Assignment 1: Employee Motivation Managers Have Observed

Assignment 1 Employee Motivationmanagers Have Observed That Employees

Employees are of three types: committed, compliant, or resistant. Managers prefer committed employees due to their motivation and willingness to sacrifice for the organization. A perceived lack of justice—related to pay raises, promotions, assignments, or work location—can prevent employees from fully committing. In this discussion, reflect on how ensuring justice for all can improve outcomes, sharing personal or researched examples. Explain why perceived unfairness decreases motivation, how procedural justice could mitigate this, and provide examples for each point. Write about one to two paragraphs per point, discussing the impact of unfair outcomes, the potential role of procedural justice, and supporting examples.

Paper For Above instruction

Perceived unfairness in organizational settings significantly diminishes employee motivation and engagement. When employees believe that their treatment is unjust—such as inequitable pay raises, favoritism in promotions, or biased assignment of work—they tend to develop feelings of resentment and demotivation. For instance, if an employee observes that a colleague receives a promotion due to favoritism rather than merit, they may feel undervalued and lose motivation to perform at their best. Such perceptions undermine trust in organizational processes and diminish their willingness to exert discretionary effort, ultimately impacting overall productivity and morale. The perception of injustice can lead to increased absenteeism, higher turnover rates, and decreased organizational commitment (Folger & Konovsky, 1989).

Procedural justice involves the fairness of the processes that lead to outcomes. Implementing transparent, consistent, and impartial procedures can significantly mitigate the negative effects of perceived injustice. For example, if an organization has a clear, standardized promotion process that is communicated openly to employees, perceptions of favoritism diminish, even if an employee does not receive a promotion. When employees understand and trust the fairness of decision-making processes, they are more likely to accept unfavorable outcomes without resentment, maintaining their motivation and organizational commitment (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). In a previous organizational experience, a company implemented a transparent promotion policy with clear criteria, which resulted in increased employee trust and reduced perceptions of bias, despite some employees not receiving promotions.

In conclusion, perceptions of unfair treatment can severely impair employee motivation, but the establishment of procedural justice can serve as a powerful tool to foster positive outcomes. By ensuring consistent, transparent, and unbiased processes, organizations can reinforce trust, enhance motivation, and promote a fair work environment. Addressing issues of justice proactively can lead to improved employee engagement, retention, and overall organizational effectiveness.

References

• Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 486–493.
• Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 9–22.
• Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). Springer.
• Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1, 43–55.
• Cropanzano, R., & Folger, R. (1991). Procedural justice and worker motivation. Motivation and Work Behavior, 23(4), 229–245.
• Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
• McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. The Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 746–767.
• Tyler, T. R. (1984). The psychology of legitimacy: A persuasion and social influence perspective. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5(1-2), 1–24.
• Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.