The Impact of The Individual - "Equity in Academia"

Equity in Academia

The case of Melinda Wilkerson and Ron Agua is an interesting study of contrasting expectations, motivations, personalities, and ultimately, satisfaction with the jobs which they both hold. Each is a first-year assistant instructor at the college level-each has the same general responsibilities, but the ways in which these responsibilities has transformed the perception of the job has changed the ways in which the job is carried out, including a now second-semester difference in pay. There are two basic theories that can account for this difference-one, a motivation-hygiene theory put forward by Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1993), based on Herzberg's original work of 1959, discusses motivation in terms of positive motivations and negative motivations, akin to Maslow's (1943) theory of hierarchical needs. These theories would be content theories, in which all individuals posses the same set of needs (security, belonging, etc) and how these needs ought to be present in the work situation, and any differences arising in motivation would be traceable to a lack in one of these needs. The other theory applicable in this case is Adam's Equity Theory, which refers to the differences in perception (referents) between workers as a basis of determining what is fair. This is also a theory of motivation, and utilizes informal benchmarks of what is appropriate, expected, and generated. Input comes from a variety of sources-friends, colleagues, family, and other sources of facts and opinions. Motivation, in this case, is exerted when there is a perception of fairness, while motivation decreases when the outputs (salary, bonuses, different treatment, etc) are not equitable.

Maslow (1943) believed that human beings are motivated by needs which represent a lack of some kind, and that humans are not motivated by the needs higher on the list (the more abstract until the physiological, security, and social needs are met. Once these needs have been met, however, the healthy individual becomes motivated b the so-called higher order needs, such as recognition, belief in the self, and the realization of full potential as a human being. In the Wilkerson and Agua case, we assume that their basic physiological needs (food, shelter and clothing) have been met. There appears, however, to be a disconnect where security is concerned. It is noted that Wilkerson is making less money than she thought she would, and has longer hours. Agua, on the other hand, has managed to reduce his workload and has, in fact, performed more work in a different capacity (working on the library committee, speaking to various groups, publishing studies) than Wilkerson was aware that she could also do. From her perspective, there is no time for such activities, and the only thing she can do is to continue to slog through the work that she has, foregoing more pleasant and important social obligations which would help her out and help her to meet her security needs.

Herzberg suggested that there are six factors associated with job performance and attitude, essentially related to job satisfaction. Herzberg posits that those factors relating to job dissatisfaction are company policy, supervision, relationship with the boss, work conditions, salary, and relationships with peers. Positive factors relating to job satisfaction are achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, advancement, and growth. It is easy enough to se how these relate in a Maslovian way-the first six are essentially lower-order needs dependent on others for realization, while the factors related to job satisfaction are of a higher order, having to do with more intrinsic motivation and realization of the work self.

We see some of these in the case with Wilkerson and Agua. Wilkerson, by inference, is constrained by a "company" policy of which she is unaware, and does not know that she can do differently than she has been given. Thus, her work conditions and her salary are adversely affected, and she has several motivators that, because the work environment is now more negative than it was in the first semester, are causing a potential job dissatisfaction. Agua, on the other hand, has apparently successfully negotiated the lower-order needs, has had them met, and is now motivated in an entirely different way than is Wilkerson. He seems happier, he has more job variety, has some recognition for what he has done, and has more positive work conditions and a higher salary than does Wilkerson.

Adams' Equity Theory appears to fit most precisely with this specific case. Equity theory, as mentioned, is an explanation of relational theory in terms of the perceptions of the employees and whether their work environments and/or relations with others in the organization are fair or unfair. Suppose that all of the work of an organization is quantifiable, and that that finite amount of work is distributed over the organization as fairly as possible, depending on the employees' skills and interests and capabilities. As long as the work distribution is perceived as fair (in this case, as long as Wilkerson's and Agua's work is similar and equitable), the employees feel no discomfort or anxiety about what they are doing. But when there are significant differences that develop (Agua has more free time, is getting a reputation for himself, has more opportunities for more challenging and engaging work that matches his core self-evaluation, and Wilkerson seem more frozen in place without the opportunities that Agua has), the workload seems unfairly distributed, and a sense of anxiety develops with regard to the work, as was clearly the case with Wilkerson.

Tellingly, however, was the last paragraph when the note slid out of a student journal, and Wilkerson realized that her work was satisfying, and the implication was that the differences no longer mattered. Here we see another factor at work, that of personality. It is mentioned that Agua sees his work with students as interfering with what he perceives to be his work-"With all those students around all the time, I just never had a chance to get my work done." Wilkerson, on the other hand, perceives her work to be what she does with her students, and so now there is a differentiation in the job itself, and whether the work is fairly distributed or not is now irrelevant. What made it fair in the first place was the perceived fact that they had the same jobs. Now, owing to personality differences, it isn't the same job at all.

Judge, Bono, and Locke posit that what they term core self-evaluation is where the personality influences the relationship between job characteristics and job satisfaction, which includes the motivation to do it. The relationship, the authors say, is purely a perceptual process. As they state: "individuals with positive self-evaluations may see their jobs as more challenging simply because they are predisposed to perceive all aspects of their jobs positively. According to this explanation, there would not be a link between core self-evaluations and the actual characteristics of jobs held (i.e., positive individuals do not really have jobs that are more challenging, they simply view their jobs as more challenging). Thus, it is critical to understanding the role of core self-evaluations in job satisfaction to begin to sort out differences

in perceptions from differences in actual jobs held." (p 237-238).

A graphic illustrates this relationship perfectly. Each of the nodes of the graphic assume that there is a one-way positive relationship between core self-evaluation, perceived job characteristics, job complexity, and job satisfaction. It is the core self-evaluation (the personalities of the employees and their beliefs about themselves as workers in that environment) that drives the perception of fairness or unfairness in the workplace, and these perceptions are really the ultimate determiners of job satisfaction in the end.



(Judge, Bono, and Locke, 2000)

Equity Theory, then, explains the case of Wilkerson and Agua quite clearly. The case primarily detailed Wilkerson's reasons for her distress. Adams refers to this distress as the result of a perception of inequity in the relationship between Wilkerson and Agua. Distress is uncomfortable, and the distressed party or parties will try to do something to bring equity back into the relationship. Wilkerson is more distressed than Agua, it seems, since he has more positives. Wilkerson's response to the inequity, her way of removing her distress, is top realize that her personality is more responsive to students' needs than it is to the work that Agua is doing, and here she realizes that, because of that, the expectations for them both are now different, at least from their own self-perceptions. With the realization that she is indeed doing hat she does best, her distress over the perceived unfairness of the situation has eased. Her inputs now (time, effort, loyalty, hard work, commitment, ability, tolerance, determination, and personal sacrifice) are commensurate with her outputs (security, reputation, responsibility, sense of achievement, and thanks), and she can now perceive her work as fair.

References

Adams, J. Stacey. "Towards an Understanding of Inequity." The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol 67(5), Nov 1963, 422-436.

Herzberg, Frederick, Mausner, Bernard, and Snyderman, Barbara Bloch. The Motivation to Work. Transaction Publishers.

Judge, Timothy A., Bono, Joyce E., and Locke, Edwin A. "Personality and Job Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Job Characteristics." Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000, Vol. 85, No. 2, 237-249.

Maslow, A.H. "A Theory of Human Motivation." Psychological Review, 50(4) (1943), 370-96.