Debbie's Dilemma Decided To Look For A New Job Today

Casedebbiesdilemmadebbievesticadecidedtolookforanewjobonadaythatshoul

Debbie Vestica faced a complex motivational and ethical dilemma in her role as a registered nurse within a pediatric physician's medical group. Despite recent accomplishments, including earning a master's degree and receiving a significant raise, her dissatisfaction with her pay differential and perceived unfairness led her to consider leaving her position. To analyze her situation, theoretical frameworks such as Herzberg's two-factor theory, Adams's equity theory, and Vroom's expectancy theory provide valuable insights into her motivation, perceptions of fairness, and decision-making process.

Paper For Above instruction

Herzberg's two-factor theory delineates workplace motivation into two categories: hygiene factors and motivators. Hygiene factors, such as salary, working conditions, and organizational policies, prevent dissatisfaction but do not necessarily promote satisfaction. Motivators, including achievement, recognition, and responsibilities, drive genuine motivation and job satisfaction. In Debbie's case, her initial motivation was likely influenced by hygiene factors—namely, her improved salary and benefits following her graduation. However, despite her salary increase, her dissatisfaction grew because her pay differential with the experienced LPNs remained insufficient relative to her additional responsibilities, indicating that hygiene factors were not fully met, leading to her demotivation.

Conversely, her developing aspirations to advance professionally through graduate education can be associated with motivators. Her pursuit of a clinical nurse specialist degree was driven by intrinsic motivation to attain professional growth and recognition. Yet, the lack of corresponding fair compensation, especially relative to her peers, compromised her overall motivation. Her perception that her work was undervalued, despite increased responsibilities and qualifications, contributed to her diminished job satisfaction, aligning with Herzberg’s assertion that unmet motivators diminish motivation regardless of hygiene factors.

Adams's equity theory emphasizes the importance of perceived fairness in work-related outputs (such as pay) relative to inputs (such as effort and education). It suggests that employees compare their own input-output ratio to those of others, leading to feelings of equity or inequity. In Debbie's scenario, her inputs involve her advanced education, additional responsibilities, and effort, while her outputs are her salary, recognition, and status. Initially, her pay increase acknowledged her inputs, but she perceived that the pay differential between herself and the more experienced LPNs was inadequate—only a $3 per hour difference, despite her higher educational qualifications and increasing responsibilities.

The overheard confrontation by the LPNs, demanding parity with Debbie’s new raise, further highlighted the perceived inequity. The physicians' response—raising pay for LPNs to $32 per hour, surpassing Debbie’s own salary—intensified her sense of injustice. Her perception that her efforts and qualifications were undervalued compared to her peers led her to believe that her inputs were not being compensated fairly, prompting her decision to seek employment elsewhere. This aligns with Adams's view that perceived inequity can lead employees to reduce effort, seek transfer, or leave the organization altogether.

Moving to Vroom's expectancy theory, which posits that motivation depends on an individual’s belief that effort will lead to desired performance and rewards, Debbie's situation reflects diminished motivation due to low expectancy and instrumentality. Her belief that her efforts—obtaining advanced education, taking on additional responsibilities—would result in fair and adequate reward was undermined when she observed the pay adjustments favoring the LPNs. Her perception that her performance and increased responsibilities would not lead to equitable recognition diminished her motivation to exert effort, ultimately influencing her decision to leave.

From an organizational perspective, when confronted by the two LPNs demanding increased pay, the physicians should have approached the situation with a focus on fairness and transparent communication. They could have conducted a structured salary review considering education, experience, responsibilities, and market standards for all staff members. Open dialogue acknowledging the contributions of both nurses and setting clear criteria for pay and promotion could have mitigated perceptions of unfair treatment. Implementing a standardized compensation framework fosters fairness perceptions, reducing the likelihood of conflicts and turnover.

Furthermore, the physicians should have engaged with Debbie directly, recognizing her academic achievements and increased responsibilities with appropriate recognition and compensation. Providing her with a pathway for advancement or institutional acknowledgment would have reinforced her motivation, aligning with Herzberg's motivators. Addressing pay disparities proactively prevents perceived inequities that lead to dissatisfaction, as highlighted by Adams's theory.

In conclusion, Debbie's declining motivation and eventual decision to leave were influenced by unmet hygiene factors, perceived inequity, and diminished expectancy of reward for effort. Applying Herzberg's, Adams's, and Vroom's theories illustrates how organizational policies and communication strategies are vital in maintaining motivation and fairness. Organizations should prioritize transparent, equitable practices and recognize individual contributions to foster a motivated workforce and reduce turnover.

References

• Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The Motivation to Work. John Wiley & Sons.
• Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299.
• Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. Wiley.
• Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
• Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.
• Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty‐first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485–516.
• Kuvaas, B. (2006). Performance evaluation and employee outcomes: Evidence of a mediated relationship with employee motivation and perceived organizational justice. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(5), 1707–1723.
• Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penguin.
• Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.