We have all been there at some time or other, you know, that dreaded “someone” in the workplace who makes life a misery for everyone around them. In reality, it is very rare to not have a problem child in the workplace. You have your prima donnas, bullies, selfish, self-centered people everywhere, and the list goes on and on. So when you are actually fortunate enough to find that job you like in a work environment that is pleasant and harmonious, you should probably keep it.
However, it is particularly frustrating when the leadership in an organization is ineffectual in handling these toxic co-workers, or don’t do anything at all. Even worse than doing nothing at all are those times when poorly behaved coworkers are rewarded for their behavior with praise, raises, or promotions. It is extremely demoralizing to watch someone gain reward and prestige for their poor behavior that management very often doesn’t see or just looks the other way. For example, say you work with someone who is the boss’ pet and the office tattletale. This person gets people in trouble to make themselves look better and when they don’t get their own way, they run off to the boss who makes everything better by giving them what they want.
An organization is only as strong as it’s leadership, without strong leadership, there is nothing to steer the car, so to speak. Leadership “occurs when particular individuals exert influence on the goal achievement of others in an organizational context” (Johns and Saks). Leaders have many different styles of leading; they can be supportive, provide good direction, actively participate in the work at hand; all of these things can have a major impact, whether positive or negative on how employees are motivated to behave (Coutts and Gruman). Motivation in the workplace is a key component to a well run organization and equity theory (Adams) explains how unequal treatment amongst employees can instead motivate employees to attempt to regain equilibrium often through negative methods and behaviors.
So how do we ensure that leadership is providing the right kind of motivation to maintain equity in the workplace? It seems like a reasonable question, although certainly not black or white; there are many nuances of gray. Communication is key in providing open, pleasant working conditions, as long as it’s good communication. It may be necessary to remove barriers of distrust or other long pent up frustrations before communication can be good and effective.
In order to improve the issue of workplace inequality, and perhaps at the same time minimize the effects of the workplace tattletale, equity theory says employees need to see themselves being treated the same as others who are at the same level as they are. We can implement a communication policy that will improve workplace relations and help employees see equal treatment in action. We can achieve better success with a monitoring committee or task force overseeing the process as well as continue to follow up and make adjustments in the communication network as needed. With open communication, it is less likely that employees will perceive that others are getting better treatment than themselves and overall workplace morale goes up. And after all in the end, it’s not important to just find a good job, but that you enjoy getting up in the morning and going to work.
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social change. In. L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology (Vol. 2, pp 267-299). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Coutts, L. M. and Gruman, J. A. (2012). Applying Social Psychology to Organizations. (Chapter 10, pp 217-244). Sage.
Johns, G., and Saks, A. M. (2001). Organizational behavior: Understanding and managing life at work (5th ed.). Toronto: Addison Wesley Longman.
According to “equity theory calls for a fair balance to be struck between an employee’s inputs and an employee’s outputs” (Adams’ Equity Theory: Balancing Employee Inputs and Outputs, n.d.). I agree with your post that finding this balance helps to ensure a strong and industrious relationship is attained “with the employee, with the overall result being contented, motivated employees” (Adams’ Equity Theory: Balancing Employee Inputs and Outputs, n.d.). The equity theory seems to be similar to other theories of motivation such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory. However, the equity theory “acknowledges that subtle and variable factors affect an employee’s assessment and perception of their relationship with their work and their employer” (Adams’ Equity Theory: Balancing Employee Inputs and Outputs, n.d.).
Personally, I would become de-motivated “both in my relation to [my] job and [my] employer if [I] feel as though [my] inputs are greater than the outputs” (Adams’ Equity Theory: Balancing Employee Inputs and Outputs, n.d.). The role of a leader is vast and it should include trying to improve their employee’s job satisfaction and motivation among other things. The leader should strive to find balance between the inputs an employee gives and the outputs an employee obtains. Just as you stated, employees do need to see themselves being treated the same as others who are at the same level they are on. You further state that communication is key to improving workplace relationships, which I agree with.
Nice post, thanks for sharing!
References:
Adams’ Equity Theory: Balancing Employee Inputs and Outputs. (n.d.). Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_96.htm