Equity theory began with the idea that workers should receive a reward commensurate with the effort they put in, such a reward is a sufficient motivator to work. Equity theory states that employees evaluate what they put into a particular work situation (contribution) and what they receive (reward), and then compare their contribution-reward ratio with the contribution-reward ratio of their respective peers.
To reward is the same as that of colleagues
If there is no equality in this ratio, workers feel underpaid and inequitable. Therefore, the analogue that the employee chooses for comparison chinese overseas asia number data becomes important. According to SP Robbins (2003), analogues are divid into three groups: “others” (these are colleagues doing similar work in the same organization), “system” (it includes the remuneration policy carri out in the organization and the administration of the system) and “I” (the relationship between contribution and reward, which is unique to each person).
The selection of these analogs for comparison depends
On the information available about them and their perceiv similarities (Robbins, 2003, p. 21). There is no justice when there is no balance between whatsapp marketing reward and contribution rate. According to BR Jewell (2002), perceiv injustice manifests itself in internal tension and striving to compare one’s rate of contribution and reward with the rates of others. Therefore, the employee will always seek to restore the subjective balance of contribution and reward (Jewell, 2002, p. 331).
When employees perceive injustice
They may distort their own and others’ contributions and rewards, act in a way that encourages others to change or change their material data contribution-to-reward ratio, or even quit. SP Robbins (2003) states: “When people feel that their contribution-reward balance is out of whack compar to other workers, strain relationships develop and risk unrest. This situation is harmful to the organization because people will always seek what they think is right” (Robbins, 2003, p. 59).