The paper "People Organization and Leadership " is a perfect example of a Management Case Study. Equity theory looks at having a match between the input and the output so that employees can be provided with different rewards, incentives, promotions, and perks based on their contribution, efforts, and hard work. This helps to develop a relationship between the input and output and acts as a mechanism through which employees are motivated for carrying out different business activities. The theory when analyzed and looked at the different employee and the situation they are in highlights the following Lynda Lewis: is a hard-working employee and has contributed towards the performance of the organization.
The usage of Equity theory shows that the inputs with respect to hard work, team person, loyalty, enthusiasm are not being recognized. The inputs don’ t match the output as Lynda has ensured that she was able to accomplish the task which was assigned to her (Erez, 2010). It was the first incident that she had missed her target and had to undergo a training program. Further on examination, it is found out that the economic factors have resulted in a downturn.
This is something beyond her control and not matching her inputs with outputs which should have been rewards, promotions and other perks have dissatisfied her. Further, an employee looks at social security and since Lynda has to attend the training on Saturday where she has the job of looking after her kids has further affected her motivation level. Equity theory requires a proper match of the inputs with the outputs and should look at compensating or imposing a penalty on employees after examining all the factors (Chen, Kanfer, DeShon, Mathieu & Kozlowski, 2009).
Since Lynda hasn’ t been able to receive the benefit from the equity theory and instead it has created a negative impact the overall result will be seen through a dip in performance and will thereby have an impact on the future prospect of the organization. Michael Benjamin: The situation of Michael is adversely opposite to what equity theory requires. Equity theory requires that the employees should be committed, loyal, hard-working, and should look towards accomplishing the goals. The fact that Michael looks to run away from the job and prefers to have more leisure time will have an impact on other employees associated with him.
The fact that Michael inputs are such that it doesn’ t result in productivity and matching the same with the long term performance so it becomes imperative that Michael should be removed (Erez & Isen, 2012). There is no way that Michael can be motivated because Michael on the forefront doesn’ t have the desire to work. A person who is able to ensure that the level of commitment is high provides an opportunity where working on the different dimensions the motivation of the employee can be improved.
Since, Michael has inputs where it will be related to penalties, fines and demotion it becomes difficult for the organization to have such employees as it will have an impact on the morale of other employees as well and will thereby result in having an impact on the future performances (Gagné & Deci, 2005).
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. 2007. Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43-51.
Barsky, A. 2008. Understanding the ethical cost of organizational goal-setting: A review and theory development. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 63-81.
Berg, J. M., Grant, A. M., & Johnson, V. 2010. When callings are calling: Crafting work and leisure in pursuit of unanswered occupational callings. Organization Science.
Berg, J. M., Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. 2010. Perceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 158-186.
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. 2006. Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 223-267.
Chen, G., Kanfer, R., DeShon, R. P., Mathieu, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. 2009. The motivating potential of teams: Test and extension of Chen & Kanfer’s (2006) cross-level model of motivation in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 45-55.
Colella, A., Paetzold, R. L., Zardkoohi, A., & Wesson, M. J. 2007. Exposing pay secrecy. Academy of Management Review, 32, 55-71.
Elsbach, K. D., & Hargadon, A. B. 2006. Enhancing creativity through “mindless” work: A framework of workday design. Organization Science, 17, 470-483.
Erez, M. 2010. Culture and job design. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 389-400.
Erez, A., & Isen, A. M. 2012. The influence of positive effect on the components of expectancy motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1055-1067.
Fried, Y., Levi, A. S., & Laurence, G. 2008. Motivation and job design in the new world of work. In S. Cartwright and C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personnel psychology, 24 (pp. 586-611). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362.
Gagné, M., & Forest, J. 2008. The study of compensation systems through the lens of self determination theory: Reconciling 35 years of debate. Canadian Psychology, 49, 225-232.
George, J. M. 2007. Creativity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 439 477.
Grant, A. M. 2007. Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32, 393-417.
Grant, A. M. 2008a. Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 48-58.
Grant, A. M. 2008b. The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 108-124.