UPI Study › Courses › Principles of Management › Free lessons › Lesson 11.4 Free with a free account
Fair Pay, Fair Effort: Adams' Equity Theory of Motivation
Principles of Management · Chapter 11: Motivation in the WorkplaceSection 11.4 · lesson 65 of 11713 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Principles of Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Principles of Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Effort, Performance, and Reward: Vroom's Expectancy Theory →← Unpacking Content Theories: Herzberg, Alderfer, and McClelland on Employee NeedsNext lesson: Effort, Performance, and Reward: Vroom's Expectancy Theory →
In this lesson
Why fairness at work is judged by comparison, not by amount.
- Describe equity theory and the comparison it proposes
- Identify the 6 responses to perceived underpayment
- Explain why perceived unfairness often stays invisible
- Explain organizational justice and its 4 dimensions
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,735 words). Read along, or search it.
Motivation in the Workplace
Fair Pay, Fair Effort: Adams' Equity Theory of Motivation
Two employees can earn the same salary, and only one of them feels cheated. Equity theory explains why. Fairness at work is judged by comparison, not by absolute amounts. We'll start with J. Stacy Adams' ratio, and with why inputs and outcomes are in the eye of the beholder. We'll see why a manager can't control whom an employee compares herself against. Then we'll walk through the six responses to feeling underpaid, and which ones cost the organization most. We'll find that the most common response is also the hardest to see. Then we'll widen the lens to organizational justice, and its four dimensions. That leads to what may be this chapter's single most actionable finding. And we'll end with Renata, who learned a number, and said nothing about it.
Equity Theory's Premise
It's the Comparison, Not the Amount
The psychologist J. Stacy Adams proposed a particular way people judge fairness at work. They don't look at the absolute level of what they receive. They compare a ratio. On one side are her outcomes. Pay, recognition, status, and other benefits received. On the other are her inputs. Effort, skill, time, and other contributions made. She sets her own outcomes against her own inputs. Then she compares that ratio with the same ratio, calculated for a referent other. The theory's central claim is that the comparison drives her response, not the absolute level of anyone's outcomes or inputs. That has a counterintuitive consequence. An employee earning a genuinely good salary can still experience real inequity, if her ratio falls short of a colleague's. And an employee earning comparatively little can feel no inequity at all, if her ratio matches her chosen comparison. So a bigger paycheck doesn't automatically settle a fairness question. The ratio has to look right to her.
Inputs and Outcomes
Fairness Is in the Eye of the Employee
There's a complication. Inputs and outcomes matter as the individual herself perceives them. That may differ substantially from what a manager would count. A manager typically works from a formal job description, or a compensation framework. But an employee may weigh things that never appear there. Her tenure, for instance. The emotional labor a role requires. Sacrifices made outside her formal job duties. To her, those are genuine inputs. A manager's own tally never captures them. A well-documented pattern widens the gap further. People show a systematic tendency to overvalue their own inputs, relative to how an outside observer would rate them. So a perceived inequity can arise, even when the manager's more objective accounting shows the ratios as genuinely comparable. The manager's spreadsheet may say fair. The employee's experience may still say otherwise.
Choosing a Referent
She Picks the Comparison, Not You
Who does an employee compare herself against? The referent can take several forms. It might be a specific colleague in the same organization, or someone in the same role elsewhere. It might be her own past situation, in an earlier role, or at an earlier point in her career. Or it might be a general market expectation about what a role like hers should pay. The critical point is that a manager cannot control which referent an employee selects. And that has a consequence worth stating plainly. Pay secrecy is a weaker protection than it appears. Keeping individual pay confidential doesn't stop employees from forming a comparison. It only stops that comparison from being informed by accurate information. Employees may end up comparing themselves against an inaccurate guess, a market rumor, or an outdated benchmark. The comparison still happens, and equity theory says it will happen regardless. It just happens against something other than reality.
Underpayment Inequity
6 Ways to Restore a Felt Balance
Underpayment inequity is when an employee's ratio falls short of her referent's. Six responses are available to restore a felt sense of balance. First, she may reduce her own inputs. She works less hard, or contributes less, to bring her ratio back into line. Second, she may try to increase her outcomes, directly requesting a raise, a promotion, or other compensation. Third, she may distort her own perceptions, quietly convincing herself that her inputs are smaller than she first believed. Fourth, she may distort her perception of the referent. She decides the comparison colleague actually contributes more than she first assumed. Fifth, she may change the referent, comparing herself against a different, less favorable benchmark. And sixth, she may leave the situation entirely, through transfer or resignation. Notice that three of these happen entirely inside her head. Nothing about her work changes at all.
Figure 11.4.1
Not All Responses Cost the Same
Figure eleven point four point one pictures an employee at a fictional company, Harborline Manufacturing. Her outcomes-to-inputs ratio falls short of her chosen referent's. That's perceived underpayment inequity. Below the comparison sit her six possible responses, each marked by its relative cost to the organization. The two highest-cost responses sit at opposite ends of the row. Reducing inputs, and leaving. Leaving carries the direct, visible cost of replacing a departed employee. Reduced inputs carries a quieter, ongoing cost in diminished output. It may never be formally traced to its actual cause. So one costly response is abrupt and visible. The other is quiet and gradual. The four responses in between are comparatively low-cost. That's precisely because they resolve the felt inequity without changing her actual behavior at work.
Overpayment Inequity
Weaker and Shorter-Lived
The comparison can also tip the other way. Overpayment inequity is when an employee's ratio exceeds her referent's. It produces a genuine response, but a considerably weaker and shorter-lived one. She may briefly increase her own inputs, working harder to feel she has earned the favorable ratio. Or she may quietly revise her view of her own inputs upward, to justify the outcome. Either way, the response tends to fade relatively quickly, as the favorable position comes to feel like the new normal. Underpayment is the opposite. It tends to persist, and often to intensify, without a deliberate response from management. That asymmetry tells a manager where to focus. Feeling underpaid doesn't wear off on its own.
The Practical Implication
An Invisible Problem
In practice, the most common response to perceived underpayment is reduced effort, not open complaint. That has a specific and consequential implication. Because the most common response is quiet rather than vocal, the problem tends to stay invisible to management. It stays hidden until something else reveals it. Sometimes that's turnover. Sometimes it's a broader engagement measurement. Either way, the discovery comes well after the reduced effort began. By then, it has been underway, unaddressed, for some time. So a manager can't treat silence as satisfaction. The absence of complaints is not evidence that pay feels fair.
Table 11.4.1
4 Dimensions of Organizational Justice
Organizational justice is the broader framework that grew out of equity theory. Equity theory's original concern was narrower. It focused on outcomes alone. Organizational justice identifies four distinct dimensions along which fairness is judged. Distributive justice concerns the outcome itself. Does the actual result seem fair? In a pay decision, it's satisfied when the pay level feels proportionate to her contribution, and comparable to relevant others. Procedural justice concerns the process that decided the outcome. Was it fair, consistent, and free of bias? That's judged independently of what the outcome turned out to be. For pay, it means the process was applied consistently, using criteria she understands, and had some voice in. Interpersonal justice concerns the respect and dignity shown in delivering the decision, and in how she was treated. That means telling her respectfully, in a private, appropriately handled conversation. Informational justice concerns the explanation. Was the reasoning communicated honestly, clearly, and in a timely way? For pay, that's a clear, honest explanation of the specific reasoning, given promptly rather than after a long delay.
The Most Actionable Finding
Process and Respect Shape How a No Is Accepted
One consistent finding from organizational justice research deserves special attention, stated carefully rather than overstated. It may be the single most actionable finding in this chapter. Procedural and interpersonal justice affect how an unfavorable outcome is accepted, more than the outcome itself does. Picture an employee denied a raise, or a promotion, she genuinely wanted. Suppose the process was transparent and consistent, and she was treated respectfully throughout. She's considerably more likely to accept the outcome without lasting resentment, reduced effort, or departure. Now suppose the identical outcome arrived through an opaque process, delivered carelessly. The substance of what she didn't get is exactly the same either way. But the response is very different. That's useful news for managers. Even when you can't give the answer someone wants, you shape how it's reached and delivered. Delivering an unwelcome decision well is a specific communication skill, developed fully in Subchapter twelve point one.
Transparency as a Justice Question
Should Pay Be Fully Transparent?
Should pay and decision criteria be made fully transparent? It's a genuinely contested question. Both positions deserve their strongest statement. The case for greater transparency starts with justice itself. Openness directly serves procedural and informational justice. It also reduces the inaccurate guessing that pay secrecy invites, as we saw with referents. And it makes inequity easier to identify and correct, before it produces those quiet, costly responses. The case for limited transparency is also serious. Full openness can itself generate new comparisons, and new perceived inequities, where none existed before. That's especially true where legitimate differences are hard to communicate clearly enough to prevent misreading. Think of differences in role, in market, or in negotiation history. And some information, like the performance detail behind an individual pay decision, carries legitimate privacy interests. Those interests exist independently of the fairness question. This course takes no position on which balance an organization should strike.
Case Vignette
Renata Learns a Number and Says Nothing About It
Here's a composite case, constructed for instruction. Renata, a mid-level analyst, learned informally that a colleague was earning noticeably more than she was. The colleague was hired around the same time, doing what she judged to be comparable work. She didn't raise it with her manager, and she didn't ask for a raise. Outwardly, she carried on much as before. Over the following months, though, she quietly stopped volunteering for discretionary, above-and-beyond work. That was the work that had previously distinguished her. She kept meeting the formal requirements of her role, while contributing noticeably less beyond them. Her manager saw no complaint, and no visible change in her formal output metrics. There was no reason to suspect anything. This is exactly the invisible pattern this section has described. Instead of voicing the inequity, Renata reduced her own inputs, to bring her felt ratio back into balance. And the reduction was concentrated in discretionary effort, which her formal metrics were never designed to capture. Her manager likely wouldn't discover the cause until a much later performance review, or her eventual departure. Next, Subchapter eleven point five turns to Vroom's expectancy theory.
About Principles of Management at UPI Study
Principles of Management (Business 101) is a self-paced online course of 117 video lessons in 17 chapters, from the classical schools and the four management functions to leadership, motivation, change, human resources, strategy and ethics. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Principles of Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Principles of Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Fair Pay, Fair Effort: Adams' Equity Theory of Motivation
What is Adams' equity theory of motivation?
How do employees respond when they feel underpaid?
Why might managers not notice when an employee feels treated unfairly?
What are the four dimensions of organizational justice?
About the Principles of Management course
How many college credits is Principles of Management?
How much does Principles of Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Principles of Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Principles of Management.
117 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →