The goal of this project is to prove and spread awareness that organizational

justice and equity affect performance, in order to create more equitable

workplaces and avoid existing problems facing most organizations nowadays, For

example, low performance, high absenteeism and overall job dissatisfaction. It is

vital to address that goal in order to increase overall organization performance

and overall job satisfaction. Moreover, overpaid employees in a workplace tend

to feel guilty when interacting with underpaid employees in the same department

, which leads to a helping behaviour from overpaid employees to underpaid

employees through working extra hours with them and also taking some of their

load work, this leads to more equity between employees in the same department

and overall job satisfaction between employees. Furthermore, this project will

discuss whether its true or false that overpaid employees tend to help underpaid

employees in the same work department to feel better about themselves and

restore equity in the workplace.

Part 3 determine kinds of information you collected to support or refuse hypothesis

Equity Theory

John Stacey Adams, a workplace behavioral psychologist, established Adam's

Equity Theory, often known as the Equity Theory of Motivation, in 1963.

The concept of equity theory is based on the idea that fairness motivates people.

Simply put, equity theory suggests that if a person notices an unfairness between

themselves and a peer, they will change their effort to make the situation more

equitable in their perspective. As an illustration of equity theory, if an employee

finds that a colleague doing the exact same job as them makes more money, they

may choose to work less, producing fairness in their view.

As a result of this, Adam's Equity Theory states that the higher a person's

perception of equity (fairness), the more motivated they will be. Individuals who

feel unfairness, on the other hand, will become demotivated.

Inequities

Emerges when an employee puts forth a lot of effort but receives little positive

feedback or appreciation. Internal and external salary disparities, unfair decision-

making, and poor career development chances are all examples of inequities that
arise as a result of perceived or actual unjust treatment in comparison to other

employees within the firm. Inequities, whether perceived or real, can range from

minor personality problems to criminal corporate activities.

Resolving Inequities

Identifying the underlying problem represents an essential step in resolving

workplace inequities. Once the problem has been identified, take steps to heal

the relationship. Depending on the severity, inequities can often be remedied

with open and honest communication. This can include providing disgruntled

employees with written company policies, such as the employee handbook, and

offering to discuss any instances of perceived unfair treatment. Serious

violations, such as ethnically disparaging treatment or sexual harassment,

should be handled by your organization's human resource and legal

departments. Communication and clear guidelines are the keys to preventing

perceived and actual inequities. For instance, clear policies on pay raises and

promotions can eliminate discourse related to pay and career development. In

addition, avoiding the perception of favoritism and following company policy in

the handling of all employee issues can effectively reduce the number of
complaints and concerns surrounding inequity in the workplace.

Employees will constantly seek to balance inputs (what an employee produces)

against outputs (what an employee receives in return, such as compensation,

benefits, praise and recognition, advancement opportunities, and so on) in order

to ensure fair and equitable treatment for themselves in comparison to what they

believe others receive. In theory, if an employee believes he or she does more

work, spends more time, and receives less recognition and compensation than

someone in a similar position, he or she will reduce effort, do only what is

required, produce less quality work in a shorter period of time, become resistant

or act out in more disruptive ways, or even quit to compensate for the inequity.

You can't control what your employees think, but you can lead by example to

establish a workplace that is fair, sensitive to real complaints, and geared to

eliminate any reason for employees to feel treated unfairly. Make an effort to

Keep consistency and fairness, make assignments, provide coaching and feed

back, make compensation recommendations and decisions, and provide

professional development and advancement opportunities in a fair manner to

reduce complaints of inequitable treatment. Of course, there will be reasons for

differing your expectations, opportunities, and rewards among employees based

on differences in experience, ability, performance, and job assignments. An

employee who does not appreciate your actions can always complain, but if you

have good grounds for your decisions, this should not be a concern. Another

suggestion is to get feedback from peers and specialists such as HR, employee

relations, and overall rewards professionals to ensure fairness and consistency.

In order to solve real issues an organization should Change the inputs or outputs

as needed, based on your observations or voiced concerns, to preserve fairness

and balance in the allocation of assignments, opportunities, and incentives.

Working with all team members to renegotiate assignments to establish a better

balance, for example, if you find that you have placed more demands on an

employee, resulting in higher stress, longer hours, and restricted compensation

compared to other team members with identical duties. In order to resolve this

problem Communicate your willingness to listen to employee problems on a

regular basis. When employees express concerns, acknowledge them and tell

them how much you agree or disagree with the charges of inequitable treatment,

and why. If your disagreement concerns an employee's performance, provide

coaching to assist them in achieving the level of performance that would earn the

sought consideration. If the employee's concerns are valid, but policy, fiscal, or

systemic constraints limit what you can do right now to address the unfairness, be

open about these realities and keep them informed about the measures you're

taking, especially if the process is taking longer than expected.

The following are examples of common Inputs:

1-The amount of time spent working (effort).

2-The dedication that was demonstrated.

3-The enthusiasm shown.

4-The knowledge and experience that was brought to the role.

5-Any personal sacrifices that have been made.

6-The individual's obligations and tasks in the role.

7-The amount of loyalty an individual has shown to superiors or the organization.

8-The individual's ability to adapt to changing circumstances, such as accepting
assignments on short notice or with tight deadlines.

Outputs

Also known as outcomes are the results that an individual obtains as a result of

their contributions to the organization.

The following are examples of common outputs:

1-Salary\Bonus\Pension

2-Allowance for vacation each year

3-Stock options on a company automobile

4-Recognition

5-Promotion
Equity Ratios

The following are the three general comparison options for the output-to-input
ratio:

1. The first possibility is that your and others' output-to-input ratio comparisons are
same.

2. Another option is that your output-to-input ratio is lower than that of your
coworkers.

3. Your output-to-input ratio is larger than your peers, which is the third
possibility.

A team member knowing that a colleague doing the same job as him is making

more money might create a sense of inequality; in this case, he may decide to put \

in less effort, justifying himself in his own eyes. Every team member's answer is

determined by the mentality of the individual employee and his level of happiness

with the organization. The ideal approach would be for businesses to increase
effective employee engagement by developing a strong culture.
Organizational justice

Organizational justice was first introduced by Greenberg in 1987, it refers to an

employee understanding and belief in their organization behaviour, actions and

decisions and the way they affect employees own attitudes at work.

0rganisational justice is involved with all subjects of workplace behaviour, It is

originally derived from equity theory, which suggests individuals make

judgements on fairness based on the amount they give (input) compared to the

amount they get back (output). Organizational justice is considered a team-level

as well as individual matter. Employees have their own opinions and perspectives,

but it is clear that their views on justice are influenced by their co-workers, peers,

managers and team members. There are Three different types of Organizational

justice, Distributive Organizational Justice, Procedural Organizational Justice and

Interactional Organizational Justice.

-Distributive Organizational justice

In this sort of organisational justice, the employee is worried about whether the

result of his work is fair and given according to the input. In other words

“Distributive justice is defined as the fairness associated with the decision related

to the distribution of resources within an organization” (Colquitt,2001). The

biggest reason for conflict between the employer and the employee is the feeling
of injustice and unfair dealings. When an employee believes he is paid and treated

fairly, distributive organisational justice is achieved.

Procedural Organizational Justice

In this type of organizational justice, the employee is concerned about whether

the procedures adopted by the organization to decide the outcome is fair or not.

In other words, “procedural organizational justice refers to employee’s perception

of the fairness of the management policies and procedures that regulate a

process to decision outcomes” (Colquitt,2001). When an employee is given the

opportunity to express his or her views on the decision-making process or knows

how and why the decision-making process works he or she will believe that

procedural organisational justice has been achieved. This can be used to everyday

work and management practises, as well as formal one-time procedures such as

disciplinary hearings. Moreover, Procedural justice can outweigh distributive

justice because Employees will willingly accept a decision that appears undesired

only if they believe the method used to arrive at the result was carried out in

accordance with the company's organisational fairness principles. The following

are the critical factors of procedural justice: Consistency is one of the most

important factors of procedural justice. It means that the same allowances and
requirements apply to everyone in similar circumstances. Accuracy, meaning

that the information used for justifying the decision is correct and up to date.

Neutrality, indicates that choices must be based on facts rather than the decision-

own maker's sentiments or interests. To get to a decision, he must take an

impartial look at the circumstances. Morality is an important determinant in

procedural justice because it urges decision-makers to avoid making choices

based on variables such as nationality, gender, and age.

Interactional Organizational Justice

In this type of organizational justice, The employee is worried about whether the

information communicated by the organisation regarding the outcome feedback

was handled sensitively or not. In other words, “Interactional Justice is defined as

the just treatment than an employee receives as the result of managerial

decisions” (Colquitt,2001). Employees believe that interactional organisational

justice has occurred when their bosses have offered appropriate reasons for their

actions and have treated them with decency and respect.

There are two types of interactional organizational justice:

1-Interpersonal justice - In this sort of organisational justice, the employee

examines the employer's communication of information to the employee for

fairness and sensitivity. The emphasis of interpersonal organisational justice is

civilized and on a high level .

2-Informational justice - In this sort of organisational justice, the employee

considers the quality of the explanation provided by the employer regarding a

certain conclusion. Proper explanation is placed on the informational

organisational justice with a focus on truth, specificity, and timeliness.

One of the major problems facing most organizations and causing inequity and

overall unfair work decisions is bad management. When a company is badly

managed, inefficiency spreads across the firm. It has a major negative impact on

employee morale, resulting in low quality work from employees who would

prefer to be engaged and productive but lack the motivation to do so because

their efforts will not be acknowledged or rewarded. Another problem facing

employees in the same organization and the same department is comparing

equity ratio. When an employee compares his equity ratio, which is the input

(working hours) is transferred into a unit based system as well as the output

received(monthly wage or financial compensation ) for work done, with his or

her superior position employee equity ratio comparison is made based on each

employee working hours and compensation after fulfilling the work task needed

by the organization. The problem here is that usually the input unit is

miscalculated due to extra unseen challenges from superior positions employees

in the same department and stressful situations faced by the superior employee

position that the employee could not know about , all of this is not taken into

account by employee when making comparison to make sure whether the

workplace is equitable or not . In order to overcome the problem of bad

management, new trained management must be introduced to positively support

high efficient employees and improve overall job performance and job

satisfaction. Furthermore, to avoid mistaken equity ratio unit calculation from

employees comparing their equity ratio to superior employees for example,

managers, then to avoid inaccurate results that could lead to lower performance

and overall job dissatisfaction comparison must be only made between same

position employees from the same department.