Motivation plays a crucial impact in organizational performance and productivity level. Equity Theory by J. S. Adams was developed in 1963. It describes motivation factors and their role in the productivity and satisfaction of employees. Adams states that workers find that their jobs offer relatively little opportunity for satisfying their deeper needs. He studies relations between the inputs and job outcomes. These factors determine in part a worker’s social status, and he expects, we assumed, his job rewards to be in line with his social investments. I selected this topic because it helps a manager to understand close relations between under-rewarded or over-rewarded employees and the correlation between the inputs and outputs as a result of different motivation levels. Literature Review The main layer of literature discusses the theoretical background of the theory and its practical application. Such authors as J. Reeve and J. Baldoni pay attention to the main principles and historical development of equity theory. Yet beyond this misunderstanding, there are deeper questions that remain to be answered: such as whether today’s managerial practices actually encourage self-reliance or smother it and, indeed, whether management actually has much of an effect on the individual’s motivation at all. T. Beeler and K. W. Thomas analyze a correlation between intrinsic motivation and commitment. They pay special attention to intrinsic motivation and its impact on productivity. The book Equity: Theory and Research by E. Walster et al (1978) proposes a detailed analysis of Adams’ equity theory and other researches on the topic of motivation and productivity. The other layer of literature is research studies which describe equity theory and its practical application. In the article, Allen and White (2002) investigate the problem of equity sensitivity and single out two types of under-reward situations. While it is logical to assume that workers want high rewards from management, it is not logical to assume that they want or expect an equal reward when compared with one another. Cowherd and Levine (1992) analyze the problem of product quality and its relation to pay equity and motivation. Seta and Seta (1992) and Gardner and Daniel (1998) state that the reward a worker expects bears some relationship to his social investments or the characteristics he brings to his job. As described in Seta and Seta (1992) the social investment factors managers worked with included age, seniority, education, ethnicity, and sex. Hochwarter (1996) and Guerrero et al (2007) show that need satisfaction as a goal of human behavior has long been an important concept among workplace psychology, and it has an important position in the reward theory of motivation in their research. Reward by management and by the group implies that a form of reward satisfies the individual’s needs; i.e., needs for job status, pay, seniority, relationships with co-workers, etc. Yet, the predictions the researchers made thus far did not attempt to specify productivity from the needs which an individual uniquely brings to his work situation. I agree with Walster et al (1878) that too much status congruence in a group