IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/schmbr/v71y2019i1d10.1007_s41464-019-00068-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consequences of Unfair Job Promotions in Organizations

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Bußwolder

    () (RWTH Aachen University)

  • Swetlana Dregert

    () (RWTH Aachen University)

  • Peter Letmathe

    () (RWTH Aachen University)

Abstract

Abstract We analyze the effect of fair and unfair job promotions on the willingness to cooperate within a group. To investigate how individuals respond to unfair (fair) job promotions, a laboratory experiment was conducted. During the experiment, one of the two persons in each dyad was assigned the role of supervisor and the other one was assigned the role of subordinate. We manipulate two factors: fair and unfair promotion (procedural injustice) as well as the possibility for the subordinate to punish the supervisor. We show that regardless of procedural justice and supported by inequity aversion as well as attribution theory, the willingness to cooperate when supervisors offer low compensation is limited. Paradoxically, supervisors who try to offset their unfair promotion actually benefit from procedural unfairness. We also show that Social Value Orientation (SVO) plays a role in the supervisor’s behavior but does not affect the subordinate’s willingness to cooperate.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Bußwolder & Swetlana Dregert & Peter Letmathe, 2019. "Consequences of Unfair Job Promotions in Organizations," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 71(1), pages 3-26, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:schmbr:v:71:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s41464-019-00068-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s41464-019-00068-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41464-019-00068-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2000. "Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 159-181, Summer.
    2. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869.
    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, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    5. Armin Falk & Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2005. "Driving Forces Behind Informal Sanctions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(6), pages 2017-2030, November.
    6. Falk, Armin & Fischbacher, Urs, 2006. "A theory of reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 293-315, February.
    7. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1986. "Fairness and the Assumptions of Economics," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 285-300, October.
    8. Heinz, Matthias & Jeworrek, Sabrina & Mertins, Vanessa & Schumacher, Heiner & Sutter, Matthias, 2017. "Measuring Indirect Effects of Unfair Employer Behavior on Worker Productivity - A Field Experiment," CEPR Discussion Papers 12429, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Ruffle, Bradley J., 1998. "More Is Better, But Fair Is Fair: Tipping in Dictator and Ultimatum Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 247-265, May.
    10. Hyejin Ku & Timothy C. Salmon, 2012. "The Incentive Effects of Inequality: An Experimental Investigation," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 79(1), pages 46-70, July.
    11. Karl Schurter & Bart J. Wilson, 2009. "Justice and Fairness in the Dictator Game," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 76(1), pages 130-145, July.
    12. Kwon, Illoong & Meyersson Milgrom, Eva M., 2014. "The significance of firm and occupation specific human capital for hiring and promotions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 162-173.
    13. Hoffman, Elizabeth & McCabe, Kevin A & Smith, Vernon L, 1996. "On Expectations and the Monetary Stakes in Ultimatum Games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 25(3), pages 289-301.
    14. Christine Harbring & Bernd Irlenbusch, 2011. "Sabotage in Tournaments: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(4), pages 611-627, April.
    15. Eguchi, Kyota, 2004. "Trainers' dilemma of choosing between training and promotion," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(6), pages 765-783, December.
    16. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
    17. Christoph Engel, 2011. "Dictator games: a meta study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 583-610, November.
    18. Brian E. Roe & David R. Just, 2009. "Internal and External Validity in Economics Research: Tradeoffs between Experiments, Field Experiments, Natural Experiments, and Field Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1266-1271.
    19. Houser, Daniel & Xiao, Erte, 2010. "Inequality-seeking punishment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 20-23, October.
    20. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    21. Bruno S. Frey & Iris Bohnet, 1999. "Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 335-339, March.
    22. Simon Gachter & Ernst Fehr, 2000. "Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 980-994, September.
    23. Uri Gneezy & John A List, 2006. "Putting Behavioral Economics to Work: Testing for Gift Exchange in Labor Markets Using Field Experiments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(5), pages 1365-1384, September.
    24. Gary E. Bolton & Rami Zwick & Elena Katok, 1998. "Dictator game giving: Rules of fairness versus acts of kindness," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 27(2), pages 269-299.
    25. Kong-Pin Chen, 2003. "Sabotage in Promotion Tournaments," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 119-140, April.
    26. David L. Dickinson & Marie Claire Villeval, 2012. "Job Allocation Rules and Sorting Efficiency: Experimental Outcomes in a Peter Principle Environment," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 78(3), pages 842-859, January.
    27. Rousu, Matthew C. & Baublitz, Sara J., 2011. "Does perceived unfairness affect charitable giving? Evidence from the dictator game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 364-367, August.
    28. David Johnson & Timothy C. Salmon, 2016. "Sabotage versus Discouragement: Which Dominates Post Promotion Tournament Behavior?," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 82(3), pages 673-696, January.
    29. Nicholas Bardsley, 2008. "Dictator game giving: altruism or artefact?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(2), pages 122-133, June.
    30. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    31. Colin F. Camerer & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Anomalies: Ultimatums, Dictators and Manners," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 209-219, Spring.
    32. Acosta, Pablo, 2010. "Promotion dynamics the Peter Principle: Incumbents vs. external hires," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 975-986, December.
    33. Brandts, Jordi & Guth, Werner & Stiehler, Andreas, 2006. "I want YOU! An experiment studying motivational effects when assigning distributive power," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:spr:schmbr:v:71:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s41464-019-00068-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Andrew Huffard) The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Andrew Huffard to update the entry or send us the correct email address. General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.