IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orstsc/v5y2020i1p55-70.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transparency and Fairness in Organizational Decisions: An Experimental Investigation Using the Paired Ultimatum Game

Author

Listed:
  • Jared Nai

    (Organizational Behavior and Human Resources, Singapore University, 178899 Singapore, Singapore)

  • Reddi Kotha

    (Strategic Management, Singapore University, 178899 Singapore, Singapore)

  • Jayanth Narayanan

    (Management and Organization, National University of Singapore, 119245 Singapore, Singapore)

  • Phanish Puranam

    (Strategy, INSEAD, 138676 Singapore, Singapore)

Abstract

Organizations often keep secret their decisions about what employees receive (e.g., salary, budgets, benefits) to manage fairness concerns. We propose that this can be counterproductive because of a mechanism we call the “escalation of deservingness under secrecy,” where the existence of peers can inflate one’s own sense of deservingness, even when the actual allocations to peers are unknown. Building on the ultimatum game, we developed a paired ultimatum game (PUG) in which a player and a peer respondent engage with the same offeror simultaneously but with no direct competition between respondents. Across three experiments—a live interaction study as well as two scenario studies—using the PUG, we analyze the conditions under which transparency may be better than secrecy in preventing the escalation of deservingness perceptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jared Nai & Reddi Kotha & Jayanth Narayanan & Phanish Puranam, 2020. "Transparency and Fairness in Organizational Decisions: An Experimental Investigation Using the Paired Ultimatum Game," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 55-70, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orstsc:v:5:y:2020:i:1:p:55-70
    DOI: 10.1287/stsc.2019.0100
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2019.0100
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/stsc.2019.0100?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sunkee Lee & Phanish Puranam, 2017. "Incentive Redesign and Collaboration in Organizations: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(12), pages 2333-2352, December.
    2. Chaim Fershtman & Uri Gneezy & John A. List, 2012. "Equity Aversion: Social Norms and the Desire to Be Ahead," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 131-144, November.
    3. Jordi Brandts & Gary Charness, 2011. "The strategy versus the direct-response method: a first survey of experimental comparisons," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 375-398, September.
    4. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    5. Mitzkewitz, Michael & Nagel, Rosemarie, 1993. "Experimental Results on Ultimatum Games with Incomplete Information," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 22(2), pages 171-198.
    6. David Card & Alexandre Mas & Enrico Moretti & Emmanuel Saez, 2012. "Inequality at Work: The Effect of Peer Salaries on Job Satisfaction," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2981-3003, October.
    7. Joanne Martin, 1982. "The Fairness of Earnings Differentials: An Experimental Study of the Perceptions of Blue-Collar Workers," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 17(1), pages 110-122.
    8. John, Leslie K. & Loewenstein, George & Rick, Scott I., 2014. "Cheating more for less: Upward social comparisons motivate the poorly compensated to cheat," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 101-109.
    9. Raghuram Rajan & Henri Servaes & Luigi Zingales, 2000. "The Cost of Diversity: The Diversification Discount and Inefficient Investment," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(1), pages 35-80, February.
    10. Todd R. Zenger, 1994. "Explaining Organizational Diseconomies of Scale in R&D: Agency Problems and the Allocation of Engineering Talent, Ideas, and Effort by Firm Size," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(6), pages 708-729, June.
    11. Teck-Hua Ho & Xuanming Su, 2009. "Peer-Induced Fairness in Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 2022-2049, December.
    12. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Elizabeth Tricomi & Antonio Rangel & Colin F. Camerer & John P. O’Doherty, 2010. "Neural evidence for inequality-averse social preferences," Nature, Nature, vol. 463(7284), pages 1089-1091, February.
    14. Solnick, Sara J. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 1999. "The Influence of Physical Attractiveness and Gender on Ultimatum Game Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 199-215, September.
    15. Jack A. Nickerson & Todd R. Zenger, 2008. "Envy, comparison costs, and the economic theory of the firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(13), pages 1429-1449, December.
    16. Wang, Cynthia S. & Sivanathan, Niro & Narayanan, Jayanth & Ganegoda, Deshani B. & Bauer, Monika & Bodenhausen, Galen V. & Murnighan, Keith, 2011. "Retribution and emotional regulation: The effects of time delay in angry economic interactions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 46-54, September.
    17. Markus Reitzig & Boris Maciejovsky, 2015. "Corporate hierarchy and vertical information flow inside the firm—a behavioral view," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(13), pages 1979-1999, December.
    18. Burton, Richard M. & Obel, Borge, 1988. "Opportunism, incentives, and the m-form hypothesis : A laboratory study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 99-119, July.
    19. Pillutla, Madan M. & Murnighan, J. Keith, 1996. "Unfairness, Anger, and Spite: Emotional Rejections of Ultimatum Offers," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 208-224, December.
    20. Bahry, Donna L. & Wilson, Rick K., 2006. "Confusion or fairness in the field? Rejections in the ultimatum game under the strategy method," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 37-54, May.
    21. Hessel Oosterbeek & Randolph Sloof & Gijs van de Kuilen, 2004. "Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 171-188, June.
    22. Harold Guetzkow & Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "The Impact of Certain Communication Nets Upon Organization and Performance in Task-Oriented Groups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3-4), pages 233-250, 04-07.
    23. Claudine Gartenberg & Julie Wulf, 2017. "Pay Harmony? Social Comparison and Performance Compensation in Multibusiness Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 39-55, February.
    24. Rajshree Agarwal & Jaideep Anand & Janet Bercovitz & Rachel Croson, 2012. "Spillovers across organizational architectures: The role of prior resource allocation and communication in post‐acquisition coordination outcomes," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 710-733, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Prithwiraj Choudhury & Kevin Crowston & Linus Dahlander & Marco S. Minervini & Sumita Raghuram, 2020. "GitLab: work where you want, when you want," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lahno, Amrei M. & Serra-Garcia, Marta, 2012. "Peer Effects in Risk Taking," Discussion Papers in Economics 14309, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    2. Zultan, Ro’i, 2012. "Strategic and social pre-play communication in the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 425-434.
    3. Amrei M. Lahno & Marta Serra-Garcia, 2012. "Peer Effects in Risk Taking," CESifo Working Paper Series 4057, CESifo.
    4. Sunkee Lee & Phanish Puranam, 2017. "Incentive Redesign and Collaboration in Organizations: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(12), pages 2333-2352, December.
    5. Khalmetski, Kiryl & Ockenfels, Axel & Werner, Peter, 2015. "Surprising gifts: Theory and laboratory evidence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 163-208.
    6. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    7. Matthias Fahn & Giorgio Zanarone, 2021. "Pay Transparency Under Subjective Performance Evaluation," CESifo Working Paper Series 8849, CESifo.
    8. Aina, Chiara & Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Gamba, Astrid, 2020. "Frustration and anger in the Ultimatum Game: An experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 150-167.
    9. Matthias Fahn & Giorgio Zanarone, 2022. "Transparency in relational contracts," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(5), pages 1046-1071, May.
    10. Axel Ockenfels & Dirk Sliwka & Peter Werner, 2015. "Bonus Payments and Reference Point Violations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(7), pages 1496-1513, July.
    11. Alexia Gaudeul, 2013. "Social preferences under uncertainty," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-024, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    12. Rotemberg, Julio J., 2008. "Minimally acceptable altruism and the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 66(3-4), pages 457-476, June.
    13. Emin Karagözoğlu & Ümit Barış Urhan, 2017. "The Effect of Stake Size in Experimental Bargaining and Distribution Games: A Survey," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 285-325, March.
    14. Alexander Lenger & Stephan Wolf & Nils Goldschmidt, 2021. "Choosing inequality: how economic security fosters competitive regimes," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 19(2), pages 315-346, June.
    15. Bahry, Donna L. & Wilson, Rick K., 2006. "Confusion or fairness in the field? Rejections in the ultimatum game under the strategy method," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 37-54, May.
    16. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    17. Amrei Lahno & Marta Serra-Garcia, 2015. "Peer effects in risk taking: Envy or conformity?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 73-95, February.
    18. Clément Bellet, 2017. "Essays on Inequality, Social Preferences and Consumer Behavior," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/vbu6kd1s68o, Sciences Po.
    19. Dieter Balkenborg & Rosemarie Nagel, 2016. "An Experiment on Forward vs. Backward Induction: How Fairness and Level k Reasoning Matter," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 17(3), pages 378-408, August.
    20. Sliwka, Dirk & Werner, Peter, 2016. "How Do Agents React to Dynamic Wage Increases? An Experimental Study," IZA Discussion Papers 9855, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orstsc:v:5:y:2020:i:1:p:55-70. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.