This paper compares two prominent motivational theories — equity theory and expectancy theory — to determine which is more effectively applied in a practical workplace setting. Drawing on Scholl's analysis of motivational processes, the paper examines how expectancy theory uses a schema of organizational rewards and punishments tied to achievable performance goals, while equity theory stresses fair and equitable treatment as the foundation of employee motivation. The paper argues that expectancy theory offers greater managerial control and measurability at the individual level, while equity theory requires organization-wide consistency that can be difficult to enforce.
The paper demonstrates comparative theoretical analysis: rather than describing each theory in isolation, it evaluates them against a shared practical criterion (workplace applicability). This technique requires the writer to identify points of contrast that are directly relevant to the evaluative question, not merely list features of each theory side by side.
The paper opens by posing the central question, then explains expectancy theory in depth — covering goal difficulty, self-efficacy, and perceived control — before introducing equity theory as a contrast. The final paragraph synthesizes the comparison, weighing short-term measurability, systematization, and managerial scope to favor expectancy theory for practical workplace use. The argument builds logically from theory description to applied evaluation.
Which motivational theory is better applied to the practical workplace: equity theory or expectancy theory? Each offers a distinct framework for understanding what drives employee behavior, and each carries different implications for how managers can structure rewards and expectations.
The expectancy theory of employee motivation suggests managing the directional aspect of motivation through a schema of organizational rewards and punishments tailored to organizational expectations. Expectancy theory holds that when deciding among behavioral options, individuals select the option with the greatest promised and compelling motivational reward. However, one cannot demand the impossible and threaten severe consequences — expected goals set too high, or performance expectations made too difficult, lead to low self-expectancy and low self-efficacy perceptions. The higher one's self-perception, the more one will push oneself to excel. Thus, both the performance expectation and the quality of the outcome must be high, yet not unreasonably so, for the theory to function effectively (Scholl, 2001).
For expectancy to strongly motivate individual performance, workers must also believe they have some degree of control over the expected outcome. Workers must possess a strong sense of self and autonomy. When individuals perceive that an outcome is beyond their ability to influence, their expectancy — and thus their motivation — is low. For example, many corporate profit-sharing plans do not motivate employees to increase effort on behalf of a company "because these employees do not think that they have direct control over the profits of their large companies" (Scholl, 2002).
By contrast, equity theory stresses that when workers feel their contributions are being fairly or equitably rewarded, they will excel. Under this view, profit sharing is likely to increase subjective factors such as organizational loyalty, because sharing profits signals that a company treats its employees fairly. The sense of equitable treatment — rather than control over outcomes — is the primary driver of motivation in this framework.
You’re 61% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.