Human resources are the most valuable for any organisation and to a big extent, the administration ‘s success depends upon the employees acquiring the occupation done. Therefore, it is necessary that employees remain continuously focused on their occupation with the same sum of energy and enthusiasm as when they started it. Motivation can be defined as “ Forces coming from within a individual that history for the wilful way, strength and continuity of the individuals attempts toward accomplishing specific ends, where accomplishment is non due entirely to ability or environmental factors. ( Hitt, Miller & A ; Collela, 2009, P. 187 ) . ” Motivation is hence an of import concern for directors since they are responsible for the motive and success of the employees. Directors need to do the environment every bit contributing as possible so that employees may go on to work with the same sum of energy.
This essay discusses briefly two modern-day theories of organizational motive i.e. , Fredrick Herzberg ‘s ‘Two Factor Theory ‘ and John Stacey Adams ‘ ‘Equity Theory ‘ before traveling on to compare and contrast them. The 2nd portion of the essay lineations ways in which these theories possibly used by directors to actuate their staff.
Fredrick Herzberg was an American Psychologist. His most celebrated work is the Two Factor Theory ( besides called the Dual Factor Theory ) ( Herzberg, Mausner & A ; Snydeman, 1959, Cited in Principles Of Organisational Behaviour, 2005, p. 199 ) in which he describes certain factors, viz. Motivation and Hygiene factors, which affect occupation satisfaction and dissatisfaction of employees in an organisation. Herzberg developed this theory by carry oning interviews of about 200 applied scientists and comptrollers and after analyzing these, found that there were two sets of factors, i.e. Motivation and Hygiene Factors that were responsible for whether an employee would be satisfied or dissatisfied in an organisation. As a consequence of this survey he considered motive to be a double structured phenomenon. ( Moorhead & A ; Griffin, 2004 )
Motivation factors are intrinsic to work and include factors such as accomplishment and acknowledgment. ( Moorhead & A ; Griffin, 2004 ) . When these factors were present at that place was an evident feeling of satisfaction and motive amongst employees. Their absence nevertheless, caused neither satisfaction nor dissatisfaction. Hygiene Factors on the other manus, are extrinsic to the work itself and include factors such as wage and occupation security ( Moorhead & A ; Griffin, 2004 ) . These factors would include supervisors and working conditions and their being would non needfully ensue in feelings of satisfaction, but non dissatisfaction either. Their absence nevertheless, would take to dissatisfaction amongst employees. In short, Motivators reflected self realization demands and Hygienes, the demand to avoid ‘pain ‘ . Therefore, Herzberg regarded these demands as stemming from wholly different beginnings ( Fincham & A ; Rhodes, 2005.
Adams ‘ Equity Theory is based on the comparatively simple premiss that people in organisations want to be treated reasonably. ( Adams, 1963 ) . This theory is an illustration of societal comparing i.e. where a individual compares himself or herself to others. This comparing procedure is described in footings of an input-outcome ratio, whereby inputs define an employee ‘s part to the organisation, for illustration, through trueness, attempt or experience whereas outcomes involve what the individual receives in return for the inputs, for illustration, wage, acknowledgment or societal relationships. The employee so proceeds to compare him or herself with others in the organisation in order to estimate equity. This comparing is partially based on nonsubjective informations ( such as the individuals salary ) and partially on the employee ‘s perceptual experience ( such as the comparison-others degree of acknowledgment in the organisation ) . ( Moorhead & A ; Griffin, 2004 )
The gauging of equity is a four measure procedure get downing with the employee measuring how he or she is being treated by the house. The 2nd measure is when he or she looks for a ‘comparison-other ‘ in the organisation. The 3rd measure involves the employee comparing his or her ain conditions with the comparing other who possibly an person or even a ‘composite of several people scattered throughout the organisation. ‘ ( Shah, 1998, p. 249-268 ) . The last measure depends upon the strength of the feeling of equity or unfairness, following which the employee may take to make something about it or non.
The description of the cardinal points of both theories reveals certain differences and similarities between them. The cardinal difference between the two theories can be seen in their categorization. The Dual Factor Theory is classified as a Need Based Theory of Motivation, i.e. , it assumes that all persons possess the same set of demands. ( Fincham & A ; Rhodes, 2005 ) . Harmonizing to this premiss hence, Herzberg did non take into history the single differences during the preparation of his theory ( Moorhead & A ; Griffin, 2004 ) . This is, by the way, besides one of the unfavorable judgments of this theory. Necessitate Based Theories ( like the Dual Factor Theory ) besides tend to emphasize more upon how or what factors tend to actuate behavior ( Moorhead & A ; Griffin, 2004 ) . For illustration, harmonizing to the Dual Factor Theory, a low wage would ensue in dissatisfaction in the employee.
The Equity Theory on the other manus is classified as a Procedure Based Theory, as it aims to explicate how people behave in order to fulfill their demands. ( Moorhead & A ; Griffin, 2004 ) . For illustration, in a peculiar psychological survey ( Adams & A ; Jacobsen, 1964 ) , it was proved that pupils recruited to make a cogent evidence reading undertaking at a rate higher than the market rate showed seeable marks of betterment in their work since, harmonizing to the Equity Theory, the overpayment would ensue in a feeling of guilt therefore actuating the pupils to work harder ( and better ) at the undertaking.
Second, The Dual Factor Theory can be said to be more focussed on the practical facet of worker satisfaction and motive in the workplace. ( Fincham & A ; Rhodes, 2005 ) . This implies that factors such as duty, salary, professional relationships etc. all have more or less practical deductions and therefore can non be said to be developed out of a individual ‘s ain cognitive procedure. The Equity Theory, on the other manus, can be said to hold more to make with our cognitive procedure. ( Fincham & A ; Rhodes. 2005 ) and is possibly more psychological in nature, that is to state, that it has more to make with 1s believing and how one perceives oneself in the organisation. It is this perceptual experience which instigates motive.
A 3rd difference between the two theories can be seen in footings of their objectiveness, or deficiency thereof. The Dual Factor Theory is more nonsubjective and clearly defines what Motivators and Hygienes are and their effects on the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of employees irrespective of the person. It tends to clearly province, for illustration that wage is a hygiene factor and that this is standard for all persons. However, as one such survey has proved ( Shipley & A ; Kiely, 1986 ) certain factors may differ as being either hygiene or incentives or even both, i.e. , for illustration a sales representative who is paid on a committee footing will see wage as non simply a Hygiene, but a Motivator as good. The Equity Theory is more subjective in nature, that is, it depends more on the persons ‘ perceptual experience of equity instead than a general perceptual experience of what can be deemed as unjust. Thus it takes a more individualistic attack, since it varies from individual to individual. This point possibly proved by the thought of equity sensitiveness ( Huseman, Hatfield & A ; Miles, 1987, Cited in Principles Of Organisational Behaviour, 2005, p. 204 ) which states that people may be divided into three separate classs depending on how much of unfairness they are able to bare.
The two theories besides display certain interesting similarities the most obvious and basic similarity being that both the Equity Theory and the Dual Factor Theory are aimed at seeking to find what causes motive amongst employees. In instance of the Dual Factor Theory ( Herzberg et al. , 1959 ) , Fredrick Herzberg managed to place Hygiene and Motivators as the factors which would give rise to motivation amongst employees. It is deserving indicating out here that Herzberg besides described a two measure procedure that he thought was the best manner to implement the Dual Factor Theory in the organisation. John Stacey Adams, utilizing the Equity Theory, was able to place that the societal comparing procedure was what led to positive or negative motive amongst employees.
The two theories are besides similar in that though the Equity Theory is more psychological as compared to the Dual Factor Theory which has more practical deductions, it can non be denied that both have certain psychological factors actuating them. While these are clearly brought out in instance of the Equity Theory, in instance of the Dual Factor Theory besides, these are apparent since most of the incentives ( i.e. acknowledgment, achievement etc. ) tend to reflect demands of ego realization in the employees. ( Fincham & A ; Rhodes P, 2005 ) .
Besides, despite the legion surveies and the research undertaken in seeking to prove/disprove both theories, they have stood the trial of clip and are still extremely relevant in direction theory and pattern and are really popular amongst directors today. ( Fincham & A ; Rhodes, 2005 )
The above two theories of direction are non consecutive solutions to jobs of motive in an organisation, but can surely function as guidelines to directors in order to assist them to maintain their employees satisfied. Let us look at some ways in which these theories possibly used by directors in the organisation. A concern has a really dynamic environment which is invariably altering. As a consequence, the direction has to remain in front of the game and maintain the morale and motive of employees high.
In instance of the Dual Factor Theory, Herzberg suggests two stairss with which the directors could use the theory and maintain the morale of employees high ( Moorhead & A ; Griffin, 2004 ) . In the first measure, regarded by Herzberg as more fundamental of the two, a director must seek to acquire rid of the factors that cause dissatisfaction. For illustration the director may take to increase the wages of workers in instance they fall below the market rate. This improves the hygiene factors and therefore reduces dissatisfaction. The 2nd measure entails bettering motive factors such as occupation acknowledgment and duty. This two measure procedure would, harmonizing to Herzberg, be sufficient to maintain employees motivated. Therefore, the Dual Factor Theory garnered a batch of involvement among directors since it besides provided guidelines for its suited and effectual usage in the organisation. ( Fincham & A ; Rhodes, 2005 )
Although the Equity Theory does non put down any guidelines as to how the theory should be applied, it does emphasize that the most of import facet that directors need to turn to are the wagess and the wages system in the organisation. There are three basic points that directors need to take into history for this ( Moorhead & A ; Griffin, 2004 ) .
First, all the employees in the organisation demand to understand the standard for being rewarded say, for illustration, better the quality of work, higher is the salary received. These standards would hold to be efficaciously communicated to each of the workers so that they can so be responsible for their ain work and pay and avoid feelings of unfairness. Second, directors need to understand that each employee as an person will hold different thoughts of equity and their thoughts of the ‘ideal wages ‘ . Finally, even if a director thinks his or her subsidiaries are equal, the employees themselves may non experience this is the instance. For illustration, two employees working under a director possibly having the same wage, nevertheless each thinks the other is acquiring more compared to the work they do and therefore they will see unfairness even though the director, from his place, sees that the two employees are equal ( Moorhead & A ; Griffin, 2004 ) .
It may besides be deserving adverting that the Equity Theory is peculiarly true in instances of underpayment instead than overpayment. ( Fincham & A ; Rhodes, 2005 ) . Therefore, when puting pay rates, directors need to be really careful and set a rate which will non go forth the workers experiencing dissatisfied. The Equity Theory is hence of great usage to directors since its anticipations hold true every bit much in research lab trials ( e.g. Barber & A ; Bretz, 2000, Cited in Principles Of Organisational Behaviour, 2005, p. 208 ) , as in existent life, say for finding an persons ‘ get downing salary ( Highouse, Brooks-Laber, Lin & A ; Spitzmueller, 2003, Cited in Principles Of Organisational Behaviour, 2005, p. 208 ) .
In decision, it may be stated that directors and administrations are concerned with maintaining employees motivated so that they remain focussed on their work. The cardinal issue before directors hence is how to maintain employees motivated. Motivation theories propound factors they see as being responsible for employees experiencing satisfied or dissatisfied in the administration. The Dual Factor Theory of Fredrick Herzberg and the Equity Theory of John Stacey Adams are two theories which attempt to analyze and explicate factors that motivate employees and consequently impart to feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction which in bend, affects their public presentation at the workplace. Both theories portion similarities ( such as their several efforts to happen out the factors doing motive or the fact that they are both psychological in nature ) and differences ( such as their footing for categorizations or their nonsubjective and subjectiveness ) . Both theories nevertheless, continue to function as utile tools for directors in maintaining their employees satisfied and their morale high.