Motivation and fairness at work: the two equations every manager must understand

When an employee says, "I gave everything to this project and received nothing in return," or "I do as much as Camille, yet she is the one who gets thanked," they are not necessarily just complaining. They are expressing something far more fundamental: a perceived imbalance between what they invested and what they got back, or between their situation and that of their colleagues. This imbalance, whether objectively real or simply perceived, has a direct, measurable impact on their future level of engagement.

This mechanism lies at the heart of what psychologist John Stacey Adams theorized in the 1960s as Equity Theory. But beyond the theory, this is a daily reality that every manager encounters, often without knowing how to name it or how to respond to it. 

The first equation: What I give compared to what I get

The first equation is one that every employee naturally and unconsciously calculates the moment they commit to a project, a mission, or a period of intense work. On one side of the scale, what they give: their time, energy, skills, availability, and sometimes their evenings and weekends. On the other side, what they receive: compensation, recognition, a sense of accomplishment, skill development, or simply the feeling of having made a difference.

This equation is deeply subjective. It is not the objective reality of what the employee received that determines how they feel, but their perception of this ratio. Two people receiving the exact same thing in response to the same effort can experience radically different outcomes depending on how they value what they received and the importance they place on what they gave.

Recognition: An often undervalued reward

Many managers believe that reward is solely about compensation. This is a narrow view that creates dangerous blind spots. Research in occupational psychology shows that non-monetary recognition—a sincere thank you, public praise in front of the team, or a personal message highlighting exactly what was done well—can have a greater motivational impact than a one-time bonus.

Conversely, the absence of recognition after significant effort creates a lasting sense of injustice. The employee does not forget. They unconsciously reassess their level of engagement for the next project in light of what they received for the last one. If they perceive the equation to be unfavorable, they adjust their investment downward—not out of bad will, but simply to protect their energy.

What the manager can do in practice

Paying close attention to this first equation means managers must watch for the signals employees send after every period of intense effort. The goal is not just to detect dissatisfaction, but to prevent it by ensuring that recognition matches the level of investment made. This can be as simple as a one-on-one check-in after closing a difficult project to explicitly state what the employee contributed and what that contribution helped achieve. 

The second equation: What I get compared to what others get

The second equation is even trickier for managers to handle. It is no longer about the ratio between individual effort and reward, but rather the comparison between what the employee receives and what their colleagues receive for a similar perceived effort. This is the domain of social comparison—a deeply human and largely unconscious mechanism.

"Camille was thanked publicly. The manager forgot to mention me. My colleague got a higher bonus even though I feel I contributed just as much." These seemingly minor situations create real motivational wounds. The employee does not question the value of Camille or their colleague; they question the manager's ability to see and fairly recognize every contribution.

The trap of unintentional oversight

Most of the time, managers do not create these imbalances through conscious favoritism. They create them through oversight, the habit of working with certain people more than others, or a natural tendency to value highly visible contributions over those made in the background. This attribution bias, well-documented in social psychology, leads to repeatedly over-recognizing the same employees while under-recognizing others.

The problem is that what is unintentional on the manager's part is clearly perceived—and felt as intentional—by the forgotten employee. The impact on motivation and the manager's credibility remains the same, whether it stems from deliberate favoritism or repeated oversight.

Equity does not mean equality

An essential point to understand is that a sense of equity does not require strictly equal rewards. Employees generally understand that different contributions deserve different forms of recognition. What they cannot tolerate is arbitrariness: receiving less than someone else without understanding why, or receiving the exact same thing as someone else when they clearly contributed more.

A manager's transparency regarding their recognition criteria is therefore a powerful driver of perceived equity. When an employee understands why a specific contribution was valued more, the feeling of injustice disappears or decreases significantly, even if the quantitative comparison remains unfavorable. 

Why these two equations are so difficult for managers to navigate

The main challenge is that both equations operate on feelings, not facts. A manager may believe they have perfectly recognized their team's contributions, yet still create a sense of injustice in certain employees because the perception of what was received and the comparison with others play out in each individual's subjective mind.

Feelings are rarely expressed spontaneously

An employee who feels treated unfairly rarely tells their manager directly. Instead, they signal it through behaviors: a gradual drop in engagement, a more distant attitude, taking less initiative on future projects, or sharing informal complaints with colleagues that the manager never hears. Often, by the time the manager realizes what happened, demotivation has already set in.

Active attention as a key managerial skill

Managing these two equations requires a form of active attention that many managers have not naturally developed: observing behaviors that signal a sense of injustice, creating opportunities for individual dialogue where employees can express how they feel without fear of judgment or being labeled as demanding, and adjusting recognition practices accordingly.

This also requires humility: accepting that your perception of the situation and your employees' perception may differ significantly, and that the employee's perception always determines their motivation level, regardless of the objective reality as the manager sees it. 

Practical steps a manager can take

These two equations are not a lost cause. Managers who understand how they work have concrete leverage to manage them proactively.

Individualize recognition

The first rule is to never forget anyone when giving thanks. This rule seems obvious, yet it is regularly broken, usually without bad intentions. Getting into the habit of noting individual contributions throughout a project, and highlighting them explicitly and by name at completion, is one of the simplest and most effective ways to prevent feelings of injustice.

Be transparent about criteria for differentiation

When different forms of recognition are awarded to different contributions (bonuses, responsibilities, visibility), managers must be able to clearly explain the criteria behind these decisions. This transparency may not always eliminate the feeling of injustice, but it removes the arbitrary nature of the decision, which is already a major step forward.

Create regular opportunities for dialogue

Regular one-on-one meetings, conducted with genuine listening rather than as a performance review, are the best tools for catching feelings of injustice early. A simple question asked regularly, "Do you feel your contribution is recognized at its true value on this team?", can be enough to start a dialogue that prevents silent demotivation. 

FAQ: Frequently asked questions about motivation and fairness at work

How can you detect a feeling of injustice before it turns into demotivation?

Early signals are behavioral: an employee taking less initiative, participating less actively in meetings, showing less enthusiasm for new projects, or interacting with their manager in a more formal and distant way. These signs usually precede a visible drop in performance by several weeks or months. An attentive manager spots them and opens a dialogue before disengagement sets in.

Can bonuses and promotions create a sense of injustice even when they are justified?

Yes, if the logic behind the differentiation is not explained. An employee who receives a lower bonus than a colleague without understanding why will almost always interpret it as an injustice, even if the difference is fully justified by objective criteria. Transparency about the criteria for differentiation is the main defense against this type of perception.

How should you handle an employee who expresses a sense of injustice openly?

Start by acknowledging their feelings without denying or dismissing them. Saying "I understand why you might see it that way" is an essential first step, even if the manager believes the situation is objectively fair. Next, explain the logic that guided the decision or recognition, listen to what the employee considers fair, and identify together what could be done differently in the future.

Is Adams' Equity Theory still relevant today?

Yes, and it is actually reinforced by modern workplace realities. Greater transparency around pay, social networks that allow comparison of working conditions across companies, and new generations of employees who express their expectations for recognition more openly make equity dynamics even more visible and critical to engagement than they were in Adams' time.

How can we train managers to better handle these two equations?

The most effective training combines understanding the mechanisms (why feelings of injustice form and how they impact motivation), practicing individualized recognition, and learning to conduct one-on-one conversations focused on employee feelings. These skills must be built through experience, not theory alone. Explore our training programs in management to develop these habits in your leadership teams. 

Conclusion: Two simple equations, continuous attention

What I give compared to what I get. What I get compared to what others get. These two silent and unconscious equations lie at the heart of any team's motivational dynamics. They are calculated constantly, without anyone speaking of them openly, and their result largely determines the energy each employee chooses to invest in the next project.

Managers who integrate this reality into their daily practice gain powerful leverage—not by handing out more rewards, but by being more attentive, fair, and transparent in how they recognize everyone's contributions. This attention costs nothing. It changes everything.

To build these managerial skills in your teams, explore our training programs in management: designed to anchor sustainable practices in the daily realities of every organization. 

SOURCES

Watch the video: HERE

Read the article: the drivers of motivation at work