Reinforcement theory in IBL

Reinforcement theory proposes that you can change someone's behavior by using reinforcement,
punishment, and extinction. Rewards are used to reinforce the behavior you want
and punishments are used to prevent the behavior you do not want. Extinction is a means to stop
someone from performing a learned behavior. The technical term for these processes is called
operant conditioning.

Key Concepts of Reinforcement Theory in IBL

In IBL the fundamental concepts of this theory are reinforcement, punishment, and extinction.
Reinforcement can be divided into positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement. Positive
reinforcement occurs when the consequence resulting in the behavior you are attempting to
produce increases the probability that the desired behavior will continue. If a salesperson
performs well, that salesperson may receive a bonus, which reinforces the desire to make sales
because of the positive consequence of doing so.
In IBL workplace Negative reinforcement occurs when a negative consequence is withheld if the
behavior you desire is demonstrated, which will increase the probability that the behavior you
are seeking will continue.

Reinforcement Theory in IBL

 Re-enforcement Theory analysis at IBL
Reinforcement theory proposes that you can change someone's behavior by using reinforcement,
punishment, and extinction. Rewards are used to reinforce the behavior you want and punishments
are used to prevent the behavior you do not want. Extinction is a means to stop someone from
performing a learned behavior.

Tested on HR Department. Lisa Chowdhury

Positive Reinforcement: Example: Giving awards and incentives to best quarterly performers from all
departments

Negative Reinforcement: Example: Providing incentive to Delivery/Logistics unit for 0% Delivery return
from retail market.

Punishment: Example: Salary deduction for late entry, 100% disallow of a claim for a single fake travel
bill.

Extinction: Example: Stopping of Snacks budget in Branches.

Re-enforcement Theory analysis at IBL

 Reinforcement Theory flow of IBL:

In IBL a desired behavior is a function of its consequences, is externally caused, and if

reinforced, is likely to be repeated.

Positive reinforcement is preferred for its long-term effects on

performance.

Ignoring undesired behavior is better than punishment which

may create additional dysfunctional behaviors.

Reinforcement Theory flow of IBL

 Equity Theory Practice at IBL

The equity theory of motivation describes the relationship between the employee’s perception of
how fairly is he being treated and how hard he is motivated to work. J. Stacy Adams developed
equity theory.
Equity Theory states that the employees perceive what they get from a job situation (outcomes)
in relation to what they put into it( inputs) and then compare their inputs- outcomes ratio with the
inputs- outcomes ratios of others. This theory show-

 Inputs: inputs include all the rich and diverse elements that employees believe they bring or
contribute to the job – their education, experience, effort, loyalty, commitment.
 Outcomes: Outcomes are rewards they perceive they get from their jobs and employers
outcomes include- direct pay and bonuses, fringe benefit, job security, social rewards and
psychological.
 Overrewarded: if employees fell over-rewarded equity theory predicts then they will feel
and imbalance in their relationship with their employee and seek to restore that balance.
 Equity: if employees perceive equity then they will be motivated to continue to contribute act
about the same level.
 Unrewarded: unrewarded who feel they have been unrewarded and seek to reduce their
feeling in equity through the same types of strategies but same of this specific action are now
reverse.
 The Equity theory on the basis of IBL
1. Individuals make contributions (inputs) for which they expect certain outcomes (rewards).
Inputs include such things as the person’s past training and experience, special knowledge,
personal characteristics etc. Outcomes include pay, recognition, promotion, prestige, fringe
benefits etc.
2. Individuals decide whether or not a particular exchange is satisfactory, by comparing their
inputs and outcomes to those of others, in the form of a ratio .Equity exists when an
individual concludes that his/her own outcome/input ratio is equal to that of other people.

Equity Theory analysis at IBL

Given payment by time at IBL:

 Overrewarded employees will produce more than will

equitably paid employees.
  Under rewarded employees will produce less or poorer
quality of output.

Given payment by quantity of production at IBL :

 Overrewarded employees will produce fewer, but

higher-quality, units than will equitably paid
employees.
 Under rewarded employees will produce a large
number of low-quality units in comparison with
equitably paid employees.

Generally, labors are huge in number because they are required to maintain the 40,000sqft warehouse
operation. As there numbers are high, a process control is established to manage them. They are
continuously monitored, followed up, directed, pressurized and even shouted by supervisors to get their
job done. Labors have very less qualifications and they are not very concerned about organizational
activities or goals.
Implementation Equity Theory at IBL:

Proposes that employees perceive what they get from

a job situation (outcomes) in relation to what they put
in (inputs) and then compare their inputs-outcomes
ratio with the inputs-outcomes ratios of relevant
others.

If the ratios are perceived as equal then a state of equity

(fairness) exists.

If the ratios are perceived as unequal, inequity exists and the

person feels under- or over-rewarded.

When inequities occur, employees will attempt to do

something to rebalance the ratios (seek justice).

Limitation of Equity Theory at IBL

Distributive justice

The perceived fairness of the amount and allocation of

rewards among individuals (i.e., who received what).
Influences an employee’s satisfaction.

Procedural justice

The perceived fairness of the process use to determine the

distribution of rewards (i.e., how who received what).
effects an employee’s organizational commitment

Equity role in motivation at IBL:

Employees make comparisons of their job inputs and outcomes relative to those of others.

 If we perceive our ratio to be equal to that of the relevant others with whom we compare
ourselves, a state of equity is said to exist. We perceive our situation as fair.
 When we see the ratio as unequal, we experience equity tension.

Additionally, the referent that an employee selects adds to the complexity of equity theory.
There are four referent comparisons that an employee can use:

 Self-inside: An employee’s experiences in a different position inside his or her current

organization.
 Self-outside: An employee’s experiences in a situation or position outside his or her
current organization.
 Other-inside: Another individual or group of individuals inside the employee’s
organization.
 Other-outside: Another individual or group of individuals outside the employee’s
organization.

Which referent an employee chooses will be influenced by the information the employee
holds about referents, as well as by the attractiveness of the referent. There are four
moderating variables: gender, the length of tenure, level in the organization, and the amount
of education or professionalism.
Men and women prefer same-sex comparisons. This also suggests that if women are tolerant
of lower pay, it may be due to the comparative standard they use.
Employees in jobs that are not sex-segregated will make more cross-sex comparisons than
those in jobs that are either male- or female-dominated.

Employees with a short tenure in their current organizations tend to have little information
about others.

Employees with long tenure rely more heavily on coworkers for comparison.

Upper-level employees tend to be more cosmopolitan and have better information about
people in other organizations. Therefore, these types of employees will make more other-
outside comparisons.

When employees perceive an inequity, they can be predicted to make one of six choices:

 Change their inputs.

 Change their outcomes.
 Distort perceptions of self.
 Distort perceptions of others.
 Choose a different referent.
 Leave the field.

The theory propositions at IBL:

 Given payment by time, over-rewarded employees will produce more than will equitably
pay employees.
 Given payment by the quantity of production, over-rewarded employees will produce
fewer, but higher quality, units that will equitably pay employees.
 Given payment by time, under-rewarded employees will produce less or poorer quality of
output.

Given payment by the quantity of production, under-rewarded employees will produce a large
number of low-quality units in comparison with equitably paid employees.

These propositions have generally been supported with a few minor qualifications.

 Inequities created by over-payment do not seem to have a very significant impact on

behavior in most work situations.
 Not all people are equity-sensitive.

Employees also seem to look for equity in the distribution of other organizational rewards.

Finally, recent research has been directed at expanding what is meant by equity or fairness.
  Historically, equity theory focused on distributive justice or the perceived fairness of the
amount and allocation of rewards among individuals.
 Equity should also consider procedural justice, the perceived fairness of the process used
to determine the distribution of rewards.
 The evidence indicates that distributive justice has a greater influence on employee
satisfaction than procedural justice,
 Procedural justice tends to affect an employee’s organizational commitment, trust in his or
her boss, and intention to quit.
 By increasing the perception of procedural fairness, employees are likely to view their
bosses and the organization as positive even if they are dissatisfied with pay, promotions,
and other personal outcomes.

Equity theory demonstrates that, for most employees, motivation is influenced significantly by
relative rewards as well as by absolute rewards, but some key issues are still unclear.