they are fairly treated if their input to output ratio matches that of his fellow employees (his surroundings). Thus, ceteris paribus, the employee would perceive it fair that a more senior employee receives more benefits because his experience (and therefore his input) is worth more in comparison. However, if the same employee perceives that another colleague with equal experience, who does the same amount and quality of work as themselves gets more recognition, they are prone to feeling discontented and underappreciated by their employer. Because of these feelings of dissatisfaction, their work quality suffers as the employee feels undervalued by and worthless to their employer (Whatishumanresource.com 2014). In our scenario, we will analyze two pharmacy assistants- Beth’s and Amy’s input to outcome ratio, and juxtapose them against each other (because employees perceive fairness by comparing themselves to their surroundings) to take a run at explaining both employees’ behaviors and suggest workable solutions. Beth, an able employee with lots of work experience within the field (She has worked in three of the other pharmacies in the last 4 years). She has a firm grasp on product knowledge, as well as a caring nature. She is also more conscientious than her fellow employee (Amy) who often manipulates Beth into doing tasks that she dislikes. Beth therefore carries hers and part of Amy’s workload without receiving any recognition for it. Amy on the other hand, is younger than Beth and has less experience working in a pharmacy or any such establishment (she has been at that pharmacy for four months). She has little product knowledge, is often unkempt in appearance (often wears her uniform un-ironed), chews gum at work, takes frequent bathroom breaks, and seems to have very little motivation to do anything. She also always finds a way to be absent from work every Saturday and Sunday morning despite the store’s policy that their employees should be flexible on availability. The only tasks concerned with the pharmacy that she seems to enjoy doing are chatting up customers in the store and setting up product displays. She is bored with other routine chores of assisting with dispensary scripts and stock management. It is implied that Amy was only employed in this pharmacy because of her relation to the owner’s partner who might have pressured the former into employing her. Since they are both pharmacy assistants, it is implied that they each receive the same salary. Despite the obvious differences in their inputs, their outcomes (rewards) from their jobs are the same. This scenario is in direct contrast with the principles of Adams’ equity theory which dictates that one’s outcomes should be directly related to the quantity and quality or their contributions (inputs). Beth’s performance has therefore been dropping because she has become demotivated. Her demotivation can be attributed to her dissatisfaction with her work situation- she perceives that she is not being treated fairly by her employer as she contributes more than her fellow employee, Amy, but this fails to reflect in the rewards she receives (her outcomes). Since their inputs are different, the equity theory dictates that their outcomes should also reflect the same. In order to motivate Beth and improve her performance, it is necessary that the employer recognizes that her inputs have been more than that of her colleague’s and reward her accordingly. For example, being the oldest and having the relevant work experience, she is the most valuable employee at that store and may deserve a promotion of sorts. She could, for example, be in placed in charge of the other store assistants – they would report to her and she would manage the store’s nitty-gritties and then report to the pharmacist-in-charge. This should reduce the overall workload of the pharmacist and increase her value as an employee while helping her feel more appreciated and recognized. Along with the “promotion”, she could receive a small salary bump in compensation for her efforts. The other employees should also be measured against a bar of expectations, failure to which they will be relieved of their duties- this should prevent all the employees from being lethargic. A system could also be put in place to ensure that workers efforts are recognized and that they are rewarded accordingly every so often, say annually for example. This system would help the workforce realize that the organization is appreciative, observant, and fair (Messick and Cook 1983; Gill and Stone 2010). Question 2 The Vroom expectancy theory is a process theory that attempts to demystify motivation. It posits that motivation is a process that governs the way in which choices are made in order to keep the process moving toward the intended goal(s) (Porter and Lawler 1968; Vroom 1964). Motivation is the group of little devices that ensure that the oil being burnt by the car is put to good use- that the steps follow each other appropriately. Motivation is the sum total of the individual’s tendency to make choices and perform actions which he perceives line up with his expectancies (results and rewards of his interest). Motivation is therefore a product of one’s expectancy that their efforts will lead to the intended performance; their performance’s instrumentality will lead to desired results, and finally the results’ desirability is dubbed valence (Ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk. 2013). This model can be summarized in the following equation: (Shmidt and Scholl 2014) In order to motivate Amy using the Vroom expectancy Model, we will first need to establish the goals that she will need to achieve; increased performance at work in terms of both quantity and quality. Having established that humans are social and psychological beings (Shukla 2011), we must treat her as such, and thus our plan will not target Amy in isolation, but the whole workforce in general. Using the Vroom’s model we must ensure that her expectancy is raised. In order to do this, we may consider having a seminar on motivation in order to help change Amy’s and her colleagues’ perceptions of themselves and their abilities. A training seminar could also be held to impart technical knowledge of pharmacy products to the pharmacy workers. Since this is a chain of pharmacies, we may consider juxtaposing this store’s performance with another successful one within the chain- borrow their policies and system of doing things as this may work better for this store’s workers. If there is an employee within this or another store within the chain who has been noted to perform well, they could be rewarded for their efforts and be used as an example for the other employees to follow. Appropriate policies, rules and regulations should also be introduced in order to ensure that workers do what they are supposed to. Penalties may be introduced for any violations or offences committed in keeping with Mcgregor’s theory x (Mcgregor 1960). By doing this, we will `have tackled the issues of perceived goal difficulty, perceived control, and self efficacy among Amy and the other employees. Concerning the rewards to be provided by the store, they must be appropriate to the employees’ needs and desires. In Amy’s case, we may consider gifting her with a voucher to a beauty spa, or a clothes store, or cosmetics shop since it can be extrapolated from her previous work experience that these are the types of things in which she is interested. Policies should be set in place to govern the how and when an employee qualifies for a promotion, and these promotions should also come with raises in salary. The same policies should also govern demotions and/ or firings. Other rewards could also include salary raises or periodic bonuses as appropriate (Guerrero, Andersen and Afifi 2013; Gill and Stone 2010). Finally, it will be important that the store follows through on its commitments and promises (both good and bad) to its workers. This will be essential to ensure that trust is fostered between the employer and their employees and neither party gets the short end of the stick. It will also be necessary to review employee performance periodically- as this will help in the operationalization of the goals. If any individual employee is observed to lack improvement, the reason for this should be sort, and once all good reasons for lack of improvement have been identified, dealt with, and crossed out but deterioration persists, it will be necessary to either demote or fire the employee as it is determined most fit (Porter and Lawler 1968; Mindtools.com. 2013). References Adams, J. S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. Advances in experimental social psychology, 2 (267-299). Businessballs.com. 2013. Adams equity theory - workplace motivational theory - how individuals measure inputs and outcomes in relation to market norms and 'referents'. [online] [Accessed: 23 Dec 2013]. Available at: http://www.businessballs.com/adamsequitytheory.htm Gill, D. and Stone, R. 2010. Fairness and desert in tournaments. Games and Economic Behavior, 69 (2), pp. 346--364. Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A. and Afifi, W. A. 2013. Close encounters. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE. Ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk. 2013. Vroom's expectancy theory. [online] [Accessed: 28 Dec 2013].Available at: http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/research/dstools/vrooms-expectancy-theory/ Mcgregor, D. 1960. The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. Messick, D. M. and Cook, K. S. 1983. Equity theory. New York, N.Y.: Praeger. Mindtools.com. 2013. Adams' Equity Theory - Leadership skills training from MindTools.com. [online] [Accessed: 20 Dec 2013]. Available at: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_96.htm Porter, L. W. and Lawler, E. E. 1968. Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, Ill.: R.D. Irwin. Shukla, I. 2011. Equity Theory. [online] [Accessed: 20 Dec 2013]. Available at: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/equity-theory.html Shmidt, C. T. and Scholl, R. W. 2014. Expectancy Theory. [online] [Accessed: 1 Jan 2014].Available at: http://www.uri.edu/research/lrc/scholl/webnotes/Motivation_Expectancy.htm Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Whatishumanresource.com. 2014. Adam’s Equity Theory - what is human resource ?. [online] [Accessed: 1 Jan 2014]. Available at: http://www.whatishumanresource.com/adams-equity-theory Read More