’11111111111‘1’1111 3 1293 00992 9658 LIBRARY Michigan. State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Factors Influencing the Perceived Importance of Pay Reference Groups in a Unionized Hospital Setting presented by Paul M. Reagan has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Philosophy degree in \‘jzfimvj/fd‘ Major professor Date 11/11/86 MS U is an Aflimau’ve Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from __ your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. 001' 1 1 1999 cm 5 .- Kit-’1 g I21? ”9" 2 6 993 ’fi 9: m! ##3‘- ‘~n FACTORS INFLUENCING THE PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF PAY REFERENCE GROUPS IN A UNIONIZED HOSPITAL SETTINGV BY Paul Marion Reagan A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DDCIDR OE PdILJSDPHY School of Labor and Industrial Relations 1336 - .I 1; 1.. . 3 r. .3 3 3. .l r. .1 3 «1 1| 3 u ‘1 a e 0 .4 S. 3 a. e an 3 2.. o. s. r 3 an” ‘1 3 CL .1 3 at. A e n r. .3 r 1L 3 3. 3 C a. x: «J .1 r. r. ‘1 a. 3 I. :51. C. t w. 3 ,. . it a. j 3» .. s .1— . . ‘3 a. . s ‘1 at» «4 rs . s vs a... Y h,“ 3 3 3 3. . . n1 3 A . ‘1 r. a. ; . 3 ‘1 s t : t 0. an. a; .1 j A; t e at» n.- :L ‘1. a)». 55 «.1 t b o Alv 4.3- ABSTRACT FACTORS INFLUENCING THE PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF PAY REFERENCE GROUPS IN A UNIONIZED HOSPITAL SETTING BY Paul Marion Reagan Establishing fair and equitable pay practices is one of the more important activities carried out by organizations. Fairness implies comparisons. Single and multiple reference sources have been hypothesized to exist. The present study is an examination of the perceptual processes involved in the determination of pay equity with specific emphasis upon the standards or referents used and the factors which influence their importance. Social comparison processes are a central construct in both equity theory and reference group theory. Both of these complementary frameworks are integrated in a model of the factors influencing the perceived importance of pay reference groups. The model incorporates three categories of factors: personal characteristics, job characteristics and group iden- tification/membership. Variables within each of these cate- gories were hypothesized to influence the perceived impor- tance of pay referents depending upon the perceived similar- ity of the referent to the comparer and the instrumentality of drawing the comparison. The use of multiple pay referents was also hypothesized. On the basis of pilot testing, five pay referents value of egaty 21:1 233.1: 33 relevant to the respondent population (unionized health care workers) were identified. The perceived importance of each of these referents then served as a dependent variable. Step— wise multiple regression was used to establish the predictive value of each factor in the model. Direct estimates of pay equity made in relation to each of the five pay referents were also collected. These estimates served as predictor variables to determine the independent influence of each ref- erent on a criterion variable of pay satisfaction. The major findings can be summarized as follows: 1. Personal characteristics, job characteristics and group identification variables do influence the per- ceived importance of pay referents. Limited support for the model was demonstrated. 2. As expected, the predictive value of variables within each category depended upon the particular referent in question. 3. The amount of variance which could be accounted for in the perceived importance of any of the five ref- erents was modest. 4. Convincing evidence is seen to exist for the usage of multiple pay referents. Noting several methodological and statistical consider- ations, these findings are discussed in terms of the model proposed and social comparison issues. The results, although inconclusive, underscore the importance of developing further models of the pay referent selection process. E N: 5 A. .31 D .QIO 719! .abar :4— V 542i 33 a: A: l. 515 R ‘ a 1 ‘ lite t iivi in ‘1‘. ‘NJ as. 44 a; dtis- Q \ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Throughout my graduate career I have maintained and pur- sued an interest in pay and its effects upon the peOple who labor for it. This dissertation is the culmination of that interest. As a research piece it stands on its own. This final product, however, is also the result of a number of significant individuals whom I would like to thank for their time, resources and support. No single individual has affected my intellectual devel- opment more greatly than Dr. Thomas H. Patten Jr. His per— sonal example has led to my admiration for the very highest of professional, ethical and human standards: each serving as point of reference to judge the quality of my life and effec- tiveness in dealing with other individuals. I would also like to thank him for the insight that the development of all individuals is ultimately self-motivated. This dissertation is dedicated to him. Other committee members have also shaped my academic experiences. Dr. Daniel H. Kruger has unfailingly provided the acid test of practicality for my ideas. Dr. Richard Block instilled the importance of academic rigor. Dr. 3- Kevin Ford provided valuable methodological and statistical suggestions. Dr Stanley Stark's reading of the ii loving 335a p: manuscript provided assistance in revision. I would also like to thank the staff of the School of Labor and Industrial Relations who demonstrated the meaning of service to the community. I will be indebted to them always. Finally, I am especially fortunate to be blessed with my loving wife Cheryl and her support. This dissertation was made possible by her. iii I ha. .p. 9.. ,.. J. .1. u as. «1 NJ 3. a; I. 3. . 3a fi.. fi. 1‘ cl. 3. 3. ax; ‘34 ‘4; .1 v . . . a.” I. . 4 . 4 . . a . TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF (PABLES O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Objectives and Potential Contributions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Outline of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER II . LIEBRJX-PURE REVIEEQ . O O O O O O O O 0 Introduction. . . . . . 0.. . . . . . . . . . Reference Group Theory and Relative Normative, Membership and Comparative Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group Identification and Hembership. . . Organizational Commitment and _ Professionalism . . . . . . . . . . . Cosmopolitan — Localism. . . . . . . . . Relative Deprivation — Social Comparison Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elements of Relative Deprivation Theory. Egoistic and Fraternal Deprivation: Similar versus Dissimilar Referent Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evolution of the Relative Deprivation Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Empirical Literature - Pay Referents. . . . . The Function of Similarity . . . . . . . Similarity and Egoistic Comparisons. . . The Function of Instrumentality. . . . . Within Group Comparisons (Similar) versus Between Group (Instrumental) Comparison Summary - Reference Group Theory . . . . . . E'qijity Theory 0 o c o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Theoretical Foundation . . . . . General Research Evidence. . . . . . . . Limitations of Pay Equity Research . . . iv Deprivation PAGE vii viii 03m 13 10 ll ll 14 16 13 19 21 22 21 25 25 23 29 31 33 35 35 33 37 33 ‘4 _ Pa ‘ _ .445" . 37' .J VIJ Categories of Referents: Factors Influencing Their Importance. . . . . . The Goodman Process Model. . . . . . . . . Empirical Research Evidence: Pay Referents . . . . . . . . . . . . . Functions of Similarity and Instrumentality . . . . . . . . . . . . Parallels and Contrasts of Equity and Relative Deprivation Theories. . . . . . . . Pay Referent Categories. . . . . . . . . . Level of Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . Similarity and Instrumentality . . . . . . Multiple Reference Groups . . . . . . . . . . . General Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER III. A MODEL OF FACTORS INFLUENCING THE PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF PAY REFERENCE GROUPS: RELATED RESEARCH AND HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Model of Factors Influencing the Perceived Importance of Pay Reference Groups, Related Research and Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . Considerations for the Reader . . . . . . . . . Literature Review and Hypotheses: Introduction. Personal Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seniority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . Intent to Quit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Job Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Skill Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wage Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wage Comparisons Within Similar Group and Between Dissimilar Groups. . . Within Group Comparisons. . . . . . . Between Group Comparisons . . . . . . Group Identification - Membership . . . . . . . Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cosmopolitan — Locals . . . . . . . . Organizational and Union Commitment . Organizational Commitment and Pay Referents: Empirical Literature . . . . Union Commitment and Pay Referents: Empirical Literature. . . . . . . . . . Group Membership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multiple Reference Groups . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER IV. FIELD STUDY: METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS. . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 41 44 49 51 51 52 52 53 56 59 77 78 73 73 73 SO 33 87 39 90 92 2.. ..,,_ NJ \I x: '14 3. «.1 J «S fl. 3. ‘a ‘11 N y P1101: StUdYo o o o o o o o o o o o o o PurpOS'e o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Identification and Pilot Testing of Wage Referent Categories . . . Sample and Research Site. . . . . . . . . . Operationalization of Variables . . . . . . Part I - Factors Influencing the Perceived I" Importance of Pay Reference Groups. Individual Characteristics. . . . Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . Length of Service. . . . . . Educational Level. . . . . . Intent to Quit . . . . . . . Job Characteristics . . . . . . . Wage Level . . . . . . . . . Skill Level. . . . . . . . . Group Identification — Membership Variables. . . . . . . . . . . Part II - Multiple Pay Referents: Perceptions of Pay Equity and Their Combination . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceived Pay Equity/Fairness . . The Dependent Variable: Pay Satisfaction. . . . . . . . Method of Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . Part I - Factors Influencing the Perce' Importance of Pay Reference Groups. Part II - Multiple Reference Groups. . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part I - Factors Influencing the Perce Importance of Pay Reference Groups. Correlational Analyses. . . . . . Regression Analyses . . . . . . . Part II - Multiple Pay Referents: Correlational Analyses. . . . Part II - Multiple Pay Referents: Regression Analyses . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . Discussion: Factors Influencing the Perce Importance of Pay Reference Groups . . Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . Personal Characteristics . . . . . . Job Characteristics. . . . . . . . . Group Identification and Membership. Discussion: Multiple Pay Referents. . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi 100 101 101 101 102 102 103 103 103 103 105 107 107 103 110 112 114 114 114 114 119 125 127 123 131 131 131 133 135 139 llj 143 ‘J LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Factors Related to Perceived Importance of Reference Group and Hypothesized Direction Of Influence. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2. Descriptive Statistics for the Total Sample and Individual Bargaining Units . . . . . . 3. Coefficient Alpha Reliability Estimates. . . . 4. Interitem Correlations for Variables Contained in the Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Zero-Order Correlations for Variables Contained in the MOdelo C C C O O O O O O O O O O C O 6. Results of Stepwise Regression Analyses for Pay Reference Groups by Total Sample and Individual Bargaining Units . . . . . . . . 7. Differences in Perceived Importance of Pay Reference Groups Between MNA and Steelworker Bargaining Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Zero-Order Correlations for Perceptions of Fairness/Equity Made in Relation to Five Reference Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. Results of Stepwise Regression Analyses for Perceptions of Pay Fairness/Equity on Pay Satisfaction by Total Sample and Individual Bargaining Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vii Page 91 93 111 113 120 124 123 Figure 1. LIST OF FIGURES A Model of Factors Influencing the Perceived Importance of Pay Reference Groups. . . . viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION General Introduction In the 1950's and 1963's a growing economy assured an ever—improving standard of living for the work force in the United States. In the 1970's rising inflation and declining productivity eroded the real economic gains of the previous decades. The economy began to shift its emphasis from manu- facturing to the traditionally lower paying service sector. Standards of living began to decline as a result. In the 1930's income levels have fallen short of many people's expectations. The 1960's us ered in an era in which the accepted authority of many of society's institutions came under increasing scrutiny. Women entered the workplace in greater numbers. The demographics of the workforce changed. A surge of younger, better educated and career-oriented individuals entered the labor force anticipating to be compensated at levels which exceeded those of their parents. Inequalities .. within organizations between "blue", "wnite" and "pink" col- lar workers were highlighted. Enployees haw w increasingly questioned the overall fairness of their relationships with the organizations in which they are employed. Dissatisfa- ction with compensation systems and methods of distributing organizational rewarls is likely to continue. 3:3331 A I Sriifll - - arzanii 4 Q a .. 3-4 >p- 5..- . r b b . .Edi 15" Arv- ' r 31} u: if“ “‘r~- JJ_.5U ‘o' .— are i" a, '1 3 I .- 'J ‘a .1 ‘ ‘ , v .~A «A: a. «5 y 1; 1. lfivij 2 The process of establishing fair and equitable pay prac- tices is one of the more important activities carried out by organizations. Indeed it is arguable that the compensation system is the most potent source of rewards available to an organization and certainly one of the most controllable. The level of pay assigned to the various jobs is important to the organization because of its impact on employee attitudes toward the work environment, retention, and its ability to attract qualified employees (Belcher, 1974: Adams, 1963: Finn and Lee, 1972: Lawler and D'Gara, 1967). Equally important are the results of nonunilateral (i.e. collectively bar— gained) pay levels. Often extended and disruptive work stop- pages result from perceived wage inequities leading one author to state that "All industrial disputes about payments are differential disputes. They arise over the question of how much one group is getting compared with others." (Jaques, 1958, p.313). An examination of a basic issue within the field of labor relations is performed in the present study: What pro- cesses are involved in the determination of whether one's pay is equitable? More specifically, what standards are used and what factors influence their importance? This dissertation provides an attitudinal/perceptual focus on these questions. A number of other perspectives exist: political thought on the "just and fair" distribution of wealth in society: socio— logical writings on societal or cultural norms of fairness; analyses from the field of labor economics providing internal and external labor market analyses tracing the origins of AA ‘ 3", .0 «J . 4 n 4 f. a ‘1. as N‘J I n1 ‘ . Z~ «~a h.» x1 Iv ‘14 l .v . .l 3. J. a. 3. J. o v.4 . . .I n 3.. «J r; «a aa 1 n1 .vfl r~ . r. .. .a .4 n. r. C. .s ... r. o: ;« I. u— . . «J. my. av J. o. .1; «J «I. I; .‘u a: ..s ~44 .\J >5 :0 .3 «.3 . . .3 «a A ,4 .3 .J i. J. .‘a 3. . . u... ... xls . . a: .a I. .. r. «1 fit. an «a r. a. f. I. .v .1. A... ... N4). «a 3. s» ‘1‘ :4 Vs 3— .4. .44 «J «4 ll. 4.. a. a... .0 “a. .L. n; 2. o. 34 . r .u r. .4 at an. a: re . a .1. . . .3 3 occupational and interindustrial wage differentials and: institutional writings from the field of collective bargain- ing examining why employee groups seek comparability in their collective bargaining agreements across employers and geo- graphic regions. Each of these perspectives is beyond the scope of the present study which relies upon the perceptual process of social comparisons as its fundamental theoretical base. Social comparison processes are a central construct in most theories dealing with interpersonal justice and the evaluation of work outcomes such as pay, including equity theory (cf. Adams, 1965: Homans, 1961: Walster, Berscheid, and Walster, 1973) and reference group theory (cf. Crosby, 1982: Davis, 1959: Pettigrew, 1967: Runciman, 1966). The notion that the perceived fairness or equitability of one's remuneration is dependent upon a comparison with that which others receive is the fundamental premise of these theoreti- cal frameworks. Indeed the hypothesized importance of com- parisons made by an individual with various comparison oth- ers is shared by all theories pertaining to the evaluation of rewards flowing from the employment relationship (cf. Adams, 1965: Dyer and Theriault, 1976: Lawler, 1971: Goodman, 1977: Martin, 1931). Remarkably little research exists on the fac- tors which influence the perceived importance of pay compari— son groups. Even less research is available regarding the number of comparison groups or standards used in the equity determination process. A variety of potential pay referents have been identified ah» r44 5“ 3 _ . l] .4 _ . I 41.4 flit. NJ 1'. .ch 3 3v - o a: 13“.; .4-.l.-- w \nn .A'V ‘1 3.. a» nq\. WU 3» .!¢ .. «4 H3 5) uul . 4" ‘ .3 ~— 4 with each serving as a standard against which the equity of one's pay can be evaluated. Indeed, the large number of potential pay referents has complicated research within this area (Martin, 1982). Working within an equity theory frame- work a number of authors have identified personal character- istics and job attributes which appear to have a consistent association with the use of one or more of the referents identified. At the present time the greatest volume of lit— erature on the determinants of pay referents has come from researchers working within an equity theory framework. Accordingly the literature reflects the individualistic orientation provided by this theory. Reference group theory and its derivative form (relative deprivation theory) also address the social comparison pro- cess involved with the perceptual equity of ones' pay. Cen— tral to reference group theory are the notions of group iden- tification and group membership which form the foundation for the selection of comparative groups (Kelley, 1952: Hyman and Singer, 1963). Both the individualistic formulation of equity theory and the collectivistic or group focus of reference group theory offer insight into the social comparison process by which comparative pay referents are chosen. To date no ade- quate theoretical model has been set forth which incorporates these important theoretical traditions. Equity theory and reference group theory formulations recognize the fundamental importance of two dynamics: 1) per- ceived similarity of the comparative pay referent to the 5 comparer and 2) the instrumentality of the referent in sat— ;ifisfying the comparison needs of the comparer. The present 55 tudy provides an opportunity to evaluate the theoretical j,rnportance of these dynamics. Several fundamental issues underly the present study. T hese are: l) individualistic versus group influences on the perceived importance of pay reference groups 2) the extent to which group identification and group mem- bership form the basis for pay reference group impor- tance 3) the direction of influence of a given individual or group variable on the particular referent under consid— eration 4) the saliency of the variable in influencing the importance of the particular referent under consideration Elcesearch Objectives and Potential Contributions The major objective of this study is the analysis of important correlates which may influence the perceived impor- tlfiirace of pay reference groups in a unionized hospital setting. (Drilly'three studies have been located which attempted a system— éa tliw: multivariate analysis of these factors (Goodman, 1974: E‘iéér‘leeman, Schwab, Standal and Peterson, 1973: and Hills, 1930). :1'1 ggeneral, the results of these studies demonstrate the pre- ESearlt: inability to predict the perceived importance of pay ref— ‘3‘TEEr1ce groups to any significant degree. Only one of these SitilCflies (Goodman, 1974) has attempted to specify and test a "“3K3cel of the dynamics through which these factors may operate. The present study employs a model based upon the work of GOCMdman (1977) to test the influential factors identified in a 6 number of previous bivariate correlational studies (Finn and Lee, 1972: Andrews and Henry, 1963; Patchen, 1961: Haire, Ghi- selli and Porter, 1963) as well as those traditionally believed to influence the process of pay referent selection. T he direction of influence and saliency of each variable will be evaluated while controlling for the effects of the remain- i rag variables in the model. A major theoretical extension of GOOdman's model will also be evaluated. To date the selection of pay referents has been conceptu- a lized as an individualistic process. Reference group theory postulates that group norms, values and goals provide stan— Ciéards against which individuals, who identify with or are mem- bers of these groups, refer when evaluating important work outcomes (Pettigrew, 1967: Runciman, 1966; Martin, 1931). A review of the literature supports these postulates indicating that group membership and identification provide potent influ- ences on the perceived importance of potential pay reference 8 tandards. These variables are recognized in the present Study by incorporating them into a model of the factors which influence the perceived importance of pay reference groups. The present study investigates perceptions of equity in a Llnicanized setting incorporating behaviorally defined labor relations variables which are indices of group influence. SuCh studies are very few, (cf. Martin and Peterson, 1935: matl‘tin, Price, Bies, and Powers, 1979). Virtually all of the exPerimental and survey work investigating pay referents has Suffered from the major limitation of employing student popu— 13 tions who work alone or in highly contrived group settings . Jit 3711 3K: 311’ «L ‘ gab-13‘ r; a n3 ‘1. ~4. Q. VIVA a. )4 I. 7 as subjects (Berscheid, Walster, and Berscheid, 1973: Carrell and Dittrich, 1973: Neick, 1966). Where groups have been 3 tructured they were of a temporary nature rather than exist- 1 rag or natural work groups. Therefore the social effect or reference point for the determination of equity is diffuse, h ighly subject to experimenter bias and having questionable relevance to the individuals under study (Weick, 1966). The present study is unique in that it is a multivariate E ield study performed within an organization's social system and existing occupational hierarchy. The study utilizes employee groups who have a history of experience with an actual compensation system. Feelings of pay equity have developed within this context. Inequity is experienced as a 3 table and somewhat permanent affective response rather than as a result of experimenter manipulation. The present study investigates the influence of multiple reference groups as sources of comparison for perceptions of Pay equity. A number of researchers have suggested that a Variety of reference sources are used concurrently when indi— Viduals are determining the fairness of their pay (Goodman, 1974; Finn and Lee, 1972; Hills, 1930). No adequate demon- s tration of this hypothesized phenomenon has been achieved. B‘3Sed upon the results of a pilot test, the relevance of a set of potential pay referents was established. A test of the a‘c‘ssvociation of multiple perceptions of equity made in relation t0 each potential pay referent was performed allowing for es‘Cimates of their relative influence (Goodman, 1977: flartin, l3‘32). . . . . . .b‘ :4 r s |.fi Ray ‘Id ‘4‘ IV. .‘b ”I. O. ‘44 F. I. a» .1. MIA Ao— . a» .n 51.5 4 ‘1J n .34 n at T. 3 r. .1. 1.: r. a. r n r. a. c a. r. . t I .1. .lu -nlu . . .l a: ‘ . a» 3. H. 3. .. a 3 «J 2.. a; .C a» Li .4 a. nu . . 3. .J A. : . .1 0!. ~. .vv ~44 «a. «e ".1 ‘1 3. ru «4. as” 3. .a nu L. bin 1‘ r; .1 nlw 3. 3. "I. .. s a» L h .7! e b u «a. a.) #5 .14 u s 7.. .‘J ad. 3. v. r »hH. s a Ta 8 (Pincus and Reagan, 1932) used to A fractionated scale eeaualuate a respondent's perceived pay equity in relation to eeeach potential pay referent was developed. This measurement -t;eechnique allowed for direct estimates of perceived pay equity avq'kaile operationalizing critical features of Adam's (1965) ea-cquity theory. It represents a significant contribution to ‘t; tae study of pay equity and the field of labor relations in gg’eaneral. (I) Latline of This Study In this chapter the objective of the study and 12 fee general theoretical bases on which it relies have been C3otheses are advanced with respect to personal characteris- ‘tLJ-C2:s, job characteristics and group identification variables 5‘53 each of these categories may operate through the dynamics C>IE similarity and instrumentality. Multiple pay referent SC>LJrces which operate concurrently are also hypothesized. In Chapter IV a pilot study, the research sample and site the procedures EltTE3 described. The data collection procedure, £3 . . . mEDlloyed to operationalize the independent and dependent {a se . . . .. a I a .1 a: .5 .«d A” .3 nu .«d .11 a... . _ .1 a. a. a .. . «in r DA V. . a -1. .1 J. .3 fink 1|. \ é h... vs CL Y. a. .1 11. wt .. . 5 q. . . .1 u: 3. «a. 3 .u v. .D 3. .D a. ”.7. P. ax. .u . h-” 3. ulu r. ‘44 .- 4 f . 3. n1 .. ~ .44 A a «dd .3 r. J. nJ. ..... nu .4a r. 55 \J 3. : . 9 \rariable and analyze the data are described. Attention is given to the descriptive statistics regarding the sample and the reliability of the independent variables used. Results of the data analyses are provided and discussed in regard to the total sample and its major subsamples. An examination and discussion of the intercorrelation matrix is p rovided. Zero-order correlations for each of the independent variables and each pay referent category are provided and dis— c: ussed. Finally the results of stepwise regression analyses 3 re discussed. The final chapter of this study, Chapter V, discusses the re sults in terms of the hypotheses specified in Chapter II and the literature review upon which they are based. Implications of? the findings regarding the dynamics of the process by which pay referents gain importance are also discussed. Directions for future research and limitations of the present investiga- t: i on are provided. . A .1. . . _ . . b» .b I a. J. as .v . . >~ .. :u r. A.» a r. a .4. a a. .6 5:. r. .5 . . a. «J AH 3. n v. 11 «J «J r. 3 24 r. .u 3. .J I . AJ 3. «44 «D 3 .J 3. 3.. an... a: a . .1 .14 3.. r. .44 «4 Flu nan I. F. a-” .l .1. $1. 3. .rsu lulu. x14 .Au a w .14 .4 f. 3 D. is . v a u a: :L P s 1 a r . s 5 .11 .o a ?b - L 5 3a )3 ‘ s CHAPTER I I LITERATURE REVIEW I ntroduc ti on A major source of difficulty in understanding employee reactions to pay is identification of the reference source(s) o 1‘ standards used to determine its fairness. For the most part, laboratory studies have held the choice of reference source as a constant in their experimental designs. Few of these studies have allowed for potential referents to vary, choosing instead to investigate potential pay referents selected _a_ priori by the researchers. Drawing conclusions f tom the few field surveys available has been complicated by the large variety of potential referent sources individuals In Sight use. Typically the specific pay referent used by a respondent is inferred based upon the respondents' percep- tions of pay fairness. Both of these methods are less than Cacesirable when attempting to identify the factors influencing the choice of pay referents. Two principal sources of literature offer insight into the choice of pay comparisons; both reference group theory ( ‘3 nd its derivative, relative deprivation theory) and equity t“‘leories are examples of mid—range formulations seeking to a‘Q<:ount for social comparison processes. Each theory addresses a limited range of social comparison phenomena ll'1\Iolving perceptions and reactions to the equitable 10 J y btl a: .1. . p .1. ‘1 . ~4. J. n. “A t. a. .1J and AJ b|s a A y 1a .2 a. . \a. :14 ~a4 v~ 'fv-q v. 4': A '4 fl . -~.:‘ 3v- .N .. ,. H .§ 2. ll cij.stribution of rewards within society and its organizations. pvt1cile both theories are concerned with how persons come to Epeawrceive a comparison as equitable (or not), the level of antitalysis of reference group and equity theory differ ma rkedly. The hallmark of reference group theory is a focus canon intergroup social comparison processes and, to a lesser ee;<:‘tent, individual—group comparisons. Studies performed in an equity theory framework are characterized by an inter— i.er(jiVidual or individualistic approach to comparisons. In ad dition these studies have typically concentrated on eec;;Laitable states and their outcomes per 23 rather than the tie: <:tors which influence the choice of a particular referent. A.ss a result much of the work from equity theory regarding the choice of pay referents is correlational in nature. One objective of this chapter is to pull together the ex isting evidence from the two bodies of literature. The zreaueader will note the similarities and contrasts of equity and rféariference group theories. A summary of these shall be provided. The second section of the chapter reviews the literature 'C>r1 tzhe existence and use of multiple pay reference groups. (I’r‘€3‘ role of identification with or allegiance to multiple gr‘<>L1ps is explored as it is related to the pay comparison E3K‘CDQess. EEEEJELEErence Group Theory and Relative Deprivation Normative, Membership and Comparative Groups. Early t. . . , heoretical work in the area of reference group tneory DbQVides important insights into the choice of pay referents. buy an {In 11 i: .n RxfiwA i1] 5 3“ y’- nan-n Jd__v Pb . be 3- v f\ 5‘ "Lns q.‘.,. 571 7‘“. . ug’npj : 1". 12 Etesearch within a reference group framework reached its peak .iwn the mid 1960's. The theory fell into disuse as equity 1: heory emerged into prominence. It has enjoyed a more recent 1;- esurgence. The notion of reference group is employed in sociology gallnd social psychology to denote the source of a frame of 1:-;f which the individual is or is not a member (membership or lfiu<3n—membership group) or, by extension, to another individual cavz: even abstract idea (Hyman, 1942). The latter cases occur varlaen an individual or idea come to represent or are symbolic <:>:£ groups. Referential comparisons may occur whenever .i.r1dividuals attempt to determine the fairness of their <:>Iutcomes derived from a relatively permanent relationship .EBIJCh as a job or any other stable role that they occupy. 23 eelditch, Anderson, Berger and Cohen (1970) describe the <::<:mparison in terms borrowed from equity theory: When jL‘rldividuals believe that their status is a relevant input, earltzitling them to some degree of benefit, referential C=Ci>nrlparisons are made. Under these circumstances, individuals '5‘fICDuld compare themselves with persons of similar status ( 63 -rrs. Normative reference groups, which dictate standards Eitici attitudes, and membership reference groups, which may apply group pressures to conform, must be considered as influential determinants of the group with which one's pay is compared (Brown, 1979). 'The use of a specific type of pay comparison may <2<3r153titute one of the normative assumptions of a particular ‘3C3C2Lapational group. Gruder (1977) offers the following ‘1 ,4 A A Au 7: I. h ‘J l4 example. In an engineering factory, it may be taken for granted among skilled grinders that they deserve the same pay as fitters and higher earnings than capstan operators; and any new recruit to their group will be subject to strong though no doubt diffuse pressure to apply the same frame of reference to his earnings. In such a context, for a grinder to suggest that fitting is more highly skilled or that capstan work is equally deserving would assail the moral values of his fellows (p. 430). The notions of comparative and normative groups are 'therefore interrelated. Strong normative group identifica- ‘tion leads to the usage of that group for comparative Eaurposes. Where workers in the same place of employment czonstitute an individual's normative group (at least where sqcark-related standards are concerned), and norms encapsulate pasty comparisons, the worker's comparative reference group vecauld be largely predetermined on that basis (Hyman and Earwough, 1975). Moreover, the more firmly the individual is :it11:egrated or allied within the occupational group, the more sstzzaaightforward the pay comparison will appear to the individual. Group Identification and Membership. A modicum of research evidence is available to substantiate the influence of group membership and identification variables on the ‘3r‘C3juce of pay referents. Pettigrew (1967) provides evidence 'tljéit: as work groups become progressively more cohesive, norms <3€3"$élop with regard to appropriate wage-effort bargains. As v4 . . C>t?k.groups come to be perceived as important sources of Standards the more likely they are to be used for comparison 15 purposes. The work of Hyman and Brough (1975) and Morley and Stephenson (1977) further reinforces the notion that shared work—related attitudes, particularly where they relate to the benefits of group membership, form a fundamental basis for comparison. Research evidence has begun to indicate that membership in and identification with work groups strongly effects the comparative pay referent chosen. Lipset and Trow (1957) provide early evidence demonstrating that trade union membership dictates a predictable pattern of wage comparisons for bargaining purposes. These researchers show that union {nembers tend to compare their wages with those of other union [members in their local. Delafield (1979) provides more Irecent evidence that as individuals become more committed to tjae unions to which they belong, i.e. establish a greater sseense of shared values and purpose, they tend to use other 'Individualistic Larlion members as comparative pay referents. gaeezrceptions of pay fairness take on a role of lesser i mportance. In a unique field experiment James Martin (Martin and Peterson, 1985) provides evidence which is highly suggestive <>f5 tzhe role group identification variables such as organiza- tJiCDFIal and union commitment play in determining the impor— te3‘3nized employer who had established a two—tier wage Estztrllcture. Martin measured the organizational and union <:C"Tunitment expressed by each employee. Employees indicated t I _ ' o . he3:1.r perceptions of pay fairness as well as whether these 16 perceptions were based on internal (employees within that specific retail facility) or external (employees at other facilities) referents. The results indicated that employees expressing high organizational and union commitment tended to use pay referents internal to the organization. Employees who had recently been transferred from older retail sites to newer ones expressed lower organizational commitment and tended to use external pay referents. Most importantly, perceived pay equity was significantly higher among low-tier employees in new facilities than among higher-paid employees at older facilities. Employees expressing lower organiza— tional commitment tended to use pay referents external to ‘their work place. It would be reasonable to conclude by eextension that their membership groups (union and organiza- tzional) were also of lesser importance as pay referents. Organizational Commitment and Professionalism. Organiza- t:j.onal commitment and professionalism have been identified as :fkacztors which influence whether internal or external pay referents are used by professional and scientific employees. 1?;iiar1 and Lee (1972) examined the relationship of salary Perceptions with their reference source for employees in the FGCiearal Public Health Service. Maturity (length of service ‘311C3 number of years since highest degree), professional ability, professional activity and reputation as well as Connmitment to the organization were also recorded. These reSearchers established a positive relationship between or*3E3nizati0na1 commitment and the use of internal pay referents (further reinforcing the findings of Hartin, 1933). ”rt-”r t‘. 'hl q V. a... a . 2. . . r. a: 3 a: 3. 1... .21 3.. ‘1 w. a? a l .. A. 3. .l .u - .... .1. 3— .4 «1.. MJ 14 «VJ . D .a .3 3. .3 a; 0. ad .3 p.-. A e .1. 5 nd i . x . r... «.J #11. x a 3» a u u . a . al. .J .1” 3. . . i. fl“. .1 3. «3 VI. A]. 9» aJ . . P. .~ ... ‘4. 6» .l. .T. F. av 3v 17 Furthermore, the use of external sources (e.g. "knowledge of going rates") was significantly related to measures of professionalism. Mixed results were found for employees indicating high levels of organizational commitment and professionalism. These authors concluded that as profession— alism and its correlates increase (educational level, skill level) so does the relevance of external referents while that of the internal referent diminishes. In a study of managers, middle and lower managers tended to compare themselves with groups inside the company (Haire, Ghiselli and Porter, 1963). An in-between classification, lower middle, chose outside groups as pay referents. These .researchers found a tendency for the middle managers to "sink tzhemselves further and further into the company, accepting j,ts goals, practices and traditions" (p. 7). The use of quroups external to the organization was more prevalent for t:c>p-1evels of the managerial hierarchy who saw themselves as rncptaile and less bound to the company. Fellow members of the occupation outside as well as :irasside the organization may also constitute a normative reference group. This is particularly likely where an caczchJpational group possesses, or is attempting to assert, 8killed or professional status (Haire, Ghiselli and Porter, 1963 : Hyman and Brough, 1975; Morely and Stephenson, 1977). '1‘“ €3uch circumstances, pay comparability with other skilled V'C31:}fessional meetings, and be more willing to leave the :3 ..ov “4.... 2257'! 11 J. .. p6. 7.; 3’1 b- $ b .13 . . u 19 college than the local. It is unclear, however, whether the maintenance of a high degree of identification by individuals to their employing organizations (i.e. high organizational commitment) must come at the expense of external cosmopolitan orientations. Bennis, Berkowitz, Affinito and Malone (1958) studied the reference group orientations of the nursing profession. All respondents were administered Gouldner's cosmpolitan-localism scale. Bach nurse was asked to indicate relative loyalty to the six following groups: 1) the medical field: 2) nursing profession: 3) their hospital: 4) their hospital's nursing service: 5) the out-patient department and 6) their own particular work group. The researchers found {nixed support for the hypothesis that the external orienta- ‘tion of cosmopolitans must come at the expense of their c>rientation to internal work groups. Cosmopolitans Inaintained high loyalty to their professional groups as well aa£3.high organizational commitment. It was clear, however, tszat cosmopolitan nurses did identify more closely with ggzr<>ups external to the organization than did locals. As eeacEDected, these externally oriented (i.e. professionally n1c>tLivated) nurses tended to evaluate the rewards flowing from tztaeejgr employment relationship in terms relative to that of ‘ttjea nursing profession at large. Relative Deprivation - Social Comparison Origins. The <3C>r1<2ept of comparative reference groups is closely related to t1r1€itz of relative deprivation: both have direct relevance to tlr‘EE question of pay comparisons (Hyman and Singer, 1963). IR . . . . . GElative deprivation can be regarded as a speCial concept in Ht D b \ 313* 3 . fi U l t . 3 .D 9. fl... al.” .3 a.” r b. u a «J «3 AU 20 reference group theory. The main insight of this approach is that an individual's sense of deprivation (or welfare) is not a simple function of the objective situation but also depends on the frame of reference through which that situation is assessed: and, more specifically, that self-appraisals depend on people's comparison of their own situation with that of other people perceived as being comparable to themselves (Hyman and Brough, 1975). The concept of relative deprivation was initially applied to attitudes of American servicemen (Stouffer, Suckman, Devinney, Star and Williams, 1949). The study raised concern because of its paradoxical findings. Despite the fact that Air Corps servicemen with high-school educations had better <3pportunities for promotion, they were more critical of their g>romotional opportunities than less-educated military police urhose promotion rates were very low. Stouffer et al.’s <3Jrived and therefore dissatisfied. Military Policemens' £311<3 that led to less dissatisfaction. The early invocation of relative deprivation theory by E3t1<>uffer et al. was an initial demonstration of the applica- t>j-lity of theory to account for perceived intergroup irleCauities in organizational settings (the military). [3“GE<3rtunately, this theoretical perspective was seldom used k3)? organizational researchers thereafter. More recently, hCDVVever, relative deprivation research has been conducted 21 primarily by political scientists, sociologists, social historians, and political psychologists (e.g. Gurr, 1970: Pettigrew, 1967: Sears and McConhay, 1970: Runciman, 1966). As a result, the theory has most frequently been applied to political issues, such as the civil rights movement, riot participation, and voting behavior. The elements of relative deprivation theory and the dimensions by which comparisons are made are outlined below. Elements of Relative Deprivation Theory. The basic proposition of relative deprivation theory is that the feeling of deprivation stems from a comparison between the rewards received by one's self or one's membership group and the rewards received by some other person or group, referred tn: as a comparative referent. Relative deprivation has been thermed both a subjective feeling and a belief of differential tureatment (Cook et al., 1979). The comparison process gpzrovides the key to understanding feelings of deprivation (Martin, 1981). From the theoretical writings on relative deprivation, it ;i£3 Apossible to extract a number of conditions that have been E><>£3tnalated to generate relative deprivation (see AcPhail, 1971: Crosby, 1976: Cook et al., 1979: Gurney and Tierney, ‘lg95322). The major theorists disagree as to which of them are rleczessary and sufficient components of relative deprivation, Ch(DLJgh there is some overlap. Cook et a1. (1979) summarize tljea literature by distilling five elements: 1) All theorists agree that an individual must lack X, or enough of X, in (DITC3er to feel relatively deprived of it: 2) All theorists 22 also agree that an individual must want X, or more of X, in order to feel relatively deprived of it: 3) All theorists agree that some type of social or historical comparison is necessary to contribute to relative deprivation: 4) Many theorists agree that it is important for an individual to see that they do not have X and believe it possible to obtain X and: 5) Individuals must sense an entitlement to the desired commodity X. Egoistic and Fraternal Deprivation: Similar versus Dissimilar Referent Choices. It is the social comparison features of relative deprivation theory which are of direct relevance to the study of factors influencing the importance a reference group may have. The initial concept is simple: persons may feel deprived of some desirable thing relative to their own past, another person, persons, group, ideal, or some other social category (Walker and Pettigrew, 1934). Runciman (1966) has contributed a great deal to the under— standing of the comparison process by drawing a distinction between two types of deprivation. Egoistic deprivation occurs when a comparison to a similar referent causes a feeling of deprivation. One of the earliest analyses by Davis (1959) explicitly limited relative deprivation to situations involving social comparisons with other similar individuals who have possession of a desired outcome. He stipulated that social comparisons must be with individuals from one's "in-group" (usually membership), and that comparisons with dissimilar individuals are not relevant to relative deprivation. at p ~ b-‘ 3' a.» dur— Wu. .Nd 23 In an extensive study of the British working class, Runciman found his respondents typically made comparisons between their friends and relatives within their own social category rather than broad social comparisons between groups and other groups. These respondents tended to make individu- alistic comparisons that produced egoistic relative depriva- tion. Runciman termed the second type of relative deprivation he identified as fraternalistic. Fraternal deprivation occurs when an upward comparison to a dissimilar referent causes a feeling of deprivation. An upward comparison is to a referent who has more of a valued outcome, for example, a higher pay level. Both egoistic and fraternal comparisons can be made concurrently: and as a result both types of deprivation can be experienced. They are not, therefore, mutually exclusive. The choice of a similar or dissimilar comparative referent reflects a difference in the concerns of the comparer (Martin, 1931). Egotistic deprivation is labeled as such because the comparer is concerned about his or her own individual welfare. Fraternal deprivation has a broader base of concern: if the cause of the deprivation were removed, all members of the disadvantaged group would benefit. Egotistic deprivation reflects a concern with one's own status, while fraternal deprivation stems from a concern about the status of one's membership group. :cnpirisc iflji'lljtja 339lbili: 23.131“ an a. ”H's 1'1 '- : sh§erent £1716. 24 Evolution of the Relative Deprivation Concept. The development of the concept of relative deprivation from Stouffer to Runciman was towards a specification in inter- group terms of a social comparison process that can affect individual and group behavior. The distinction between egoistic and fraternal comparison processes, however, remains a current research issue. Gurr (1970) and Crosby (1976, 1982) formulate the comparison process in individualistic terms and emphasize that egoistic rather than fraternalistic comparisons tend to occur. Gurr (1970) conceives of the comparison process as a perceived discrepancy between an individual's subjective "value expectations and value capabilities." Value expectations denote the goods and conditions of life to which individuals believe they are entitled: value capabilities refer to the goods and condi— tions of life they think they are capable of attaining. Conceptualized in these terms the comparative referent or standard is very much internal to the comparer. Gurr argues that fraternalistic forms of relative deprivation involving reference group comparisons should be thought of as special cases of egoistic relative deprivation. Crosby (1932) shares Gurr's individualistic orientation towards the use of referent standards. An internalized standard developed as a function of past outcomes plays a primary referent role. Fraternal comparisons have received additional theoreti- cal specification largely as a result of efforts to further refine the egoistic-fraternal distinction. The distinction is essentially between an individualistic versus collective 25 perspective on the following dimensions: in who is performing the comparison (self versus self's membership group), the referent (another individual versus a group), inequity (unique to the comparer versus potentially shared with other group members), behavior (individual versus collective), and the beneficiary of change (self versus group) (Gartell, 1932: Martin, 1982: and Martin and Murray, 1983). Walker and Pettigrew (1984) criticize Martin and Murray (1983) for requiring the characteristics of the referent for egoistic deprivation to be similar to the comparer and for fraternal deprivation to be dissimilar and more prosperous. Fraternal effects have also been demonstrated among dominant groups comparing with aspiring, but subordinate groups (e.g. Vanneman and Pettigrew, 1972). Empirical Literature-Pay Referents The Function of Similarity. Researchers in the field of relative deprivation agree that similarity of characteristics between the comparer and the referent form the basis for the comparison to occur. For example, Merton (1957) observed that: Some similarity in status attributes between the individual and the reference group must be per- ceived or imagined, in order for the comparison to occur at all. Once this minimal similarity is obtained, other similarities and differences perti- nent to the situation will provide the context for shaping evaluations. (p. 242) Although there is concensus that similarity is important, there are ambiguities in the similarity concept. The literature reviewed demonstrates that individuals make dissimilar comparisons as well as similar ones. In spite of nizej L1: 17 5 nzgh q .. D L . n' viou JD C 4. AJ .. T] O 9. Oh 3 Conoa' 5 a ‘v - iriin!‘ i 26 this, investigators of social comparisons have mostly utilized only similar comparison groups in their research procedures. For example, the use of college students or highly similar co-workers as subjects for research has been highly criticized (Austin, 1977). There are a number of dimensions on which two individuals may be similar or dissimilar: an individual may be aware of only some of them. Two workers may compare themselves on the basis of their similarity (or dissimilarity) of inputs such as seniority, productivity, education, skill, etc. Obviously, similarity may be defined by a number of attrib- utes. Goethals and Darley's (1977) related attributes hypothe— sis proposes that people prefer to compare their abilities with others who are similar on attributes perceived to be related to performance. McFarlin, Major, Frone and Konar (1984) investigated the role of similarity in determining the pay expectations of college students entering the work force. These authors reasoned that pay expectations are partly based on comparisons with others who are similar on attributes perceived to be directly related to pay (e.g., others in the same job: of the same rank). Career path factors and perceived job inputs were also assessed as determinants of pay expectations. It was found that reference group comparisons accounted for a larger proportion of unique variance in students' pay expectations than either career path factors or perceived job inputs. Moreover, the greater the number of perceived similarities, the greater the canparisaz is basei .1 same dimer ""3: freq: ifi"~ ~l._ Jana ‘3:(e' 27 influence of the reference group. Any comparative referent can differ from the comparer along many different dimensions. Social comparison research indicates that most people consider more than one dimension when selecting comparisons (Zanna et al., 1975: Berkowitz and Walster, 1976: Suls and Miller, 1977). It is likely, however, that a comparative referent is selected on the basis other characteristics. For example, a female secretary may feel deprived in comparison to a female executive. The comparison might be the basis of egoistic depriVation if it is based on similar gender. Alternatively the comparison may be based on a dissimilar job and therefore constitutes fraternal deprivation. Martin (1978b) labels comparisons that are known to be similar on some dimensions and dissimilar on others as mixed comparisons. If it is known that referents are similar on some dimensions and dissimilar on others, the actual choice of referent would indicate the salience of the dimension for comparative purposes. Martin (1957b) found that when making comparisons of income, people use an average of five, rather than an infinite number of dimensions. Survey respondents were asked to select comparative referents whose pay they would be likely to compare on their own. They were then asked what dimensions were relevant when they assessed the overall level of similarity of the comparative referent. The most frequently selected dimensions included: occupation, income, age, education, and for blue-collar and clerical workers, seniority and productivity. Respondents were also than one d : '1 - .. «3“. Megan onx campariso :3 333t:“n;3 ‘- fraternal 4839 £31“ same b3; l (D H (D m 1 J '1 28 asked to assess the similarity of the comparative referent separately on each of the dimensions selected. These similarity ratings were strongly positively related (i.e. intercorrelated). If a referent was similar on one dimen- sion, it was likely to be perceived as similar on other dimensions as well. The results of the survey indicate that, while pay referents are selected on the basis of similarity, similarity is assessed most accurately if represented on more than one dimension. Similarity and Egoistic Comparisons. Given that similarity is a fundamental basis on which referents are chosen one would expect that egoistic rather than fraternal comparisons occur with greatest frequency. Indeed researchers have found more evidence of egoistic rather than fraternal comparisons. In Davis' (1959) analysis of Stouffer's research, ten of the eleven examples of referents were found to be based on comparisons with others "in the same boat." Using Runciman's terminology, an egoistic comparison was made in nearly all of the cases. Runciman found a similar pattern of results. He found that blue-collar British respondents (manual workers) were dissatisfied when they compared their earnings to those of other blue-collar workers. When they compared blue-collar to white-collar (non-manual) earnings they indicated their pay to be fair. Apparently they did not expect the earnings of these two occupational groups to be similar. They were, therefore, basing their comparisons on similar (egoistic) rather than dissimilar (fraternal) referents. These results are consist camparison 1977: Butt-c flamiller, frequently similar co 29 are consistent with research findings of other early social comparison researchers (Festinger, 1954: Suls and Miller, 1977: Dutton, 1973: Stern and Keller, 1968: Gordon, 1966: Hakmiller, 1966). Egoistic deprivation may occur more frequently than fraternal because people prefer to make the similar comparisons upon which egoistic deprivation is based. The Function of Instrumentality. A stream of more recent research has focused on perceptions by blue-collar workers of pay fairness. Typically, experimental designs are used where respondents are confronted with two types of comparisons: l) comparisons by blue-collar workers to other blue-collar workers, and 2) comparisons by blue-collar workers to management or higher status job classifications. The first type of comparison will be referred to as a similar comparison because the blue—collar job classifications are similar. Such similar comparisons may be either upward, to people earning more, or downward. The second type of comparison will be referred to as an upward dissimilar comparison because the job classifications are clearly different and management pay scales are usually higher than those of blue—collar workers. Researchers such as Homans (1961) and Patchen (1961) first developed evidence that blue—collar workers tended to select other blue-collar workers as pay comparisons more frequently than comparisons to management personnel. This work may be subject to an important qualification, however. Festinger has drawn a distinction between opinion and ability comparisons and postulates that the latter will cause upward comparisc tional. it Raobins ( 1,. 23-:are. to be val Wit TTlS‘a’E §33Kni11‘ : 30 comparisons to high performers. He argues that the "undirec- tional drive upward" occurs because greater abilities are more highly valued in Western culture. Monetary outcomes also have inherently higher value. When monetary outcomes are being compared, upward comparisons even to dissimilar comparative referents may frequently be made (Gruder, 1977b). Robbins (1984) believes we live in a "performance oriented" culture. Attributes associated with higher performance are to be valued. We are a socially mobile group which believes that movement between classes is possible: our aspiration to better jobs causes us to focus on these more advantaged groups. Robbins seems to be positing a restatement of the anticipatory socialization process (see Hyman and Singer, 1968 for an early description). Downward dissimilar comparisons should be rare. A few social comparison researchers have isolated situations under which dissimilar and sometimes upward comparisons are made for what has been interpreted as instrumental purposes (Hakmiller, 1966: Arrowood and Friend, 1969: Thornton and Arrowood, 1966). Unfortunately, well controlled studies in this area have tended to use college sophomore subjects earning extra spending money in exchange for laboratory participation credits. The generalizability of these results to pay comparisons of working adults has not been clearly established. 31 Within Group (Similar) Comparisons versus Between Group (Instrumental) Comparisons. The relative deprivation research of Joann Martin and her associates has provided important insights into the similarity versus instrumentality issue in the choice of pay referents. Martin, Price, Bies, and Powers (1979) performed an experimental simulation using female secretaries as potential job applicants. Subjects were given information about the job and told whether their superior would be male or female. The subjects were told that if hired as secretaries for the company they would receive the average pay for the job. The subjects were told that they would be given further information about pay levels at the company. In preparation for receiving this information subjects were given a restricted comparison choice measure which asked them to assess the likelihood that the average paid secretary at the company would make each of the following five choices: to the highest, average, and lowest pay level executives and to the highest and lowest pay levels for secretaries. Exper- imental conditions were varied to allow for comparisons involving similar job classification and sex to that of the respondent. These comparisons served as the basis for egoistic comparisons. In the fraternal comparison condition executive comparisons were dissimilar in terms of job classification and sex. In mixed conditions, the executive joo classification was dissimilar but, in some cases, the sex of the executive was similar to that of the respondent. The results, indicated that the female secretarial 1933 w :3 dis. prooab; 'mixed" ('f 32 subjects rated the highest pay level for secretaries as the most likely comparison. The second most likely comparison was the lowest pay rate for executives. The gender of the executive did not effect the likelihood of these comparison choices. Subjects were selecting upward, similar comparisons upon which egoistic deprivation is based. Upward comparisons to dissimilar job categories were also selected but with less probability. Evidence was found for downward fraternal and "mixed" comparisons but with less probability. In a second study a similar experimental design was used. Martin (1978a) employed highly skilled blue-collar workers as subjects. Hypothetical pay referents were either other technicians or supervisors. For each potential referent pay level was also varied. The results indicated the most likely referent choice was a similar (other technician), upward (earned more than the subject) comparison. Thus demonstrating a preference for egoistic comparisons. Replicating her earlier findings Martin found that upward, dissimilar comparisons (instrumen- tal) were the second most likely choice. In two separate survey analyses Martin (1978, 1932) investigated the unrestricted choice of pay referents. Martin (1978b) recruited blue~collar workers via newspaper advertisements. Subjects were asked to compare their actual earnings to those of two other individuals of their own choice. Subjects also assessed the similarity of the comparative referent and the direction (upward or downward) of the comparison depending upon whether the referent earned acre or 1e: Replic; fend evil likely to second .103 la: compar lartin tered to a vile-call: earlier e: Here sele smear i 33 33 more or less than the respondent. Replicating her experimental findings, Martin (1978b) found evidence that upward, similar comparison were most likely to be made. Upward, dissimilar comparisons were second most likely. Downward, similar and downward dissimi- lar comparisons were very unlikely. Martin (1982) reports the results of a survey adminis- tered to a sample of middle managers and a sample of blue-collar workers from the same organization. Unlike earlier experimental findings upward dissimilar comparisons were selected almost as frequently as upward similar comparisons when unrestricted choices were allowed. These esults emphasize the importance of the upward direction as well as the degree of similarity of pay comparisons choices. Summary-Reference Group Theory Summarizing the results of the studies of Martin et al., and other reference group theorists implications for the selection of pay referents may be drawn. In accord with the finding that egoistic deprivation occurs more frequently than fraternal we find that upward, similar comparisons to be the most frequent type of comparison drawn. The implication being that pay referents are typically chosen on the basis of similar job class or status. Within that class, referents D who earn more are most likely to be chosen. Th- second most likely choice is that of an upward dissimilar comparison. These results support the contention that intergroup comparisons do occur, particularly when the comparative group is perceived as being more advantaged. Since downward 34 comparisons are relatively infrequent, the overriding motive is toward the upward comparison. The findings from reference group and relative depriva- tion theories allow for several general conclusions to be made about the dynamics of intergroup comparisons for pay purposes: onl”'9ltol~.-i '.'.'"’.u. ‘5 “ ' . a) Group membership and/or identification with specific groups can be important factors in determining the E 5 importance of groups used for comparative pay purposes. Identification with and commitment to groups within business organizations is accompanied by selection of pay referents internal to the organization. Conversely as individuals identify more closely with their occupational role and move towards professional status, groups external to the organization take on added comparative importance. b) The importance of a reference group for Comparative pay purposes is greatly effected by the perceived similarity of the group along performance related dimensions (such as education, skill, seniority, etc.). c) Within any comparative pay group individuals tend to choose those persons possessing the highest of perfor- mance related attributes. d) Intergroup comparisons do occur even where the groups in question differ according to job title or management level. For the most part, the selection of dissimilar groups as comparative pay referents is based upon instrumentality. Privileged or advantaged groups are 35, chosen when dissimilar groups are used. The use of disadvantaged (or negative) comparisons is relatively infrequent. Equity Theory Introduction. A second line of theoretical reasoning regarding the social evaluation processes involved in an evaluation of organizational rewards such as pay is that of equity theory. Equity theory incorporates the central processes of social comparison as does reference group theory (Goodman, 1977) yet is operationalized in such a manner to offer a large number of testable hypotheses (Walster, Berscheid and Walster, 1973). General Theoretical Foundation. There have been a variety of theoretical formulations of equity incorporating social comparison process in evaluating outcomes (Adams, 1965: Homans, 1961: Jacques, 1967). Adams' theory is perhaps the most rigorously developed statement of how individuals evaluate social exchange relationships and has been the most influential. The major components of the exchange relationship described by Adams' are inputs and outcomes. Inputs or investments are those things a person contributes to the exchange. In a situation where a person exchanges his or her services for pay, inputs many include education, previous work experience, training, skill, seniority, age, gender, social status and effort expended on the job. Outcomes are those things that result from the exchange. In an employment context the most likely outcome is pay. Other outcomes such f . chin?- :ones ‘Jt x l A as frin‘ 3 u. r A: v“ ~D 1. «4. .v0 iniivijLi x'uith .D ‘4. D. 0.1. ad in Lively/e ha? .q.‘ .14 SSOnan Q. C L 9b a; 1‘ a4 36 as fringe benefits, job status, intrinsic rewards and perquisites may also be considered. Both inputs and outcomes must be recognized by one or both of the parties to the exchange and must be considered of value. Adams suggests that individuals weigh their inputs and outcomes by their importance to the individual. Individuals develop a summary evaluation of inputs and outcomes by separately summing the weighted input and weighted outcomes. The ratio of an individual's (called "Person's") outcomes to inputs is compared to the ratio of outcomes to inputs of another individual or group ("Other"). Other is any individual with whom Person is in an exchange relationship, or with whom Person compares him/herself when he or she and Other are in an exchange relationship with a third party, such as an employer or with third parties who are considered by Person as being comparable. Such comparisons rarely involve only a single aspect or attribute but rather concern several bases of appraisal. For example Patchen (1961) found that in making specific comparisons of wages, oil refinery employees explain fairness or inequity by the consonance or dissonance between pay differentials and "multiple attributes relevant to pay." Investments or qualifications which justified the discrepancies in pay level were combinations of education, skill, experience, responsibility, seniority, hard work, risk and hardship. Adams noted that there are normative expectations of what constitute fair correlations between inputs and outcomes. The expectations are learned through socialization I 37 at home, at school and work. They are based by observation of the correlations obtaining for a reference person or group - a co-worker or a colleague, a relative or neighbor, a group of co-workers, a craft group, an industry- wide pattern. A bank clerk, for example, may determine whether her outcomes and inputs are fairly correlated, in balance so to speak, by comparing them with the ratio of the outcomes to the inputs of other female clerks in her section. The sole punch-press operator in a manufacturing plant may base his judgment on what he believes are the inputs and outputs of other operators in the community or region. For a particular professor the relevant reference group may be professors in the same discipline and of the same academic vintage (p. 279). From this discussion it is clear Adams recognized the importance of the referent Other to his theoretical formula- tion. It is notable however, that Adams left the specifica- tion of the appropriate reference group or person to other theorists (Fesinger, 1954: Hyman, 1942: Merton and Kitt, 1950: Patchen, 1961 were cited as contributing theorists). And thus, in the original formulation the selection of the reference group or person was based upon comparability (or similarity) to the comparer on one or more attributes. The choice was assumed to be a co-worker in most situations. Inequitable states lead to tension. The greater the tension, the greater the drive to reduce it. Tension reduction strategies may take a number of forms such as increasing outcomes, decreasing inputs, leaving the exchange relationship and changing the comparison or relevant other. General Research Evidence. Considerable research interest has been generated in testing equity theory predictions of employee reactions to pay. Reviews of pay 38 equity research have demonstrated general support for the theory's postulates (Adams and Freedman, 1976: Pritchard, 1969: Steers and Porter, 1983). Generally most of these studies are laboratory investigations in which subjects (typically undergraduate college students) were "hired" to complete simplistic tasks. Perceived inequity is typically induced by either manipulating the subjects' perceived qualifications to be hired for the task or by actual differences in pay rates. Predictions from equity theory about employee reactions to pay distinguish between two conditions of inequity (underpayment versus overpayment) and two methods of compensation (hourly versus piece rate). Extensive reviews of this literature can be found in Campbell and Pritchard (1976), Goodman and Friedman (1971) and Opsahl and Dunnette (1966). Research support for the predictions of equity theory yield an impressive and consistent set of findings. A number of studies have provided support for the prediction that overpaid subjects will produce higher quantities of output than equitably paid subjects (Goodman and Friedman, 1963: Pritchard, Dunnette and Jorgenson, 1972). Research support for the theory appears strongest for predictions about underpayment inequity (Valenzi and Andrews, 1971: Campbell and Pritchard, 1976). Limitations of Pay Equity Research. In their efforts to test the validity of equity theory most researchers have almost exclusively concentrated upon the input/outcome 39 relationship per is. As a result the equity literature concerning the work place has largely focused upon the effects of inequitable states on work quantity, quality, absenteeism and turnover (see Adams and Freedman, 1976: Carrell and Dittrich, 1978: Pritchard, 1969). There has been little empirical research on the nature and determinants of comparison standards against which individuals evaluate their inputs and outcomes. This is a situation which has not gone unrecognized. Goodman and Friedman (1971) point out that the comparison Other used by subjects is ambiguous in most studies. To the extent that subjects use different comparison others than intended by the experimenter, interpretation of the study results becomes problematic. The reported studies have generally been structured around experimental designs having the subjects work alone (e.g. performing simplistic proof reading tasks) and do not consider the interactive or social effects of one's peers (Hinton, 1972). The reference point or referent other for the determination of equity or inequity is thus diffuse and subject to experimenter error on bias, rather than being another person or persons about whom knowledge is available (Weick, 1966). Where interactive or group settings have been used, generally, groups are structured for the purposes of the experiment rather than naturally existing groups being observed (Pritchard, 1969). In such circumstances there is little reason to believe that these "instant groups" adequately simulate the social effects of the work place {Andrews inquitY field. 40 (Andrews and Valenzi, 1970) or can produce perceptions of inequity of comparable strength as are often observed in the field. Some researchers have adopted stringent criteria for the exchange and group relationships which are necessary for equity theory to be applicable. Zelditch, Anderson, Berger and Cohen (1970) have criticized the Person-Other equity model as being too narrow. These authors claim that all judgments of fairness must be made within the context of a stable frame of reference. They maintain that comparisons made by a participant (Person) to some other individual (Other) linked to an ongoing relationship are inadequate to ascertain accurate judgments of fairness. The relatively permanent relationships provided by reference groups are necessary for comparisons. The researchers provide an example of the impact of referential comparisons involving two skilled mechanics Smith and Jones. If Smith is paid $9.50 per hour and Jones receives $11.50, what should we expect their reactions to be? If Smith only compares his outcomes to Jones, then he should perceive the situation as unjust. However, if Smith knows that skilled mechanics usually receive only $8.00 per hour, his predicament takes on a new light and may not bee seen as inequitable at all. Similarly if Smith and Jones are both paid below the going rate, they both should experience dissatisfaction. Zelditch et al. (1970) have adopted a rather extreme position. Some relationships are clearly "once only" encounters with other individuals where status is unlikely to be a relevant 41 consideration. Some situations may require both Person—Other and reference group comparisons for accurate assessments of fairness (Walster and Piliavin, 1972). Categories of Referents: Factors Influencing Their Importance. Within the last two decades, a handful of studies performed within an equity theory framework have been completed to determine the factors influencing the importance of pay referents. Fundamentally the dynamics of the selection process are parallel to those posited in reference group theory: similarity and instrumentality. These two themes are evident in the studies cited below. The Goodman Process Model. One of the most influential efforts examining the referents used in the evaluation of pay has been conducted by Goodman (1974, 1977). Goodman sets forth a process model to account for individual variation in persons evaluating their input/outcome ratios as well as the pay referents that they select. Three classes of referents are postulated to be used in the evaluation of pay: others, system standards and self referents. The most common class of referents discussed in the literature is that of other individuals. These others may be persons with similar jobs in the organization, the input/pay ratios of others in different organizations as well as friends and neighbors. System referents are structured aspects of the pay system and its administration. Goodman likens system referents to an implied (or actual) contract between the employer and employee (a comparison between the person's actual input/outcome ratio and the input/outcome ratio expected from 42 the employer). Although initial formulations of equity theory (Adams, 1965) stressed the role of interpersonal comparisons in judgments of reward fairness, Goodman (1974) and other theorists (Austin, 1977: Pritchard, 1969: Major, McFarlin and Gagnon, 1984: Weick, 1966) point out that intrapersonal comparisons also play an important role in a person's evaluation of the fairness of his or her input/outcome ratios. In addition to comparisons with others, individuals are assumed to have internal standards against which they judge the fairness of compensation received for their work inputs. These internal standards are based on a person's past history of outcomes received for inputs. Goodman refers to these internal standards as self comparisons. In the absence of external referents for social comparison subjects will tend to use an internal referent (Major et al., 1984: Weick, 1966). Within each of the three classes of referents Goodman posits different categories of referents such as others-inside the organization, others—outside, self-past job history, self-family income requirements. Goodman's (1977) model states that the availability of information about referent categories and the perceived relevance of these categories are the critical variables explaining the selection of other, system and self referents. Availability of information refers to the degree of knowledge an individual has about any one referent. Availability of information is effected by the work role the individual may occupy in an organization, socialization experiences 43 (e.g. membership in professional societies) as well as the individual's propensity to seek out pay referent information. The relevance of a referent is a function of its instrumen— tality in satisfying needs. Pay referents are selected on the basis of their instrumentality in satisfying these needs. Each individual has multiple needs which vary in strength. Goodman identifies the need for performance feedback, recognition, achievement, and self-esteem to be the primary forces. The relevance of a referent is determined by weighing its instrumentality to satisfy a set of needs. In general, satisfying referents are selected whereas those that threaten feelings of self-esteem are avoided. It is important to note, however, that Goodman does acknowledge that individuals may use referents that provide negative information about themselves. One may select a comparison other who is "getting more than he deserves" because that other is the best comparison point for evaluating present pay. The need for accurate feedback may outweigh the need to avoid threats to self-esteem. Comparison persons "who are getting more than they deserve” may be selected as pay referents. The point that comparison others may be instrumental in justifying future pay increases has been noted by reference group theorists as well as a bargaining point for demanding more pay (cf. Patchen, 1961: Martin, 1982: Lipset and Trow, 1975). Early equity theorists (Adams, 1963: Homans, 1961) assumed that a process of anticipatory socialization was occurring where 44 individuals were "laying claim" to the rewards associated with the positions to which they aspired. While Goodman places primary emphasis on the instrumental relation between needs and referents, two other factors characteristic of the referents themselves effect instrumen- tality and relevance. The computational ease of comparing one's own input/outcome ratios also increases the instrumen- tality of referents. Other authors (e.g. Austin, 1977) refer to the closeness of relations or propinquity influencing the ability of an individual to make comparisons. Secondly, through the process of socialization certain referents are learned to be more appropriate than others. Goodman cites the process of socialization into professional standings as an illustration of how the pay of other individuals outside the organization or professionals from different occupations come to be perceived as relevant. Empirical Research Evidence: Pay Referents. Goodman (1974) examined the referents used by professional managers in the evaluation of their pay. The conceptual framework of pay referent selection was evaluated against a pay satisfact— ion index. The results indicated that: 1) Managers were aware of multiple classes of referents and tended to use more than one in the evaluation of their pay: 2) Others as a referent class was most often reported as the referent of greatest importance: 3) Others are most often used in conjunction with system and self referents and: 4) Each of the referent classes is used in a fashion which indicates their relative independence from one another. 45 Goodman recorded demographic variables he theorized would be related to pay referent usage: age, tenure, salary level, as well as occupational group. He hypothesized that profes— sionalism (operationalized as educational level and occupa-- tional group) should relate positively with the use of pay referents external to the organization. Interorganizational mobility should lead to the seeking out of information of external benchmarks. Goodman's (1974) confirmation of this relationship has received consistent support (Belcher, 1974: Goodman, 1977). Individuals in lower salary levels tend to employ other individuals inside their organizations as pay referents: presumably as a way to learn about the pay system but the use of this referent may threaten self-esteem as well. Higher pay is related to the use of self referents. Goodman concluded that selecting self—pay history referents enhances self-esteem for those in the high pay group. While Goodman's contribution to the understanding of the pay referent selection process has been substantial, his work has been criticized on methodological grounds. By his own admission, the coding scheme used to determine pay referent importance is "exceedingly complicated." Austin (1977) faults Goodman's coding scheme for not allowing for the importance of comparisons to vary either within or between referent categories. Although Goodman (1974) uses as "Other" category, the coding scheme treats all social comparisons as equally important. Internal and external organizational comparisons, family and social referents are given equal importfim Hill: identifié L-JV :onparisc unskilled were usei 3f refere Jpon prev “ 193:: I13 [’0 “I () 46 importance within a single category. Hills (1980) examined a number of possible pay referents identified in earlier work to determine if each of the comparisons were conceptually distinct or if the use of certain types of comparisons tend to covary. A sample representing a broad range of occupational groups from unskilled employment to professional/administrative employees were used. Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of referents which had been grouped into six categories based upon previous literature: 1) Internal equity referents - job levels equal to, above or below the respondent's job level. These items represented comparisons made in "internal" labor markets (Reynolds, 1975: Doeringer and Piore, 1971: Good- man, 1974: Heneman et al., 1978): 2) External equity referents -market rates for the respondents job (Andrews and Henry, 1963: Finn and Lee, 1972): 3) Expected pay referents -similar to Goodman's system referent or an implied contract: 4) Historical pay referents - pay history items (Goodman, 1974 and Heneman et al., 1978): 5) Personal worth referents -items tapping personal worth and economic need (Belcher, 1974 and Jacques, 1961: 1964) and: 6) Other comparisons -friends and family members (Goodman, 1974 and Heneman et al., 1978). Pay referent importance scores were factor analyzed. The results indicated that individuals who make internal comparisons also tend to make external ones as well. Little evidence was found for the use of an internal self-standard. Four factors did emerge suggesting that individuals employ 47 one or more of at least four social referents: what others whom they work with or similar individuals in other organiza- tions are paid: a comparison standard of what is needed to provide for their family: what others in the broader social network earn and: a historical pay referent. These findings run contrary to Goodman's conceptualization of "Others" as a single category indicating three distinct dimensions may more adequately characterize it. Hills' (1980) results also indicate that, while individu- als are able to distinguish between internal and external referents, they tend either to use both or neither. An earlier study of professional employees reports findings which are comparable to those of Hills (1980). Finn and Lee (1972) found that individuals who perceive their pay as equitable tend to use internal referents: those perceiving inequity use external referents. These authors present evidence to indicate that while there are meaningful differences in reference sources, judgments about salary equity are a function of both internal and external referents with a general emphasis on internal comparisons. A number of studies have attempted to identify individual and organizational variables which are related to the use of particular referents. Hills (1980) correlated perceptual, demographic and organizational variables with the use of four pay referents identified using factor analysis. He found that the following pay referents are associated with specific variables: Market comparisons - are used by individuals perceiving ease in finding comparable work, desire promotion 48 from within and are of short tenure: Economic need referents - tend to be used by individuals who are less educated, have lower pay, and are in lower occupational groupings: Social comparisons - are used by individuals having less ambition for promotion and are from lower educational levels and: Historical pay comparison - are used by younger individuals having lower pay, tenure and occupational class. Unfortu- nately, the statistical relationships found regarding organizational and individual variables and the four referents were so weak the author doubted their utility as predictors of an individual's preferred referent base. This conclusion is shared by Finn and Lee (1972) who were also unable to find any strong systematic relationship between personal and job related characteristics and the use of pay referents internal or external to the organization. Heneman et a1. (1978) sought to extend the research on pay referents by examining the nature and determinants of pay comparisons selected on an a priori basis (self, cost of living, historical, internal and external). Individual differences (e.g. age, education, tenure, salary level) and perceptual variables (e.g. probability of quitting) were used as predictors for each of the pay referent categories. Significant relationships did emerge. However, the variance explained in the stated importance of any pay referent never exceeded thirteen percent and typically ranged from six to nine percent. Heneman et al. (1978) did attempt to interpret the relationships which were found to be significant. Education, 49 tenure and salary level emerged as the most consistent predictors of pay referent importance. Their predictive value did differ among the pay referents. Instrumentality was regarded as the primary basis by which pay comparisons were chosen. For example, it was found that as salary level increases the use of external comparisons gains importance. It was speculated that higher salary individuals have skills more identifiable as "professional" rather than "organiza- tional" and therefore it was instrumental for them to engage in external comparisons. Functions of Similarity and Instrumentality. Other studies have emphasized similarity in personal and job characteristics to be the basis of pay referent importance (Andrews and Henry, 1963: Carrol and Tombari, 1980: Oldham et al., 1982: Pelz, 1966). Characteristics which are perceived to be relevant inputs related to job performance are likely to be the basis of comparison and therefore predictive of referent categories perceived to share these characteristics. The relative importance of similarity in personal attributes (inputs) may vary according to the particular comparative referents available (Oldham et al., 1982). The work of Heneman et al. (1973) on the differential predicta— bility of various pay referents supports this notion. Instrumentality can become the primary basis of selection when the employee perceives that inputs relevant to job performance do not reflect the differences in pay i.e., the different between the employee's salary and that received by the person with whom the employee uses for pay comparisons is 50 inappropriate given the differences between them (Andrews and Henry, 1963: Oldham et al., 1982). Homans (1961) describes how individuals try to get others to agree upon comparisons that will highlight the meager outcomes they are receiving or the importance of the inputs they may possess. This strategy of defining the appropriate bases for comparison increases the probability of achieving a higher level of reward or maintaining the rewards one has already accumulated. Goodman (1977) states that the instrumental value of equity comparisons is often reflected in "self—enhancing" comparisons. These can be advantageous comparisons (e.g., individuals with lower outcomes and lower inputs) or disadvantageous comparisons (e.g., to groups with equal outcomes and lower inputs), or higher outcomes and lower or equal inputs. These comparisons are utilized to maintain a desired level of outcomes. Disadvantageous comparisons are made to correct imbalances in input/outcome ratios or simply to achieve a higher level of outcome (pay). Goodman assigns an important role to the instrumentality of a particular comparison. He posits the general assumption that individu- als always make those comparisons that fulfill their needs. Individuals select referents that support, not threaten, their self-esteem. However, Goodman also points out that the need for the enhancement of self—esteem or its protection, may be overriden by the need for accurate information. In such instances individuals will engage in threatening or self-depricating comparisons in order to gain what is 51 perceived to be the most accurate information. Parallels and Contrasts of Equity and Relative Deprivation Theories Pay Referent Categories. Both equity and relative deprivation theories are concerned with equitable outcomes and the social comparison processes involved in their perception. Generally, four types or categories of pay referents have been revealed by the small amount of empirical research that exists from both bodies of literature: 1) intraorganizational -including persons from similar and dissimilar job classifications: 2) interorganizational -similar and dissimilar job classifications: 3) self or personal history referents - personal wage history or personal worth and: 4) system referents. The research has revealed that input and outcome variables specified in equity theory formulations parallel many of the salient dimensions or characteristics postulated by reference group theory to effect the choice of reference groups. Results of efforts to find a highly reliable set of predictors of the importance of specific pay referents have proved unsuccessful. Individual variables such as age, tenure, education level and position related characteristics such as skill and salary level do appear to appear to have consistent, albeit limited, predictive value. Few data are available on group identifi- cation or group membership variables which (suggested by reference group theory) should have significant influence on the actual choices made. 52 Level of Measurement. On a theoretical basis the level of measurement of the theories differ. Reference group theory concentrates on collectivities and intergroup comparisons. Equity theory conceives of the comparer and comparative referent as individual entities: both varying on a theoretically unbound number of input and outcome dimen- sions. Similarity and Instrumentality. Equity researchers have 0 found evidence that comparisons based on similar inputs and/or outcomes are most often selected. Comparisons with dissimilar individuals are infrequent. The concept of egoistic comparisons from relative deprivation is the sociological parallel to equity theory. While both equity and relative deprivation theories agree that similar comparisons are the most frequent choice, relative deprivation research has demonstrated the preference for similar comparisons to be modified by a preference for upward comparisons. The work of Joann Martin and her colleagues provides ample evidence for this. Working within an equity framework, Goodman has demonstrated that upward comparisons to referent others having similar inputs or outcomes do take place. Goodman proposes that the instrumen- tal value of the comparison in obtaining higher outcomes or fulfilling comparisons needs is a major driving force. Relative deprivation research has found evidence that individuals make comparisons with others who are more prosperous and in different job classifications (upward, dissimilar comparisons). No such evidence has come forth 53 from equity theory. Multiple Reference Groups Little information is available on how perceptions of equity may combine i.e., whether some primary reference group dominates as a frame of reference, to the exclusion of all others, or if multiple reference groups are used simulta- neously. In the original formulations of equity theory (Adams, 1961: Homans, 1961) it was assumed that individuals might compare themselves to a number of similar Others. Goodman (1974) and Hills (1980) have demonstrated that employees are sensitive to more than one reference source in their perceptions of pay. The analysis of Finn and Lee (1972) indicates that individuals appear to refer either to internal and external referents or none at all. Andrews and Henry's (1963) data suggest that employees in higher levels of management and those with less education are less likely to compare their pay with individuals on the same level in their company. The frequency of out—of—company comparisons increased sharply with education. These frequency data suggest that internal and external comparisons are important. Oldham et al. (1932) recorded the number of referent categories respondents reported using for job comparisons. They indicate that of the 93 employees who used job refer— ents: 49 indicated using one referent, 27 indicated using two, 19 used three and 4 indicated using four referents. These researchers noted the use of a few primary referents rather than a multiplicity. The results of Oldham et al. are in contrast to those of Goodman (1974) who found that most 54 employees report using multiple referents when making pay evaluations and only a few respondents report using one. While individuals may acknowledge the existence of various reference sources, the relative contribution (effect) of them to an overall reaction towards pay is unknown. Potential combinations of relevant referents will probably vary according to the characteristics of the comparer. Joann Martin and her colleagues working within the framework of relative deprivation theory present evidence which indicates pay comparisons might be drawn between other individuals within the comparer's job class as well as between members of job classes higher up in the organization. Martin uses a dependent measure indicating the probability one might make a comparison. This measure has not lent itself to the examination of possible simultaneous compari- sons. Perceptions of pay equity made relative to highly attractive or relevant reference groups may conflict with those made in relation to other equally relevant reference sources. Many occupational groups, particularly those bordering on professional status, maintain numerous affilia- tions: with their employing organizations, professional societies, primary work groups, etc. (see for example Bennis et al., 1958: Gouldner, 1957). Within the nursing profes- sion, for example, the advent of union representation has brought an additional group with which these individuals may identify. Although identification with numerous groups may place the individual in a form of role conflict, several 55 studies have demonstrated that simultaneous allegiance or commitment to employers, union, and professions does occur for some individuals (Dean, 1954: Purcell, 1960: Angle and Perry, 1986). With each of these groups available as a frame of reference for perceptions of equity of such work related outcomes such as pay, an individual may hold congruent, conflicting or mixed impressions depending upon the relevance of each reference group and the degree of equity (inequity) perceived in relation to it. We know from equity theory that an imbalance between an individual's input/outcome ratio and that of a comparative pay referent will produce perceptions of inequity. Imbalance between the ratios may result in feelings of pay dissatisfa- ction (Goodman and Friedman, 1971: Goodman, 1974: Lawler, 1971). Goodman and his colleagues state that input/outcome ratios perceived in relation to multiple classes of referents should relate independently to a pay satisfaction criterion variable. A test of the relationship of multiple perceptions of equity with an outcome variable such as pay satisfaction is required to untangle their combined influence (Goodman, 1974). A model of pay satisfaction formulated by Dyer and Theriault (1976) provides a theoretical framework for the test. These authors drew upon the work of Lawler (1971) in formulating a model which does not equate perceived pay equity with pay satisfaction. Pay satisfaction is jointly determined by perceptions of the appropriateness of pay 56 system administration, pay criteria, and accuracy of performance assessment. Most importantly, the social comparison process is conceived as a separate explanatory variable of pay satisfaction. Perceptions of comparative job inputs, perceived comparative job demands, and perceived pay levels or referent others inside and outside the organization exert an influence on pay satisfaction as well. The model incorporates comparisons made in relation to Goodman's (1974) pay referent categories as determinants of pay equity. Perceptions of pay equity made in relation to each of the referent categories are proposed by Dyer and Theriault (1976) to be intervening states which lead to the perception of pay satisfaction. General Summary The purpose of this chapter has been to present two theoretical bodies of knowledge which offer complementary insights into the social comparison processes involved in pay referent selection. The fundamental importance of referen- tial standards in determining the fairness of one's pay was developed and the basic theoretical foundations of reference group theory and equity theory were described. The literature reviewed demonstrates the important role perceived similarity of performance-related attributes plays in the selection of pay referents. Both equity and reference group theory are in clear agreement on this point. Refer- ence group theory further develops the role of similar or shared attitudes in the context of individuals identifying with their work groups. Shared values or group norms 57 regarding the appropriate wage-effort relationship are often byproducts of this identification. Where these norms exist, individuals who are members of these groups are especially likely to use them as standards by which to judge the equitability of their pay. The two theories are less consistent with regard to the role of instrumentality. Referents are chosen on the basis of their ability to satisfy comparison needs: the protection of self esteem being the one most often cited. Both theories are in agreement on this point. However, since the function of group influences is not well articulated in equity theory, we must largely rely upon the evidence generated in the reference group framework. It is within this framework we find evidence of dissimilar pay referents being chosen, even across occupational lines, to lay claim to the greater benefits enjoyed by those positions. Special attention was given to the small amount of empirical evidence regarding the importance of pay referents from studies performed within either of these theoretical frameworks. In general, three classes of referents are postulated to be used in the evaluation of pay: others whom we know or work with (both internal and external to the employing organization), system standards, and self or personal wage history referents. Parallels and contrasts between equity and reference group theory were outlined regarding the role of similarity and instrumentality, collective versus individualistic orientation and predictions of the importance of referents 58 with varying demographic and attitudinal characteristics. The latter part of the chapter outlined the theoretical and empirical evidence regarding multiple frames of reference leading to the importance of multiple pay referents. The evidence is suggestive that multiple sources are referred to in the pay equity determination process. Chapter III will develop these concepts in terms of a model of factors which influence the perceived importance of pay referents. Hypotheses regarding the effects of these factors on pay referent selection shall be set forth. CHAPTER III A MODEL OF FACTORS INFLUENCING THE PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF PAY REFERENCE GROUPS, RELATED RESEARCH, AND HYPJTHESES Introduction This chapter is composed of three related elements. The initial portion describes the model to be investigated and provides the structural basis for including the variables represented. Secondly, the relevant literature relating to each of the variables included is reviewed. Finally hypotheses are advanced for each of the ten variables selected for analysis based upon the literature associated with each variable. The hypotheses are framed within the context of the unionized hospital setting in which this study was conducted. Although worded as if they apply globally, further research will be needed to state them generally. A Model of Factors Influencing the Perceived Importance of Pay Reference Groups The literature reviewed in Chapter II identifies the two dynamics of similarity and instrumentality to form the fundamental basis for the social comparison processes involved in the selection of comparative pay referents. Goodman's (1974, 1377) conceptualization of an 59 60 individualistic process affected largely by individual characteristics and structural or job characteristics of the comparer has been incorporated into the model used in the present dissertation. Some of the variables investigated below have been added to Goodman's model based upon the work of other researchers. Martin's (1931) collectivistic or group-based analysis of the comparison process has also been incorporated into the model presented in Figure 1. Group identification variables suggested by Martin and the available literature were included for analysis. Considerations For the Reader. Two important consider- ations should be pointed out to the reader. First, the limited amount of empirical literature on the factors influencing the importance of pay reference groups is often clouded by inconsistent relationships. Accordingly, the variables selected to represent the categories depicted in Figure 1 were chosen on the basis of their relatively reliable associations with potential pay referents. Second, as indicated in Chapter II, field research on pay referents has been complicated by the vast array of potential pay referents a subject sample might use. The large number of potential pay referents was reduced to five by using a pilot test procedure (described in Chapter IV) in order to make tests of the hypothesized relationships possible. The hypotheses set forth in this chapter are stated in terms of these five identified comparative pay referents. 61 PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS Age Length of Service Educational Level Intent to Quit JOB CHARACTERISTICS Wage Level Skill Level PERCEIVED SIflILARITY OF POTENTIAL REFERENT PERCEIVED PERCEIVED INSTRUMENTALIII OF REFERENTS IMPORTANCE OF REFERENT(S) GROUP IDENTIFICATION VARIABLES Cosmopolitan- Localism Organizational Commitment Union Commitment GROUP MEMBERSNIP A Model of Factors Influencing the Perceived Figure 1. Importance of Pay Reference Groups 62 The Literature Review and Hypotheses: Introduction The literature reviewed in Chapter II dealt with the principle sources of literature concerning the use of pay referents and factors which influence their relative importance. The following literature review specifically deals with the variables identified for analysis in Figure l. Hypotheses associated with the influence of each variable on the importance of specified pay reference groups are proposed. Personal Characteristics An important issue raised in Chapter II is the degree to which employees select referents with inputs or personal characteristics similar or dissimilar to their own character- istics. Inputs refer to any factors that individuals bring to a job that they perceive to be relevant to the performance on the job (Adams, 1963: Pritchard, 1969). While the literature reviewed listed a number of possible inputs, age, education and seniority are among those which are most frequently mentioned (Adams, 1965: Cook and Purcel, 1977: Oldham et al., 1982). Both equity and reference group theories suggest that employees select referents with similar personal characteris— tics. Adams (1963) argues that individuals select referents who are similar on one or more personal characteristics. Austin (1977) proposes that the referent typically is similar to the comparer in "most relevant aspects." Research support for the influence of similar personal characteristics was reviewed in Chapter II (cf. Andrews and 63 Henry, 1963: Carrol and Tombari, 1930: Oldham et al., 1932; Goodman, 1974: Patchen, 1961: Zanna, Goethals, and Hill, 1975). Characteristics which are perceived to be relevant inputs related to job performance are likely to form the basis of comparison and therefore predictive of the importance of referent categories perceived to share these characteristics (Goethals and Barley, 1977). Other researchers have suggested that there may be a drive to maximize information gain, that is, to acquire information about both similar others and "standard setters" (those who have the highest ability) when comparing ones' abilities with others (Feldman and Ruble, 1981: Wheeler, Koestner, and Driver, 1982). Individuals may share similarities on a great number of attributes. A limited set of performance related characteris- tics are perceived to be relevant to the comparison process (Merton, 1957: Patchen, 1961: Martin, 1973b: Goodman, 1977: Zanna, Geothals and Hill, 1373). The importance of the referent(s) used for pay comparison purposes becomes largely a function of the instrumentality of the referent for satisfying the comparison needs of the employee (Goodman, 1977: 1977: Austin, 1977). According to Goodman needs affect the relevance of referents in three ways: 1) Needs vary in strength. Employees may or may not need to evaluate their pay or performance. Employees with a low need to learn about the outcomes such as pay will not find the use of referents about pay particularly relevant. 2) Individuals have multiple needs. Refe '1 ents are selected in relation to their ability 64 to satisfy those needs. The general need to know about oneself in relation to outcomes such as pay is viewed as part of the self evaluation process. Other needs such as recogni- tion, esteem, and affiliation may "be activated" during the social comparison process. 3) The relationship between a need and a referent may be positive, negative, or neutral. For example, individuals select referents that support, not threaten, their self esteem (a positive referent). Goodman does note, however, that the need for accurate information may override any urges for self-esteem enhancement or protection. The instrumental value of equity comparisons which are "self-enhancing" were described in Chapter II in relation to the work of Martin and her colleagues, Patchen (1961) and Goodman (1977). These can be advantageous comparisons (e.g., to referents with lower pay and lower inputs) or disadvanta- geous comparisons (e.g., to referents with higher pay and lower or equal inputs). Advantageous comparisons are probably utilized to maintain a desired level of outcomes whereas disadvantageous comparisons are probably made to rectify a perceived injustice, or simply achieve a higher level of outcome (Austin, 1977). Four personal characteristics are examined in this study: age, length of service, education level, and intent (perceived probability) to quit. It is recognized that intentions to quit an organization are attitudinal or behavioral predispositions rather than demographic characteristics. They are, however, subject to individual variation and as such are included in the 65 personal characteristics category. Age. Experimental findings regarding the effects of age have been mixed. Andrews and Henry (1963) report a consis- tent tendency by the youngest managerial groups to select similar managers outside their place of employment as pay referents. These authors hypothesized that the level of self-investment within the organization was relatively low allowing for interorganizational movement to occur at less cost. Other researchers report a mixed relationship between age and the use of pay referents external to the organization (Finn and Lee, 1972: Hills, 1980). Finn and Lee (1972) indicate that within their sample, young professionals who expected to have difficulty in finding comparable positions on the outside market tended to use comparisons internal to the organization. Hills (1930) reports evidence which indicates younger employees will engage in market comparisons when they perceive ease in finding work at the same level. Age is also positively correlated with self/historical pay referents for young employees who see little chance for advancement within their present job but little difficulty in finding alternative employment. On the basis of these studies it is predicted that: Hl: Younger employees will engage in external (market) comparisons while it is still opportunistic for them to do so. Seniority. One would assume that since length of service within an organization is typically intercorrelated with age, seniority should exert a similar influence on the choice 66 of pay referents. The research evidence bears this out with subtle differences. Heneman et al. (1973) identified a positive correlation between the number of months with an employer and the importance of internal comparisons. These authors suggest that as people become more socialized into, and knowledgeable about, the organization, they turn more toward others within the organization for comparison purposes. Finn and Lee (1972) report evidence of a positive correlation between tenure and comparisons with employees internal to the organization. Hills' (1930) analysis of the relationship between tenure and pay comparisons indicates a negative relationship with extra organizational referents. In sum, a trend is evident. More senior employees tend to use coworkers within their organizations and avoid the use of workers external to their work place. One would hypothesize that: H23: As individuals gain seniority (investing more of their time, developing organization specific skills and relationships) it becomes more costly and less instrumental for them to look outside the organization for referents. Seniority has also been found to be positively related to a personal wage history referent (self referent) (Heneman et al., 1978: Hills, 1980). Heneman et al. (1978) postulate that as individuals develop a personal wage history over time with an employer, past outcomes (e.g. pay) are evaluated in terms of an experienced wage-effort relationship. Hills (1980) also reports evidence which suggests that less senior employees tend not to use historical pay referents. Based 67 upon the literature reviewed it is predicted that: H : More senior employees will tend not to 2b use external pay referents and tend to use internal and personal wage referents. Educational Attainment. The level of educational attainment an individual has achieved has consistently been shown to be positively related to the use of pay referents outside the employing organization. The relationship has been supported using a variety of employee groups: supervi- sory personnel (Klein and Maher, 1966): professional- technical employees (Hills, 1980: Heneman et al., 1973): scientific research staff (Finn and Lee, 1972): managers (Andrews and Henry, 1963: Haire, Ghiselli and Porter, 1963: Goodman, 1974): and refinery workers (Patchen, 1951). Klein and Haher (1966) suggest that higher levels of education are accompanied by higher self-evaluations and expectations. These authors attributed a "grass is greener" perception to educated employees who perceive employment opportunities outside the organization to be enhanced. Other researchers (Haire, et al., 1963: Andrews and Henry, 1963: Finn and Lee, 1972) associate increased education with an increase in professionalism. Professionals in turn, seek comparisons with their peers (who are likely to exist in large numbers outside the organization). Regardless of an individual's level of professionalism, education facilitates interorgani- zational movement. Goodman (1974, 1977) views education as an important personal input or contribution an employee brings to the employment setting. Employees who have attained higher 68 levels of education seek out similarly educated employees both within (Andrews and Henry, 1963) and outside of the organization in order to make an accurate assessment of the equity of their pay. It is predicted therefore that: H3: Level of education is positively associated with the use of external pay referents and positively associated with referents internal to the organization who have a similar educational level. Mixed results have been reported for the relationship between educational level and the use of a personal/wage history referent. Hills' (1930) data indicate that less educated individuals emphasize their economic needs whereas more educated individuals concentrate on their past earnings. Hills suggests that as a person's education increases so does their sense of "personal or self worth." More educated individuals should tend to evaluate their pay against this internal standard. Intent to Quit. The final personal characteristic variable to be investigated is this dissertation is intent (perceived probability) to quit the organization. Where an employee perceives his or her input/outcome ratio to be inequitable relative to some comparative other, equity theory postulates that the individual is placed in a state of dissonance (Adams, 1965). One of the methods by which the individual can reduce the dissonance is to leave the exchange relationship (i.e. quit) (Adams, 1963; Adams, 1965: Telley, French, and Scott, 1971). It is expected that those individuals leaving organizations due to perceived inequities in pay engage in at least two pay comparisons: a) relative I‘D f\ In 69 to some initial referent by which the dissonance is generated cnd b) relative to pay referents external to the organization in order to determine the instrumentality of quitting. Of course, some employees leave organizations for reasons other than perceived inequity (e.g. spousal relocation). In such instances employees would probably directly engage in external pay comparisons with similar individuals in similar jobs out of necessity. Finn and Lee (1972) divided health care employees into an equity subsample and inequity subsample based upon their perceived fairness of salary treatment. Employees in the equity subsample demonstrated less dissonance, more favorable attitudes toward their work and the organization, and a lower propensity to quit than employees in the equity subsample. Most importantly, the equity subsample preferred internal comparisons (e.g. comparisons with other employees based on length of service or educational level) more So than the inequity subsample. The inequity subsample demonstrated a stronger preference for external comparisons (e.g. knowledge of "going rates" for the profession) than the equity subsample. While the subsamples were significantly different in overall orientations, both subsamples indicated their perceptions of salary equity to be a function of mixed considerations with a general emphasis on comparisons internal to the organization. Klein and Maher (1956) indicate correlational associations between both internal and external comparisons and a respon- dent's intention to leave the organization. Supervisory 70 personnel who were satisfied with their current opportunities had engaged in both internal and external comparisons and intended to remain with the organization. Perceived DifficultyAIn Finding Work. A concept related to intention to quit an organization is that of the perceived difficulty in finding similar work in the external market place. The two should bear a strong negative relationship. Hills (1930) and Alutto and Belasco (1974) report that those individuals who perceive little difficulty in finding work at the same level do tend to use market comparisons. In each of these studies the correlations reported were low albeit significant. It would appear that mobile individuals tend to evaluate their present pay in terms of what would be available should they leave. Both Hills (1930) and Heneman et al. (1973) report the interesting association between personal/historical pay comparisons and intention to leave. Heneman et al. (1973) reason that where dissonance is generated by what an individual feels they "should" receive compared to what they do receive leaving the organization becomes a way to reduce this dissonance. Hills (1980) reports that individuals who perceive little difficulty in finding similar employment perform comparisons against what they "ought" to be earning in light of their past wage history. Hills argues that individuals who perceive little difficulty in finding comparable work elsewhere do not find personal worth evaluations threatening to their self-esteem (a line of reasoning also suggested by Goodman, 1377). Given that they View 1 shouli Conpar 71 view themselves as mobile, inequitable self-comparisons should lead to intentions to quit and, consequently, market comparisons as well. It is predicted that: H4: Individuals who intend to quit an organization tend to engage in a) self/hiStorical pay compari- sons, b) comparisons with similar employees within the organization and c) similar employees external to the organization. Job Characteristics On the basis of the available research and theory, job characteristics are expected to influence the selection of pay referents in much the same way as personal characteris- tics. Of the potential characteristics available for comparison, job complexity, skill level, position level and wage level have received the greatest attention. The research cited below demonstrates the tendency of employees to select comparative others whose jobs are similar in skill requirements and wage level. It is important to note that within the job characteristics category one can also observe instances where dissimilar referents are chosen in a systematic fashion for instrumental purposes. Two job characteristics are examined in this study: the skill level required by the job and the wage level of the position. Each of these characteristics is described below. Skill Level. Skill level has been demonstrated to have a variety of effects on the choice of comparative pay referents. Hills (1930) analyzed pay referent preferences for employees in unskilled, professional/technical and managerial groupings (low to high skill levels). Employees 72 from the highest skill level demonstrated a preference for external comparisons. According to Hills, high skill levels facilitate job movement and therefore external comparisons would gain relevance. These findings are further reinforced by Goodman (1974) who also found a positive relationship between position level and the use of external pay referents. Lower level employees selected peers within the organization. Similarity of Job Complexity. A somewhat more complex relationship between skill level and referent selection has been suggested by Andrews and Henry (1963) and Haire et al. (1963). Andrews and Henry (1963) operationalized skill level as a trichotomized hierarchy of managerial levels. Middle and lower managers tended to compare themselves with groups inside the company. Middle management tended to compare its pay with those on a lower level, while members of lower management were more concerned with "keeping up with their peers" at the same level. Lower—middle managers clearly preferred outside groups for comparison. Haire et al. (1963) performed a similar analysis yielding comparable results. These researchers interpret these findings in terms of the instrumentality of the referent used: "The path to success for many middle managers is to sink themselves further and further into the company, accepting its goals, practices and traditions. This may well be associated with a tendency to accept internal comparison groups" (p. 7). The issue whether employees select referents with job characteristics similar or dissimilar to their own has receaived relatively little attention until recently. Oldham 73 et al. (1982) operationalized the skill level or complexity of a job using a modified version of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Machine operators, inspectors, laborers, clerks and supervisors were interviewed to identify the job referents they used and to compare the challenge and complexity of their job with the job of their referent(s). The results indicated that employees selected pay referents whose jobs were equal in skill requirements in 14 percent of the cases, less skilled in 21 percent of the cases and, more skilled in 64 percent of the cases. Employees were clearly placing themselves in what appears as a disadvantageous position of comparison. Specifically, it was found that individuals in relatively simple jobs were more likely to select referents more skilled than their own than were individuals with relatively skilled jobs. Skilled individuals selected referents whose jobs were either similar or less skilled than their own. The authors did acknowledge a "ceiling" effect might particularly explain these results. That is, identify— ing referents with jobs more complex than their own may be difficult for employees whose jobs are highly skilled. Oldham et al. (1982) interpreted these results in terms of the instrumentality of the comparison. Employees might select referents who are employed in jobs requiring similar skill (i.e. equitable comparisons) to achieve a sense of "balance or harmony" (equally plausible would be that individuals select similar others for accurate self- evaluation). The selection of advantaged or disadvantaged comparisons serves to enhance the individual's self-image. 74 Placing oneself in a disadvantaged state enhances the self-image through a process of association. Self-concept is improved through self-association with a referent who possesses more of an important work attribute. Conversely, individuals may place themselves in an advantaged state to enhance their self-image by "increasing the probability that he or she feels superior to a referent on a given work attribute." Martin (1931, 1979) like Oldham et a1. (1932) and Goodman (1977) does place emphasis on the instrumentality of the comparative referent in preserving or enhancing the self-image. On the other hand, she also places importance on the less cognitive explanation that employees who place themselves in disadvantaged states are establishing the comparability of the jobs in order to "lay claim" on the added compensation which usually accompanies the more skilled job. Employee groups who engage in intergroup comparisons in order to diminish or eradicate the perceived discrepancy in outcomes which cannot be attributed to the proportion of the difference in skill level between the groups are engaging in the fraternal comparisons described in Chapter II. She also notes that the process of anticipatory socialization may be operating. Disadvantaged comparisons are drawn in anticipa- tion of joining the ranks of the more skilled group. The empirical evidence developed by Hartin et al. (1979) and Martin 1978a with regard to the effects of skill level (Operationalized as position level within a job classifica- tion hierarchy) is rather compelling. With either skilled 75 technicians and their supervisors or secretaries and executives, it has been demonstrated that comparisons with others from a similar (equivalent) job class are the most likely of all pay comparisons which might be drawn. While relatively less frequent, comparisons with others from dissimilar skill levels are chosen particularly when the referent is from a higher skill level. On the basis of the theory and empirical evidence regarding skill level it is predicted that: HSa: Employees will tend, primarily to enga e in comparisons with others who are of similar skill from within their current organization. H5b: To the extent that individuals employed in lower skill levels engage in pay comparisons with others from dissimilar skill levels they will tend to be with others in higher skill classifications. H5C: Emplo ees from higher skills levels who engage in additional pay comparisons will be likely to draw them with others of similar skill levels external to the organization. Wage Level. The wage level paid to a position incumbent is often highly intercorrelated with a cluster of personal characteristics that a person may possess (e.g. tenure, age, education). It is therefore problematic to interpret the main effects of wage level independently from its correlates. Additionally, wage level is an outcome variable (using equity theory terminology). The appropriateness of one's inputs to an exchange relationship are being judged in addition to the adequacy of the pay level in meeting one's financial needs. Occupational wage level has been shown to be related to a variety of pay referent sources. Goodman (1974) analyzed a. 76 the relationship between salary level and the selection of pay referents inside of the organization with length of service as a moderator. Goodman's analysis of the percent— ages indicated that individuals in lower salary levels are more likely to select other inside referents. Length of service was not found to moderate the relationship. It was also determined that high-salary individuals select self-pay history referents more often than low-salaried individuals. Goodman interpreted these findings by noting that high salary individuals are those who have received frequent and substantial raises. Raises indicate one's value to the organization and are awarded on that basis. Since Goodman makes the basic assumption that we seek positive information about ourselves and that self-pay history referents may enhance or threaten feelings of self-esteem, low salary individuals would tend to avoid drawing these comparisons and high salary individuals would be likely to engage in them. Hills' (1930) findings of the relationsnip of salary level and referent source first appear to contradict those of Goodman (1974). Historical pay comparisons were more likely to be made by employees receiving lower levels of pay than more highly paid employees. On closer examination of Hills' data it also becomes apparent that these lower salary employees also believed it relatively easy to find any job at the same pay level. Apparently these employees did not find historical pay references threatening to their sense of self worth in that other suitable employment was readily attain- '3bleo 77 Both Heneman et al. (1978) and Goodman (1974) have found that the higher an employee's salary, the greater the likelihood of external comparisons. Heneman et al. reason that higher salary individuals typically have skills more identifiable as "professional" rather than "organizational." A well defined labor market and an abundance of market wage information invite higher salary individuals to draw these comparisons. On the basis of the aforementioned studies it is predicted that: H6a: (Individuals from lower wage level jobs will tend to compare themselves with similar others within their employing organization. H D: Wage level will be positively associated with the use of personal-historical referents as well as the use of similarly employed others external to the organization. 0\ Wage Comparisons Within Similar Groups and Between Dissimilar Groups. The literature reviewed in Chapter II regarding egoistic versus fraternal comparisons is highly suggestive of the direction that pay comparisons will take within an organization, i.e., with similar individuals in one's own work group or with individuals earning more (or less) who are employed in different work groups. The early work of Stouffer et al. (1949) and Runciman (1966) illustrated a comparative preference for others within similar social groupings. The work of Homans (1961) and Patchen (1961) which further defined the preference as one for individuals from similar levels within an organizational job hierarchy (e.g. blue-collar workers with other 78 blue-collar workers; management personnel with other management personnel). The central and overriding finding has been that individuals tend to select comparison persons similar to themselves - employees tend to select pay referents from similar job classifications or organizational levels. Within Group Comparisons. Within a specific level in the organizational position hierarchy employees will tend to select pay referents who earn greater amounts of pay (Martin, 1982, 1979, 1978a, 1978b: Patchen, 1961). Given that the level of pay is largely determined by the personal attributes and job characteristics previously discussed it is not surprising that a greater number of research studies have not observed this relationship. The majority of these studies are bivariate correlational analyses which are unable to control for the influence of additional variables. Between Group Comparisons. Groups which receive higher levels of financial outcomes (e.g. pay) are often aspired to. Parallel to this idea is Festinger's argument that compari- sons take a "unidirectional drive upward" where valued abilities or outcomes are the dimension of comparison. When financial outcomes are being compared, upward comparisons even to jobs which are dissimilar in the position hierarchy, have been demonstrated (Lawler, 1965: Patchen, 1961: Martin, 1979, 1978a). Relative deprivation research demonstrates the importance of such upward dissimilar pay comparisons (Pettigrew, 1967). Patchen (1331) showed that employees are likely to select referent others who make higher wages than p 1 55 ID 1‘ 79 themselves (placing themselves at a disadvantage in the comparison). Most importantly, Patchen demonstrated that employees with low pay are even more likely to select referents above them on this dimension than employees with relatively high pay. Once again, however, a possible "ceiling effect" may have been operating. The research effort of Joann Martin and her colleagues provides substan- tial evidence for upward pay comparisons to dissimilar groups. Research evidence has not revealed frequent instances of downward dissimilar comparisons (comparisons with less paid employee groups). The few experimental instances documenting comparisons with positions lower in the occupational hierarchy (Andrews and Henry, 1963: Goodman, 1974: Martin, 1978b) suggest that the employees are focusing on the size of the pay differential. This may be particularly true where there exists a promotional path from those lower positions to the employee's current position or where the employee is the supervisor of the comparison employee. On the basis of the literature reviewed it is predicted that: H7a: Where pay comparisons occur within occupational groups, employees who earn less will use employees who earn more. 7b: Where pay comparisons occur between occupational groups, employee groups who earn less will use employee groups who earn more. Group Identification - Membership Identification. This category of variables deals with the extent to which an employee identifies with or is actually a member of specific work groups. The reference 80 group theory literature reviewed in Chapter II suggests that the development and importance of comparative pay referents are highly influenced by acceptance of the work standards and attitudes of others in the work place. This is particularly true when individuals identify with the work norms which these occupational groups develop. Where group norms encapsulate acceptable pay comparisons, employees who are highly integrated or allied within that occupational group will tend to engage in them as well. Formal membership within the group may bring with it pressure to conform and accept work related standards the group has developed. The group identification-membership category contains variables which represent both identification with and formal member— ship in occupational groups. The category consists of the following variables: group identification (cosmopolitan- localism, organizational commitment, and union commitment), and work group membership. Cosmopolitan—Locals. In Gouldner's (1957, 1953) seminal attempt to validate the cosmopolitan-local construct scales for the variables of organizational loyalty, commitment to specialized skills (i.e. professional body of skills), and reference group orientation provided the theoretical ground work. In this original conceptualization organizational loyalty and professional commitment were believed to be inversely related. The third variable, reference group orientation, focused on the individual's identification with groups internal or external to the organization or locale. The use of an external referent to define the 81 cosmopolitan-local construct is unique to Gouldner (Flango and Brumbaugh, 1975). A summary of cosmopolitan-local research reveals that the internal—external reference dichotomy may not be related to professional orientation in a simple fashion but depends upon organizational variables (Grimes and Berger, 1970). The cosmopolitan—local construct does assume an inverse relationship between organizational commitment and profes- sional commitment (Flango and Brumbaugh, 1975). Hierarchical authority may conflict with authority based on expertise. Other researchers employ conceptualizations in which there are more than the two polar types (cosmopolitans or locals) and have established evidence that "local-cosmopolitans" also exist — those professionals committed to both their professions and to their local organizations (Sheldon, 1972: Thornton, 1970: Glaser, 1963). The empirical literature examining cosmpolitan-local orientations and pay references was reviewed in Chapter II. In the few studies available which have examined cosmopoli- tan-localism or its constituent dimensions (i.e., profession- alism) a tendency for cosmopolitans to use extra organiza- tional pay referents is apparent. Finn and Lee (1972) established a significant relationship between professional ability (measured as educational level, professional activity, professional reputation and the respondent's identification with the profession) and the use of external pay referents (knowledge of market "going rates"). Other researchers have operationalized professionalism as a 82 combination of educational level and position level within the organizational hierarchy (Haire et al., 1963: Carrol and Tombari, 1930: Pelz, 196‘6: Andrews and Henry, 1963: Goodman, 1974). Professionalism operationalized in this manner has been positively related with the use of referents external to the organization. Hyman and Brough (1975) citing several case studies performed in Great Britain also conclude that professionalism is indeed related to the use of outside referents. Two additional studies using academic profession- als as respondents determined that cosmopolitans were committed to publication, participated in fewer campus activities and were more likely to leave the institution with which they were affiliated (Gouldner, 1953: Flango and Brumbaugh, 1975). Both of these studies found that cosmopo- litans were more likely than locals to regard their salaries as too low. Unfortunately, however, no direct measures were taken to identify the pay reference groups that were being utilized. Semiprofessionals - The Importance of Internal and External Referents. Cosmopolitanism is an orientation commonly thought to be shared by all professional occupa— tions. This is, perhaps, an oversimplification. Consequently, the primary importance of reference groups external to the organization may be overstated. Grimes and Berger (1970) have suggested that the internal-external pay reference dichotomy may not be related to professional orientation in a simple fashion but depends upon organiza- tional variables, particulary for occupations on the Dorie 83 . borderline of professional status. Empirical support for the proposition that internal and external pay referents are employed by semiprofessional job classes is evident in the literature (cf. Alutto and Belasco, 1974: and Bennis, Berkowitz, Affinito and Malone, 1958). Alutto and Belasco (1974) employed teachers and nurses as respondents. Measuring professionalism as the degree of commitment to specialized role skills, these researchers noted that a high degree of professionalism was associated with the use of internal as well as external pay referents. Bennis et al. (1958) arrived at a similar set of findings. Reference group orientations in the nursing profession indicated that cosmopolitans referred to others within their internal work groups to a considerable degree. High organizational commitment and high degrees of cosmopolitanism were found to coexist for these semiprofessionals. These authors inter- preted these findings by noting that nurses seeking to gain professional recognition within the broader professional field must do so through advancing within administrative or educational areas in the local nursing function. On the basis of the basis of the literature reviewed it is predicted that: H8: High degrees of cosmopolitanism will be: a) positively related to the use of external pay referents and b) positively related to the use of similar others within a specific work group. Organizational and Union Commitment. Individuals may icientify with a number of work groups during their careers. Tfle probability of identification is particularly heightened «J 84 for those work groups of which we are members. March and Simon (1958) propose four main targets with which this identification may occur: groups external to the organiza— tion: the organization itself: work groups within the organization: and the work activities in the job. They propose that the strength of the identification is a function of the congruence or similarity between the individual and group norms and goals. Within unionized settings the two constructs of organizational and union commitment have received a substantial amount of research attention particu- larly with regard to the extent that individuals may be simultaneously committed to each (cf. Angle and Perry, 1986: Dean, 1954: Gallagher, 1984). The research evidence has shown for the most part that the likelihood of simultaneous commitment to the two collectivities appears to grow where the relationship between them is cooperative in nature (Angle and Perry, 1986: Purcell, 1960). Aside from the issue of how organizational and union commitment may interact, the independent influence of each of these group identification variables on the selection of pay referents is clear from a theoretical perspective. Porter and his colleagues (Mowday, Steers, and Porter, 1982: Porter et al., 1974) conceive of organizational commitment as a "psychological attachment" to the employing organization where the employee: 1) desires to remain a member of the organization: 2) internalizes the values and goals of the organization: and 3) is willing to exert effort on behalf of (fin! organization. Clearly the organizationally committed 85 employee has internalized the values and norms of the organization and is focused internally within that organiza- tion. The perspective of Porter et al., is not inconsistent with the earlier conceptualization of organizational commitment as a "calculative involvement" (Becker, 1960: Ritzer and Trice, 1969). This instrumental orientation to commitment attributes the bond between the employee and organization to an exchange of extrinsic outcomes on the basis of costs and benefits (Angle and Perry, 1936, Becker, 1960). Committed employees perceive themselves to have made a considerable investment in the organization and would forfeit these investments should they leave. Organizational Commitment and Pay Referents: Empirical Literature. The empirical literature regarding the influence of organizational commitment upon the use of pay referents is sparse. Few studies have attempted to record the referent used while allowing a measure of organizational commitment to vary. Martin and Peterson (1985) employed the organizational commitment scale developed by Mowday et al., 1979 in a unionized retail setting. Pay fairness was recorded with regard to "other people in my unit" (a pay referent internal to the organization) and "people doing the same kind of work for other employers" (external referent). Employees express- ing lower organizational commitment tended to use referents external to the workplace. Conversely, employees high on the organizational commitment scale tended to use internal pay referents. Finn and Lee (1972) measured the organizational 312‘ i: 86 attachment of professional employees with a single Likert- scale item "Identification with Organization." Employees who expressed a high degree of identification with the organiza- tion demonstrated a tendency to use other employees of similar length of service and educational level from within the organization as pay reference sources. Alutto and Belasco (1974) measured organizational commitment with an attitudinal index concerning the perceived utility of continued participation in the employing organiza- tion. Unionized employees from semiprofessional occupations (nurses and teachers) who expressed high organizational commitment tended to use similar others within their schools or hospitals as pay referents. This relationship was not found to hold for individuals who perceived little chance of professional advancement within their employing organization. The organizational commitment scale used by these researchers is plainly of the instrumental school in conceptualization. The more affective method of measurement used by Haire et al. (1963) (acceptance of organizational goals, practices, and traditions), however, yields a similar tendency to accept internal pay comparison groups. On the basis of the literature reviewed it is predicted that: H33: Organizational commitment is positively related to the use of internal pay referents and negatively related to the use of pay referents external to the organization. 87 Union Commitment and Pay Referents: Empirical Litera- Eggg. Unions represent an important type of work organiza- tion to which approximately one-fifth of the work force belongs. The extent to which individuals identify with these groups can vary markedly depending upon a host of individual and work context variables. The progression of research involving union commitment has paralleled that of commitment to organizations in general. Indeed, during the seminal work to construct validate a scale of union commitment it was assumed that the union measure should possess a factor structure reflecting the components identified in a priori definitions of organizational commitment (Porter et al., 1974). Theoretical development efforts have identified several distinct dimensions: 1) factors interpretable in terms of an exchange relationship (i.e. a loyalty based upon an individual's ability to satisfy needs through the organization): 2) member characteristics: 3) socialization experiences: and 4) factors interpretable in terms of a member's willingness to participate in and remain a member of the labor organization (Steers, 1977: Porter et al., 1974). Gordon, Philpot, Burt, Thompson, and Spiller (1980) identified four interpretable factors underlying union commitment construct. In general these factors reflect those discernable in the organization commitment literature: factors representing the instrumental nature of association with the group and factors representing shared values and goals. Gordon et al., (1930) identified the benefits which unions provide to their members as the most important basis 88 for union commitment. These authors argue that this finding is substantiated by the writings of Hoxie (1919) who emphasized the instrumental nature of member attachment to the union and later, Blau and Scott (1962) who classified unions as "mutual benefit associations ... in which the membership is expected to be the prime beneficiary." Other factors identified were: Felt responsibility to the union; illingness to work hard for the union and: belief in unionism. Martin and Peterson (1985) employed the union commitment scale developed by Gordon et al. (1980). These authors noted a positive correlation between union commitment and the use of union members in their bargaining unit as pay referents (i.e. a comparison with a similar work group internal to the organization in which they were employed). Importantly, Martin and Peterson discovered a significant relationship between union commitment and the perceived value of the union in obtaining better wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of employment. Other researchers performing sociological case studies in Great Britain have also noted that as individuals become more committed to the unions to which they belong (i.e. establish a greater sense of shared values and purpose) they tend to use other union members employed at the same company as comparative pay referents (Brown, 1979: Delafield, 1979). On the basis of the literature reviewed it is predicted that: H3: Union commitment is positively related to the use 89 of pay referents internal to the organization and positively related to the use of members in the same bargaining unit in particular. Group Membership. The literature surveyed in Chapter II analyzes the development of comparative pay referents based upon group membership. Employee affiliation through immediate membership and direct contact with reference groups is a basis for identification with the work group (Katz and Kahn, 1978). Additionally, the personal and job characteris- tics variables previously reviewed are often highly intercor- related with work group membership. Clusters of these variables often serve as criteria to define eligibility for membership. Perhaps one of the greatest influences of group membership is that proximity increases the probability that a group will be "spontaneously adopted" for purposes of comparison (Hyman and Brough, 1975). Goodman (1974) argues that wage information about individuals with which we come into contact is likely to be more accurate. He also argues that comparisons with members of our work groups are easier to compute and therefore we are more inclined to engage in them. Lipset and Trow (1957) provide early evidence demon— strating that trade union membership dictates a predictable pattern of wage comparisons for bargaining purposes. Institutional influences specific to the sample used are dealt with in Chapter V. Union members tend to compare their wages with those of other union members in their local. 90 Other things being equal, those with whom an occupational group has the closest and most frequent relations are most likely to provide a frame of reference for judging the equity of the wage-effort bargain. "Equity among various tasks on a single job is of the most immediate and direct concern to the employees on the job" (Livernash, 1954, p. 341). The work of Martin and her colleagues suggests that employee groups who draw comparisons across occupational divisions usually do so in an upwardly direction (to groups enjoying higher status, pay, and other rewards). Within a unionized setting more skilled employee groups may also tend to evaluate their pay by defending their differentials above other groups of workers (Hyman and Brough, 1975). Martin (1981, 1979) argues that these downward comparisons should occur with relative infrequency. On the basis of the literature reviewed it is predicted that: HlOa‘ Members of the same union will tend to use their fellow union members as comparative pay refer- ents. Hlob: Where interunion comparisons do occur it is predicted that they will be made in an upwardly direction to unions enjoying greater status and extrinsic rewards. Table 1 summarizes the factors related to the perceived importance of five pay reference groups and the hypothesized direction of influence of each. Multiple Reference Groups The literature reviewed in Chapter II is highly suggestive of the simultaneous usage of multiple reference 91 Table 1 Factors Related to Perceived Importance of Reference Group and Hypothesized Direction of Influence Members of Members of Same Other Self Bargaining Bargaining Workers in Workers Around Referent Unit Unit Local Area Country INDEPENDENT VARIABLE Xl Age U U U _ - X2 Lencth of Service + + u - - Education X3 Associate Degree/ + + u +4 + Diploma Grad (yes-l. no-O) X4' Graduate Courge e + u + + lork/Degree (yes-l. no-O) Skill Level X5 LPN - u i + U U (Yes-l. no-O) X8 Indication LPN U * e U U (yes-l. no-O) X7 Staff Nurse 0 + - + . (yes-l. no-O) X8 Supervisory Nurse U o - 0 e (yes-1. no-O) x9 'lge e 9 U * . X10 Probability of quitting ‘ + u + e X11 Cosmopolitan] U O U + . Local X12 Organizational U a o - - Commitment ' X13 Union - + a U U Commitment X14 Union Affiliation U 9 - U N (INA-i. Steelworkers-O) + - positive relationship - - negative relationship ' U . unknown/unspecified relationship Du A—N Wu. «VJ 92 groups when individuals are determining the fairness of their pay. It is difficult, however, to determine the relative effect a referent may have upon perceptions of pay fairness from research literature which has employed indirect measures of referent influence. A variety of measures have been used: reported frequency of referent usage (Goodman, 1974: Andrews and Henry, 1963: Oldham et al., 1982); estimated importance of probability of usage (Martin, 1985: Hills, 1980: Martin et al., 1931, 1979, 1978a, 1978b) or inferred from respondent's perceived equity (Finn and Lee, 1972: Haire et al., 1963; Alutto and Belasco, 1974). None of these methods of measurement employs actual perceptions of equity made directly in relation to the pay referent. Goodman and his colleagues argue that input/outcome ratios perceived in relation to multiple classes of referents should relate independently to a pay satisfaction criterion variable. A test of the relationship of multiple perceptions of equity made in relation to each potential pay referent would allow estimates of their relative influence (Goodman, 1974: Martin, 1982). It is hypothesized that: Hll‘ Perceptions of pay equity made in relation to Iultiple reference sources shall independently determine (predict) pay satisfaction. Summary To review, the relevant literature regarding the personal characteristics, job characteristics and group identification—membership variables was reviewed. Emphasis was placed upon empirical literature where it was available. 93 A number of hypotheses were set forth regarding these influential factors. These hypotheses are listed below for the convenience of the reader. Hla: 82a: 2b: 5a: 5b: Younger employees will engage in external (market) comparisons. As individuals gain seniority it becomes less instrumental for them to look outside the organization for referents. More senior employees will tend not to use external pay referents and tend to use internal and personal wage referents. Education is positively associated with the use of external referents and positively associated with referents internal to the organization who a similar level of education. Individuals who intend to quit engage in . self-historical pay comparisons, comparisons with similar employees within the organization, and similar employees external to the organization. Employees will primarily engage in comparisons with others who are of similar skill from within their current organization. To the extent that individuals employed in lower skill levels engage in pay comparisons with others from dissimilar skill levels they will tend to be with others in higher skill classifications. Employees from higher skills levels who engage in additional pay comparisons will be likely to draw them with others of similar skill levels external to the organization. Individuals from lower level jobs will tend to compare themselves with similar others within their employing organization. Wage level will be positively related to the use of personal-historical referents as well as the use of similarly employed others external to the organization. Where pay comparisons occur within occupational groups, employees who earn less will use employees who earn more . 94 H7b: Where pay comparisons occur between occupational groups, employee groups who earn less will use employee groups who earn more. H8: High degrees of cosmopolitanism will be positively related with the use of external pay referents and positively related with the use of similar others within their specific work groups. H ° Organizational commitment is positively related to the use of internal pay referents and negatively related to the use of pay referents external to the organization. Members of the same union will tend to use their fellow union members as comparative pay referents. EijLOb: Where interunion comparisons do occur it is predict- ed that they will be made in an upwardly direction to unions enjoying greater status and extrinsic rewards. EIJJL: Perceptions of pay equity made in relation to multiple reference sources shall independently determine (be predictive) of pay satisfaction. The hypotheses are summarized in Table l. The general t1t1eme which underlies each of them is straightfoward: pay lrneeferents are initially selected on the basis of some g>waerceived dimension(s) of similarity. From this set of E:»<>tential pay referents primary referents are chosen based on tzhrle instrumentality of the referent in satisfying the needs of the comparer. CHAPTER IV FIELD STUDY: METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS I ntroduc ti on In Chapter IV, the method and results of the field study aare presented. The descriptions of the method and results Eire subdivided into two sections regarding factors influen- czing the importance of pay reference groups (Part I) and the La:se of multiple pay referents (Part II). In the presentation of the methodology, a pilot study, t:lne research sample and research site are described. The data c:<311ection procedure is reported. The variables discussed in <::tnapter III are Operationalized and their reliabilities The statistical method used to analyze the data 9 resented. czcallected is presented. Fleethod Pilot Study Purpose. A predecessor to the qu-stionnaire used in the E>ITeesent investigation was distributed for pilot testing on a CZCDariparable group of hospital employees (N=5)) working in I.-'<3-t'lsing, Michigan. The purpose of the pilot test was tzVVWC>—fold: l) to ensure that the perceptual distinctions (2‘3-1.led for in the questionnaire were understandable and the if , a, . . . CDTE‘mat readioie and 2) t1) Lientify reference groups which w . . Ea’rTe of relevance to hospital employees for wage comparison EDLJITpos-es. Pilot study respondents indicated, through written 95 96 comments and debriefing, little difficulty in completing the questionnaire. Identification and Pilot Testing of Wage Referent Categories. Local union presidents, union business agents and hospital employees were interviewed at the pilot and actual research sites to identify wage referent categories. Full details of the procedure are available in Pincus and Reagan (1932). Respondents were asked to specify groups or i ndividuals which were considered when determining the fairness of their wag-es. Responses were recorded and categorized by expert consensus (N=3). E‘ive referent categories were identified: self ref-erent or personal wage history: other workers in the employee's bargaining unit at the hospital: employees in other bargaining units at the hospital: workers performing nursing—related duties in the surrounding area: workers performing nursing—related duties around the country. The five wage referent categories identified using the vaforementioned procedure were then incorporated into the Pilot questionnaire and ultimately, the final version of the gm 9 stionnaire. Sample and Research Site The sample for this study consisted of 2lJ unionized e"‘E>loyees, performing nursing related duties, for a county- C>“"l'1ed hospital in dichigan. The hospital, a 163 bed fa Qility, is located in mid-eastern Aichigan supporting a Li ll range of medical speCialties. The comparatively rural lQQation of the facility renders it the major health care 97 ZTé1ctical nurses is reflected in different levels of e"Cilacational attainment in the Steelworker bargaining unit. EDGE“(pending upon the educational institution and specialization 53‘:>Laght, LPNs may be certified through a one or two-year :3 L1nior college program or a one—year hospital program. Employees within the Steelworker bargaining unit attainment are from the ‘1“1<3iCiting a low level of educational 100 orderly, ward helper or clerical job classifications. It eahould be noted that while these classifications may only Irequire a high school diploma or less, a few employees from t:he lower skill levels reported having completed college <:ourse work unrelated to health care.. Categories of skill are evenly distributed across the arespondent population. The reader may refer to the discus- :sion on operationalization of this variable for a listing of tzhe skill levels composing each category. The supervisory aarud staff nurse lthls contain all of the ANA members (47% aired 53%, respectively). A small percentage (3%) of Steel— VJ<3rker bargaining unit members are also within the staff ratarse level. Steelworkers compose the remaining three skill JLaevels: medication LPN (45%), LPN (24%) and low skill (23%). Overall the sample characteristics indicate little c3:ifference between the two bargaining units with regard to sagge, length of service, gender and marital status. Educa- t:ix:nal and skill levels are distributed within the total Siaxnple. Higher educational and skill levels tend to be <=C>rlcentrated within the MNA bargaining unit while lower ]-€3\Jels are found within the Steelworker bargaining unit. TPF1€333 differences are to be expected and present no sample t>j—Eising difficulties for the hypotheses which are to be te sted. EELEzi§rationalization of Variables The analyses performed in the present study proceed in tl‘VWD parts. Part I examines the relationship of the various ‘l‘r‘tdividual, job, and group identification variables with the 101 puerceived importance of five specified reference groups. E>azrt II examines the relative importance of these reference ggrwoups as they may combine to produce an overall reaction of the variables associated with pay satisfaction. Accordingly, The questionnaire Pea rts I and II are presented separately. L1i3€3d to gather the data is presented in Ap_endix A. Part I - Factors Influencing the Perceived Importance c>if Pay Reference Groups. On the basis of the previously dieawscribed pilot study, five pay reference groups had been others in their bargaining unit, i.c3=entified: themselves, others perform- <>‘t;r1ers in their counterpart bargaining unit, ing nursing-related duties in the surrounding area, and (Dwtikiers performing nursing related duties around the country. E’eawrrceptions of the importance of each of these referent c:sa.t:egories served as the dependent variable. Respondents were asked to make separate judgments, i.r1<3icating how important each of these specified groups was 21:3) :a comparison in determining the fairness/equitability of t1?1€3i.r pay. Forced choice judgments were made with the 1‘73?E5E>ondents distributing one—hundred points among the five reference groups to indicate relative importance. liELElggpendent Variables The utility or explanatory usefulness of the model was lies ted by measuring individual characteristics, job charac— tlvx . . . . . . . “ {TILstics, and group identification variables. Individual Characteristics. Measures of individual Q o o I 0 n . Elia-t"acteristics included age, length of serVice, intention to Respondents were asked to 1 ~ . (2‘;‘3L t, and educational level. 102 indicate their age in years. Length of service was recorded gas the length of time (in months) the respondent had been eemployed at the hospital. Educational level was originally categorized into eleven czlassifications. This initial classification scheme was Irequired in order to capture the diversity of certification arequirements and educational arrangements evident in health <:are. A subsequent reduction in the number of educational <:ategories was achieved by recoding them into high, medium, aarui low levels. A high level of educational attainment is :itadicated by any of the following classifications: diploma qgwrad (three—year nursing school program), undergraduate thaiversity (B.S.N. or other), graduate courses at university, aaxnd completed graduate degree (1.3.N. or other). Responses j.ra indicating a medium level of education are: community czcollege-associate degree, attended college — no degree <:<3mpleted, one year LPN degree — community college or f1rnpleted high school. Educational level, as Operationalized in the present EstlLady, is measured as a nominal level variable. Consequently, C31Jimmy coding must be employed in order to perform the t7€3 hue-«Egan .. ...an . ..«u.- ...an. ..a. ...nn. ...o~.- -.- .p~.- ... vo.~axa coca ..> 0.352 UVOUm -- ...n~.- ...pn.- so.- ...-.- ...«n. o~.- ~a.- ... oo.~.xm ..oa ..s sue coda-uaoo: II cocon.| «0.: cccna.l ocean. «u. can. .5. cod—«nu Inca ..> zaa ao>oa ~_axn .. «a. ...an. ...nn.- «a. .na. ... can: -- .o.- no. ...- .n..- .n. uaso ou geous. I. 00.05.! o~.u uu.n Av. ao>IA.IOJ .-> ~o>oa sod: -- «9.- «~.. .n. ..>oa :04 .2, «2.3 I308. «23.— «133.093 'I ooowh. .Nv OvubhOu uo £uocod .. 2. 1.1 S o o n o r. v n n u Canaan-ea «cocci—005 novel 5 oocuaucou noun-:2, new neon-3:8 Ian-«5 v 03:. m“! 114 The variables and related hypotheses proposed in Chapter III were analyzed by inspection of interitem correlation and zero-order correlation matrices. Simple two-tailed t tests were performed between the reference group importance scores reported by the MNA and Steelworker bargaining units. Five t tests were performed to discover differences in reported importance for each of the five referent categories. Part II — Multiple Reference Groups. The second analysis focuses on whether single or multiple perceptions of pay fairness/equity are determinate of pay satisfaction. Pay satisfaction scores were treated as the criterion (dependent) variable and regressed against the five perceptions of pay fairness/equity using the full sample. Separate equations for the MNA and Steelworker subsamples were compared to identify differences in pay reference group usage. Results A Part I — Factors Influencing the Perceived Importance of Pay Reference Groups: Correlational Analyses. Table 4 presents interitem correlations for the independent variables contained in the model depicted in Figure 1. An examination of the personal characteristics category reveals significant correlations between age and length of service (r = .72, p < .001) and age and intent to quit (r = -.l3, p < .05). These associations are not unexpected: more senior employees tend to be older and less likely to quit the organization. Educational levels were dummy coded and such dummy variable levels should be related. C010? -.13 Con: of A need StrL Pot! risE le‘JC‘ 7 ,‘aa- . ‘ 115 Within the job characteristics category wage level and skill level (a dummy coded set of four variables) are significantly related at the p < .001 level. This associa- tion reflects the standard organizational practice of setting levels commensurate with skill. The dummy coded levels of skill are intercorrelated (as expected). Within the group identification variables category union commitment is negatively correlated with cosmopolitanism (r = -.18, p < .01). The latter association confirms the suggestion from the dual allegiance literature that the two forms of identification are not mutually exclusive. Union affiliation (a dummy coded variable) and union commitment are negatively associated. Registered nurses (members of the MNA) are not as committed to their association as are licensed practical nurses, orderlies, and aides are to their union (Steelworkers). The correlation is not unexpected. BUsiness unionism (emphasis on wages, hours and working conditions) is a traditional focus of the United Steelworkers of America. This focus is congruent with the instrumental or need satisfaction dimension of the union commitment con- struct. Interitem correlations between categories of variables are also evident. As these correlations strengthen, the potential difficulties with statistical multicolinearity rise. Interpretation of multiple regression analysis incorporating these variables can become problematic. Wage level and levels of education covary as to be expected (correlations range from r = —.32 to r = .51, p < .001). 116 Table 5 Zoro-Ordsr Corrslstions for variablss Contained in the Model Msrs of Mentors of Sans Other Worksrs Horksrs lndspsndsnt Sslf Bargaining Bargaining in Locsl Around Vsrisbls Rsfsrsnt Unit Unit Aron Country by. .07 .09 -.12 0.09 -.20" Lanth of Ssrvics .11 .10 -.04 ~47" nun. Bducstionsl stsl nsdius stsl "0 w LOW]. -002 -003 -00‘ 009 002 High stol "0 m m1 -002 -,1R'. .09 -011 -001 lntsnt to Quit -.13- -.07 .14 .05 .200. u.” .07 -018.. .09 -008 -001 Skill stsl I." vs. Loss Skillsd -.09 .19" .09 -.01 -.08 nsdicstion LPN vs. Loss Skill“ -001 00‘ -005 -008 .08 Ststf lurss ' vs. Loss . Skillsd -.06 -.04 -.01 -.00 .00 Supsrvisory vs. 1". Skill“ 00‘ “.20.. -009 -001 -00‘ Cosmopolitan-Local .03 -.01 -.05 -.01 .07 Organisationsl Cal-itssnt .10 .12 -.13 -.15“ -.21'* Union Cousitnsnt -.05 .10“ .01 -.13' -.08 Union Affiliation nun vs. Stsslworksr .07 -.10" .02 -.07 .05 n-iso ’p .05 “p .01 *"p .001 Wag .3] as the V31” wit uni 1 sxi COI’ VG! lev. Var ide In :11: the 117 Wage level and union affiliation also covary (r = .88, p < .001). This association reflects the fact that MNA members as a group are paid more than Steelworkers. Skill level is intercorrelated with level of education (correlations range from r = -.22 to.r = .35, p < .001 among the two sets of dummy variables). This association reflects the level of education which is required for entry into the various position levels. Skill level is also intercorrelated with membership in either the MNA or Steelworkers bargaining units (correlations range from r = -.50 to r = .58, p < .001). This intercorrelation reflects the fact that higher skill levels are employed within the ranks of the MNA. These correlations are congruent with Table 2 which indicates that very few ( n = 3) Steelworkers function at the staff nurse level. Table 5 displays the zero-order correlations for the variables in the model with each of the five referents identified to be of relevance for wage comparison purposes. In general, the reported correlations are in the predicted direction with regard to the five referent categories. The magnitude of the relationships and their level of signifi- cance do differ across the five referent categories. With regard to the number of significant correlations observed and the number predicted, the results in Table 5 demonstrate a modest relationship for the variables in the model and the perceived importance of the five pay referents. Within the personal characteristics category, age and length of service were found to be negatively correlated with 118 the perceived importance of pay referents external to the organization. Specifically, age was negatively associated with the importance of workers around the country (r = -.20, p < .01). Length of service was negatively associated with the importance of workers in the local area (r = -.20, p < .001) or around the country (r = -.24, p < .001). Neither of these variables were significantly related (p < .05) to the perceived importance of the remaining pay referents: self or internal (members of same or other bargaining unit) pay referents. A high level of education was significantly more related (r = .18, p < .01) with the importance of employees in the same bargaining unit than for low educational levels. The intention to quit the organization was significantly correlated with the use of external (works around the country) pay referents (r = .20, p < .01). Within the job characteristics category the lowest and highest levels of the four skill level variables were found to be significantly related to the use of pay referents internal to the organization. Moreover, both of these variables related to the importance of similar others (members of the same bargaining unit). Employees in the low skill level (LPN's) tend to use members of the same bargain— ing unit more than nurses aides and orderlies (r = .19, p < .01). High skill levels (supervisory nurses) tend to use members of their bargaining unit significantly less than nurses aides and orderlies (r = —.20, p < .01). Wage level was found to be negatively correlated with the use of perceived importance of members of the same 119 bargaining unit as pay referents (r = -.18, p < .01). Wage level was not found to be significantly correlated with any of the remaining four pay referents. All but one of the four group identification variables exhibited a degree of association with one or more of the pay referents. Cosmopolitan-localism was not found to be significantly correlated with any of the available pay referents. 'In terms of magnitude, organizational commitment had the strongest relationship with a tendency to not use external pay referents. This was true for both workers in the local area (r = -.15, p < .01) and workers around the country (r = -.21, p < .01). Organizational commitment was not associated with the use of personal or either of the internal pay referents. Union commitment was positively correlated with the perceived importance of members from the same bargaining unit as pay referents (r = .18, p < .01). Union commitment was not related to any of the remaining four pay referents. Union affiliation (MNA versus Steelworker) was nega- tively associated with the importance of members of the same bargaining unit. Members of the MNA used their fellow association members as pay referents significantly less (r -.l8, p < .01) than Steelworkers did. Membership in the MNA was not correlated with the perceived importance of any of the four remaining pay referents. Part I — Factors Influencing the Perceived Importance of Pay Reference Groups: Regression Analyses. Table 6 presents the results of stepwise regression analyses for the five pay mo.v a 120 C Home.VVQMH” ~0>a~ no. .a =3..a::s couu.ca no.2q.us> 3: I coau3135 .2: t.:u_;3mwwum m «com.a cann.m coon.v «.vn,n ccn~.o achc.v ...nm.h cco.n ...—«.0 z:_a> . m n_. me. as. ou. Go. no. no. nc. ... u;.nsfis< m: 1’ nu -- u: u: .o. o..- q..- tyxtca_;t_m .n> <22 . :2 32:2. 23:: v0. No.» ... v..u omm.- so. mo.u hc., .c~. .=;E..Ee:o =:.:: n~.n h~.| we. ho. ho. m_.u _~.u a..- mo. acts..EECb .acc..au.:autc vo.- _o. oo. .o. ne.. 5... nc. .c.- cc. .a;:;-=a_._.z:;=m:c I: u: u- n- no. me. .o. _c. .._N.: oo__.xm nnL; . .n> a;:c.>u:::m «o.- no. a... .o. s:.. mc.- .o. m..- n—.- . o:__.xn any; .n> ingzz due.” no. mo.: o..- v.. u- u: no. no. no. 32—..xm tn;; .1.) z...— 51.3.2U93 no.- mo. az. v..- -- -- no.- #8. .w_. s;_._xn nm;; .5; 2a; . .zasu _~_xn .o. «o.- mo.- mo. .8. ...om. .o.- we. v..- :23: ..n«. ca. a_. ..a. o..- 59.- .oa. .o. c_. . ..30 a. .c;.=_ nc.- v_.o oomn. mo.n no. no. 70. 1..- ..m.. _a>i4 3:; .zp _;>.1d ..2... _o.- so. «a. me. .o.- no.- .8. as. .o. .aaza 3:4 .n> .9234 Soaps: ~.->.1— —:=:— .3939“ no.: oovm.u do. oo~m. .o. no.. ...N., .n..- ... o;.>t;n .: :.uco; m~.- no. a v_. .o. a e_. n~.- a a . oo.- ho. a o.. a :2« anuosoo ~aooa tango 983m ~.om “Sandor auocsoo ~aooa soc-o 05am __;m “assay. au.caou .accg 595.0 053% ._ym ”a:u_;r a4:¢_m<> soon nova «an: hzuazuomoz_ sax533_uvom <2: . y-aEam ~aach auaca ocacqsouen «assay—oz“ cos Odessa neuoe >a .naaauo oucousuoz >sm new eou>_ac4 coaeaeuooa oeusmeum «o uu_sno¢ . o.aae 121 referents. These results are provided for the total sample as well as the two major subsamples of each bargaining unit (MNA and Steelworkers). For each pay referent standardized partial regression coefficients are shown only where at least one of the predictor variables entered the stepwise regres- sion equation at a statistically significant level (p < .05). In general, it can be observed that relatively few of the variables entered the regression equations. For those variables which did enter the equations, none of the partial regression coefficients exceeded .29. Moreover, the maximum amount of variance accounted for (R2) in the perceived importance of any pay referent did not exceed fifteen percent. With respect to the personal characteristics category length of service within the organization emerged as a significant predictor of external pay referents. More senior individuals indicated that workers in the local area (p < .05) and around the country (p < .01) were of significantly less importance. Additionally, in the Steelworker subsample, employees with greater amounts of service perceived self referents to be significantly important (p < .01). This predictive relationship did not hold in the MNA subsample. Employees having high (versus low) levels of education perceived their fellow bargaining unit members to be of greater importance than those having low levels of education (p < .01). The predictive value of a high educational level held in the Steelworkers subsample where employees perceived employees in their bargaining unit to be of greater impor— 122 tance than those having lower educational levels. Intention to quit the organization was a significant predictor of external referents (other health care employees around the country, p < .05). The predictive value of intention to quit did not hold for the MNA subsample. On the other hand, Steelworkers who intended to quit perceived these external referents to be of importance (p < .01) as well as self referents (p < .05). Within the job characteristics category wage level was not predictive of the importance of any of the five pay referents for the sample as a whole. A significant relation- ship did emerge in the MNA subsample where it was found that those nurses whose jobs paid higher wages perceived the Steelworkers to be important pay referents (p < .01). Skill level was predictive of the perceived importance of employees in the same bargaining unit for the sample as a whole. Levels of skill were dummy coded and therefore must be interpreted in relation to the base group (least skilled). LPN's perceived other Steelworkers to be of greater impor- tance (p < .05) than employees from the lowest skill classifications (nurses aides and orderlies). Supervisory personnel perceived employees within their bargaining unit to be of less importance than did employees from the lowest skill classifications. Within the group identification category union commit- ment was the sole variable found to be predictive of pay referent importance. With regard to the total sample union commitment was a significant predictor of the importance of ‘ 123 fellow bargaining unit members as pay referents (p < .05). As the commitment of MNA members to their Association increased, health care workers in the local area decreased in importance as pay referents (p < .05). It can be readily observed in Table 6 that there exists a differential predictability of pay referents depending upon whether the total sample or individual subsamples are being viewed. This is true of self referents, employees in the same bargaining unit and employees in the other bargaining unit in particular. With this in mind it is suprising that union affiliation did not emerge as a significant predictor of the importance of these pay referents. An analysis of the importance of pay referents between the two bargaining units was performed. Table 7 presents the results. Perhaps the most salient finding of this analysis is that both the MNA and Steelworkers place similar importance on each of the five pay referents. The notable exception is the importance each group places upon its own members as pay referents. Members of the MNA perceive fellow MNA members to be of significantly less importance as pay referents than Steelworkers regard their fellow bargaining unit members (t = -2.33, p < .05). Overall, Table 7 indicates that the following rank ordering of the importance (most to least) of pay referents is common to both the MNA and Steelworkers: self referent, HEHnbers of same bargaining unit, members of other bargaining innit, workers around country, workers in local area. The laczk of significant relationships between the predictor set 124 Table 7 Differences in Perceived Importance of Pay Reference Groups Between MNA and Steelworker Bargaining Units ————--------——-----___-—-—--——__—-_——----—-—___------‘_—__-_ Reference MNA Steelworker Group (N=68) (N=100) t-statistic Self Referent 36.31 33.5 .91 (19.5.3)3 (19.33) Members of Same 19.76 24.59 -2.33* Bargaining Unit (11.90) (13.98) Members of Other 18.78 18.43 .19 Bargaining Unit (12.33) (10.95) Workers in 11.50 12.95 -.89 Local Area (3.91) (11.28) Workers Around 14.82 13.48 .68 Country (10.84) (13.76) a Standard deviations reported in parentheses Two—tailed test of significance *p < .05 an re. de' 38“ SUI C u re an: his di: the sta inf Dir ate the in deE 12. 1, and the five pay referents makes the interpretation of this 1 result problematic. Self referents appear to be the primary referent for the respondents both in terms of perceived importance and as a determinant of their overall pay satisfaction. Length of service is a significant predictor of the importance of self or personal wage history referents for the Steelworker subsample. When indicating the importance of self referents respondents were asked to consider their skills, knowledge and abilities. These performance-related attributes are acquired over time. As individuals develop a personal wage history they come to rely upon what is arguably the most directly experienced, and most relevant referent available to them: themselves. Certainly, self referents are standards about which any given individual has the most information. Part II- Multiple Pay Referents: Correlational Analyses. Direct estimates of pay equity were taken using a fraction- ated scale. Measures of pay equity made relative to each of the pay referents were obtained using the procedure described in Chapter III and were then correlated with the pay satisfaction criterion variable. Table 8 displays the zero—order correlations of the pay equity perceptions made in relation to the five pay referents and pay satisfaction. Interitem correlations are also presented. With regard to interitem associations the primary observation is that all of the equity measures have a moderate relation with each other. Interitem correlations 126 Table 8 Zero-Order Correlations for Perceptions of Fairness/Equity Made in Relation to Five Reference Groups Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pay Satisfaction (l)-— Self Referent (2) .43*** __ Members of Same Bargaining Unit (3) Members of Other Bargaining Unit (4) Workers In Local Area (5) Workers Around Country (6) .33*** .44*** —— .35*** -39*** .33*** -- .27*** .31*** _27*** .34*** __ .33*** .45*** .2s*** .41*** .44*** -- **p < .01 **p < .001 127 range from r = .27 to r = .46, p < .001. Fundamentally these results would indicate a generalized or inconsistent perception of equity across all referent sources. Zero-order correlations of each equity measure with the pay satisfaction criterion indicate that five measures are significantly related to pay satisfaction. Moreover, the strength of the association across these five measures is subject only to modest variation (r = .27 to r = .48, p < .001). Each pay equity measure bears a significant relation— ship with the dependent variable of approximately the same magnitude. Part II - Multiple Pay Referents: Regression Analyses. Table 9 presents the results of stepwise regression analyses using each of the five pay equity perceptions as a predictor of pay satisfaction. These results are shown for the total sample as well as for each of the two subsamples. With regard to the total sample pay equity perceptions made relative to a self pay referent are the best predictors of pay satisfaction (p < .01). Equity perceptions made relative to employees in the other bargaining unit bear the second strongest predictive relationship (p < .01). This is not unexpected. An examination of the zero-order correlation matrix in Table 8 shows these perceptions having the second strongest relationship with the criterion measure (r = .35, p < .001). The moderate level of multicolinearity between the predictor variables suggests that perceptions made relative to workers around the country could have easily allowed this variable to enter the equation. The shared variance between 128 Table 9 Results of Stepwise Regression Analyses For Perceptions of Pay Fairness/Equity on Pay Satisfaction by Total Sample and Individual Bargaining Units Independent Variable Total Sample Beta Weight MNA Beta Weight Steelworker Beta Weight Self Referent .41** .18 .55** Members of Same Bargaining Unit .11 .03 .18 Members of Other Bargaining Unit .l9** .23** .18** Workers in Local Area .03 .04 .13 Workers Around Country .11 .35** .09 R2 adjusted .27 .23 .29 F - Valve 29.82*** 11.27*** 39.40*** N = 168 *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .901 129 perceptions of the same bargaining unit and workers around the country probably excluded the latter referent from entering the equation. An examination of the regression analyses by subsample sheds additional light on the results. Two pay equity referents effect the perception of pay satisfaction for both the MNA and Steelworker subsamples. The pay satisfaction measure bears a significant relationship to equity percep- tions made relative to workers around the country and members of the other (Steelworker) bargaining unit for MNA members (p < .01). For Steelworkers, self referents and members of the other bargaining unit (MNA members) are pay equity referents bearing the strongest predictive relationship with pay satisfaction (p < .01). Summary Personal characteristics, job characteristics and group identification variables do influence the perceived impor- tance of pay reference groups. The predictive value of variables within each category varied depending upon the particular referent under consideration. The amount of variance which could be accounted for in the perceived importance of any of the five referents was modest (coeffi- cients of determination ranged from three to fifteen percent). Indeed when the total sample is viewed (see Table 6), significant amounts of variance could be accounted for in only three of the five potential referents. Self referents were judged to be the most important standard by which the equitability of one's pay is determined. 130 Low to moderate levels of intercorrelation between the predictor variables did not substantially violate the statistical assumptions of the regression analyses performed in order to determine the independent effects of each predictor variable. In general, the results of these analyses indicate that few of these variables are potent forces in influencing the perceived importance of pay referents. Several theoretical and methodological issues require inspection: inadequacies in the proposed model for describing the referent selection process, and possible methodological and statistical considerations. Each of these issues is dealt with in the next chapter. Convincing evidence is seen to exist for the usage of multiple pay referents. Moderate to substantial intercorre- lations between the five independently recorded perceptions of pay equity indicate a global, and to some extent, undifferentiated perception of equity tends to exist regardless of the specific reference sources which generated it. More importantly, however, perceptions of pay equity made in relation to at least two referents independently accounted for significant amounts of variance in the pay satisfaction criterion variable. The results obtained from the field study are discussed in Chapter V in terms of the important issues identified in the introductory remarks of Chapter I and the specific hypotheses set forth in Chapter III. 131 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Discussion: Factors Influencing the Perceived Importance of Pay Reference Groups This study attempted to develop and substantiate a-model of the factors which influence the perceived importance of pay referents. The model drew upon the work of Goodman (1977) who identified personal and job characteristics as important determinants. Group identification and membership considerations were integrated into this framework to provide a more complete conceptualization of the process. A number of conclusions can be drawn from the results of the present study. Variables from within each of the three categories of influential factors (personal, job and group identification) were predictive of the importance of one or more pay referent groups. The predictive value of these variables was found, in general, to hold for boch the sample as a whole and for each of the individual subsamples. Despite the fact that certain variables were consistently predictive of pay referent importance, several considerations must be noted. These considerations are statistical or meth- odological in nature and are noted prior to the discussion of each influential category. Considerations. Many of the variables that the theories employed or the empirical literature suggested to be signifi- 132 cant predictors of a specific pay referent's importance were not for the sample population used. On an initial basis, one might suspect that problems of multicolinearity among the predictor variables could account for this. Indeed, several of the variables were intercorrelated with variables within their respective category and with variables from other cate- gories as well. An examination of the zero—order correlation matrix of these variables with the five pay referents (Table 5) reveals that concerns over high multicolinearity are not well founded. It can be seen that few of the zero-order cor- relation coefficients are significant (p < .05). One can con- clude that the low number of significant partial regression coefficients observed in Table 6 reflects a true lack of pre- dictive ability for much of the predictor set rather than statistical artifacts. A second consideration is the lack of overall predictive power of the regression equations for each of the five pay referents. The coefficients of determination ("variance explained") are relatively low (R2 = .03 to .15). The low coefficients of determination cast some doubt on the utility of these variables as predictors of pay referent importance. Indeed, when viewing the total sample, none of the indepen- dent variables were significant predictors of importance for two of the pay referents: self and other bargaining unit employees. With regard to personal and joo characteristics, the lack of predictive power is consistent with the results obtained by other researchers (Heneman et al., 1973; Hills, 1980: Goodman, 1974). 133 Sample size considerations are also relevant. In the present study total sample size was 168 respondents. The relatively large number of independent variables used is par— tially due to the necessity of dummy coding several categori- cal variables. In such instances the statistical power (ability to guard against Type I error) can be diminished. An associated difficulty is the diminishing reliability of the partial regression coefficients in each of the regression equations. Estimates of the reliability of the coefficients are not possible due to an inability to obtain additional samples from the respondent population. The reader should also note that since the regression analyses performed on the two subsamples utilized even smaller numbers of respondents (MNA = 68, Steelworkers = 100) these partial regression coef— ficients must be interpreted with caution. With these cau- tionary provisions in mind we now turn to the interpretation and discussion of the survey results. Personal Characteristics. Within the personal charac— teristics category more senior employees expressed that other health care employees in the local area and around the coun— try (both organizationally external) were not of significant importance to them as pay referents. This finding supports the notion that the instrumentality of external referents is low for individuals having invested lengthy amounts of time establishing organizationally specific skills and role rela- tionships (Andrews and Henry, 1963: Sheldon, 1971: Hrebiniak and Alutto, 1972). In unionized settings length of seniority is a recognized personal attribute or input which is deemed 134 compensable. Employees who either leave their current employer and join another unionized hospital or obtain employment in a nonunionized setting forfeit these seniority rights. While it was expected that more senior employees would tend to use internal pay referents, this relationship was not supported. The strong intercorrelation between age and seniority (r = .72, p < .001) coupled with age's significant zero-order correlation with external pay referents accounts for the lack of predictive power for this variable. The stronger associa- tion of seniority and external referents accounted for most of the shared variance which age could offer to the multiple regression equation. More senior employees in the Steelworker subsample per- ceived self pay referents to be of importance. It can be inferred that as employees develop a salary history, they tend to refer to it as a precise standard to evaluate the adequacy of their pay in relation to their longevity. This interpretation is consistent with that of Hills (1980) and Heneman et al. (1978). Since pay level increases with seniority the self referent should also enhance feelings of self worth and esteem (Goodman, 1977). The current findings provide support for the instrumentality of self referents in providing accurate and self-enhancing standards of reference for more senior employees. Educational level was operationalized as two dummy vari- ables. The results indicate that employees having higher educational levels tend to use employees from the same bar— 135 gaining unit as comparative pay referents. These findings provide limited support for the notion that individuals select similar others as pay referents particularly where performance related attributes are the dimension of compari- son (Geothals and Darley, 1978). Virtually all (97%) of the MNA bargaining unit and about half (43%) of the Steelworkers obtained a high level of education. Comparing the highest and lowest levels of educational attainment we find, in actu— ality, only four years of education separating these two groups. The level of educational attainment varies to a much greater extent in the work force population as a whole. With this in mind, the present method of operationalizing educa- tional attainment does not provide for a sufficient test of the effects of this variable. The present study's inability to replicate the association of higher educational levels with external pay referents reinforces this interpretation. Predispositions to leave the organization were associ- ated with the use of external pay referents as predicted. References to health care employees around the country gained importance with an increasing probability of quitting the organization. Within the Steelworkers' bargaining unit, it can be seen that not only are external pay referents used but self referents gain importance, as well. A possible inter- pretation of these results is that the perceived inequity which results from a comparison of what an employee receives in relation to what they feel they ought to receive (relative to some internalized referent) leads to a search of the external labor market. Intentions to quit the organization 136 were not associated with the importance of internal pay ref— erents for the total sample as predicted. Interpretations requiring the specification of causal sequences can only be made on a tentative basis. However, the intention to leave an organization is regarded as an outcome state which results from inequitable exchange relationships (Adams, 1965: Homans, 1961: Telley, French and Scott, 1971). It is consistent with equity theory formulations that external referents are sought out subsequent to the initial perception of pay inequity rel- ative to an internalized standard. Within this framework, external referents achieve their importance on the basis of their instrumentality in providing information regarding alternative employment (Finn and Lee, 1972: Goodman, 1977). Self referents, rather than similarly employed individuals internal to the organization, appear to be the catalyst on the basis of the present findings. Job Characteristics. Job characteristics were a second category of factors hypothesized to influence the importance of pay referents. Levels of skill provided valuable insight into the functioning of similarity and instrumentality. The evidence, however, is not highly conclusive. Licensed Prac- tical Nurses did demonstrate a significant preference for members of the same bargaining unit relative to Nurses Aides, Orderlies, Clerks and Ward Helpers (who compose 28% of the bargaining unit). The evidence for the importance of similar others is clear in this instance. Neither LPN's or Medica- tion LPN's perceived the MNA unit to be significantly impor- tant for pay comparison purposes. The expression of impor- 137 tance of this group would have indicated the instrumental placement of one's condition at a financial disadvantage. Accordingly, no support can be stated for Martin's (1979, 1981) or Oldham's et al. (1982) contention that instrumental comparisons are operating to enhance self-concepts or lay claim to a higher wage level. Nurses employed in supervisory skill levels perceived their union (the MNA) to be significantly less important than the lowest skill level perceived theirs to be (Steelworkers). This result was unexpected. A possible interpretation of this result is that of a "ceiling affect". Supervisory nurses occupy the highest skill level within the MNA bar- gaining unit (low skilled staff nurses occupy over half of the remaining positions). Consequently, comparisons in which supervisory nurses view the pay of their own union members are likely to result in the use of less skilled and lower pay referents, i.e., non-instrumental referents. This interpre- tation is consistent with the results of Table 7 which indi- cate that the MNA bargaining unit, as a whole, did perceive their fellow members to be as important a pay referents as Steelworker members considered their fellow unionists to be. Neither of the MNA skill levels perceived the Steelworker classifications to be of significant importance as pay refer— ents. Since negative pay references do not appear to have been engaged in, conclusive statements regarding the instru- mentality of such comparisons cannot be made. Stronger or more definitive statements with respect to the functioning of similarity and instrumentality are not 138 possible due to the lack of significant partial regression coefficients in the "same" and "other" bargaining unit ref- erent categories. The researcher is without a "critical test" or key contrasts by which a clear pattern of similarity versus instrumentality may be discovered. Evidence that downward pay comparisons are occurring comes forth from the wage level variable. We find that as the wage levels of MNA members increase (through some com- bination of seniority and position level) they tend to use Steelworkers as pay referents. This trend was not evident in the sample as a whole nor the Steelworker subsample. This would indicate that downward comparisons are occurring where the average pay level is higher to begin with. This finding is contrary to what had been hypothesized based on a prepon- derance of the literature. The less frequent finding of downward pay comparisons has been documented where the size of pay differentials bet- ween employee classes is an indication of relative organiza- tional worth or individual advancement through the organiza— tional hierarchy (Andrews and Henry, 1963: Goodman, 1974; Martin 1978). With the current sample, these downward com- parisons would indicate the MNA members are focusing on Steelworker wage levels as an indication of their relative success in the collective bargaining process. Historically, the maintenance of "adequate" wage differentials between registered nurses and LPN's has been a fundamental bargaining objective for the more highly paid RN group (Handren, 1983: Miller, 1930). The differential itself is symbolic recogni— 139 tion (and financial, of course) of the greater skill and pro— fessionalism RN's are acknowledged to possess to their LPN counterparts. Group Identification and Membership. Issues of multi- coliniarity become more germane with regard to the group identification/membership category of predictors. Moderate levels of intercorrelation between these variable can be seen. More importantly, these variables are also intercorre- lated with variables from the personal and job characteris- tics category. As such they "compete" for entry into the regression equation with their intercorrelated counterparts. Interpretation of these partial regression coefficients can, therefore, become problematic. We, therefore turn to an ini- tial interpretation of the zero-order correlation coeffi— cients in Table 5. The complete lack of association between the cosmopoli— tan-local construct and any of the five potential pay refer- ents brings into question the theoretical basis by which this variable would influence pay referent importance. The con- struct, as operationalized, captures Gouldner's (1957, 1958) dimensions of commitment to specialized skills and organiza- tional loyalty. The construct defined in this manner excludes provisions for utilitarian dimensions. The finan— cial or economic benefits of identifying with professional groups external to the organization (or internal, for that matter) are not integral aspects of the construct. Two interpretations of the present results are possible. The experimental evidence supporting the use of external 140 pay referents by professionals has typically employed such measures as educational level, position level, judged pro— fessional ability or membership in professional societies to indicate professionalism. (Finn and Lee, 1972: Haire et al., 1963: Carol and Tombari, 1980). The method of operational- ization employed in the current study focuses on commitment to specialized skills. While commitment to such skills is conceived to be an important aspect of professionalism, it is a highly indirect measure or inadequate proxy for the con- struct of professionalism itself. A related issue is the extent to which the respondent population would exhibit cos- mopolitan or professional characteristics to begin with. The respondents in the present study were hospital employees (supervisory nurses being the most skilled) in a remote region in Northern Michigan. Legitimate questions about the validity of the concept of cosmopolitanism for employees who may be regarded as "semi—professionals" at best (Katz, 1969) can be raised. Questions regarding the professional status of the nur- sing staff in the present study are further raised by the lack of significant correlations of key predictor variables with outside pay referents. Cosmopolitanism, high skill lev- els, and high educational levels failed to relate with the perceived importance of pay referents external to the organi— zation. This three dimensional cluster of attributes is often regarded as a hallmark of professional standing (Etzioni, 1969). Bennis et al. (1958) and more recently Grims and Berger (1970) have argued that the concept of pro- 141 fessionalism may require some rethinking at least in regard to the nursing profession. Professional advancement and rec- ognition within the broader professional group comes from advancement within administrative or educational areas in the local nursing situation. Bennis et al. (1958) contend (and the present author agrees) that unless nursing and other "professional" groups can develop an organizational hierarchy which will create reward systems for pursuing those functions for which one is trained, a dysfunctional cycle of gaining job specialization, low commitment to the local structure, and high mobility and turnover will result. A second interpretation is that commitment to special- ized role skills or adherence to professional norms of con— duct are not the operative dynamics which influence a pay referents importance, but rather the association with indi- viduals or actual membership in groups for economic ends. The idea that cosmopolitans are members of the larger "pro- fessional community" affords them "membership" in a highly abstract group. Membership in business organizations or in unions requires continuing face-to-face interpersonal rela— tions with other members which occur, in these instances, for specific financial goals. Membership in these organizations is, at least initially, predicated on some economic basis of association where the benefits of membership are continually evaluated. Of course, the benefits of membership in groups may be nonfinancial. Individuals do identify with groups on the basis of commonly held values and goals. Many of the respondents in the present study indicated in their comments 142 that they were nurses because they "wanted to help people". It would appear that the distinctive feature of group norms or values which do influence pay referent importance is that they incorporate some dimension of acceptable distribution or adequacy of the level of remuneration. The commitment to organizations and unions (as operationalized in the present study) better reflects this instrumental dimension as a basis of group identification. Organizational commitment evidenced a significant and negative zero-order correlation with the importance of external referents (local and around the country) as pre- dicted. This group indentification variable was not found to be a significant predictor in the regression equations for these two referents, however. Two possible sets of condi— tions can account for this (and probably a combination of both is the most adequate explanation). First, organizational commitment was found to share significant amounts of variance with length of service and intentions to quite the organization. These latter two variables were found to enter the regression equations for external referents. As a result, little variance was left "to be explained" by the commitment variable. Secondly, the conceptualization and operationalization of the organizational commitment construct may have been deficient for the purposes of the present study. The orga- nizational commitment scale developed by Lyman Porter and his colleagues was used (Mowday, Steers, and Porter, 1979: 1982: Porter et al., 1974). This measure conceives of commitment 143 as a desire to remain with the organization, internalizing values and goals of the organization, and a willingness to exert effort on its behalf. Defined in this manner, commit- ment focuses on the moral involvement an individual may develop i.e., an internalization of values. It is an affec- tive response to the social system (Angle and Perry, 1985). Alternative conceptualizations of organizational commitment stress that attachment to organizations derives from an eco- nomic exchange where members bond to the organization through parsimonious extrinsic outcomes on the basis of costs and benefits (Ritzer and Trice, 1969: Becker, 1960). The dis— tinction between these two forms of commitment has been char- acterized as moral versus calculative involvement (Angle and Perry, 1985: Etzioni, 1975). On the basis of the present findings, it is argued that a perceived commonality of values or shared sense of purpose are inadequate conceptualizations of the indentification mechanism serving to influence an individual's choice of referents. It is, rather, the nature of the exchange relationship between the individual and the group which determines the extent of identification and, in turn, the use of the group as a referential standard. In this sense, organizational identification might be termed the desire to maintain membership. Individuals who perceive the organization to be an important and continuing source of rewards which can be obtained through equitable exchange would tend to identify with it. Union commitment was found to be predictive of the importance of similar others (members of the same bargaining 144 unit) as pay referents as predicted. The underlying basis of union commitment (as operationalized using the scale devel- oped by Gordon et al., 1930) is a recognition of the union's ability to provide important benefits to its members. Indi- viduals who express high amounts of loyalty to the union per- ceive an ability on the part of the labor organization to advance the work-related interests of the membership. Iden— tification with the union based upon a shared ideology that unions safeguard the interests of workers clearly represents the instrumental nature of the attachment. Employee affilia- tion with other similarly employed union members through direct contact and the development of shared beliefs (norms) about acceptable work—related outcomes are important aspects of this loyalty (Gordon et al., 1980: Kidron, 1978). (Gener- ally, these are largely the mechanisms by which reference groups come to function as pay referents (Martin, 1931)). The current findings reinforce these notions. 'Union members committed to their labor organization tended to use fellow members as a standard to evaluate the fairness of their pay. The zero-order correlation results indicate members of the MNA referred to their fellow association members as pay standards significantly less than Steelworkers referred to theirs. These results are consistent with the effects found for employment in higher skill levels (supervisory posi- tions). This, of course, is a relative index of importance. Significant correlations between the union affiliation vari- able and "members of the other bargaining unit" are also required in order to draw definitive conclusions with regard 145 to the impact of similarity and instrumentality. Unfortu- nately, no such correlations were obtained. Table 5 displays six variables having significant zero- order correlation coefficients with members of the same bar- gaining unit. Union affiliation, the sixth variable, can be seen to be significantly intercorrelated with the other five. Four of the other five variables display significant partial regression coefficients with members of the same bargaining unit. Due to the high multicoliniarity of these predictor variables with membership in the MNA, it is not surprising that a significant effect is not demonstrated for union affiliation. To summarize, the results of the present study provide mixed evidence in support of the model depicting factors influencing the perceived importance of pay referents. While there is evidence to support the notion of similarity between the comparer and referent as a fundamental dynamic upon which perceived importance is based, instrumentality appears to be the primary mechanism though which the factors operate. The predictive value of the model is limited with regard to pay referents employed in the current study. Even so, personal and job characteristics provide systematic and significant influences on the referent standard an individual perceives to be important in the evaluation of their pay. Group identification and membership do influence the importance a pay referent may be perceived to have. This is particularly true for groups which are viewed as sources of economic reward or are instrumental in obtaining them. 146 Discussion: Multiple Pay Referents This study also investigated the possibility of concur- rent usage of multiple pay referents. The extent to which perceptions of pay equity (made in relation to a variety of potential referents) independently account for significant amounts of variance in an overall reaction of pay satisfact- ion (the criterion) is argued to be evidence for this phe- nomenon's existence. (Goodman, 1974; Martin, 1932). The intercorrelations between the pay equity measures are seen in Table 3 in moderate to substantial levels. One interpretation of this finding is that common method variance is operating to "inflate" the true relationship between these perceptions. When using one method of measurement or scales to collect data on a series of items, the tendency of respondents to give similar or patterned responses is well documented. While a common method may be serving to inflate the true relationship between the five equity perceptions, it is reasonable to believe that the effect is negligible. The number of perceptions asked for in the fractionated format was small and should not have served to engender a patterned response. In essence, the results do indicate a generalized perception of pay equity does exist for the current sample. The results of the regression analyses must be inter— preted with the following qualification in mind. The equity measures indicate the degree of perceived pay equity/inequity that the individual perceives, rather than the importance of the referent to which it was made. The distinction being made here is that these measures indicate degree rather than 147 importance. With this in mind, we can see in Table 9 that the pay satisfaction experienced by the total sample is most determined by perceptions made relative to self referents (primarily) and with members of the other bargaining unit. In the case of self referents, the strength of the perception coincides with the importance attributed to the referent. Members of the MNA largely base this perception of pay satisfaction on what other RN's are perceived to be earning around the country. Whether these nurses have accurate information about labor market pay rates for RN's is a sepa— rate issue. The amount of pay equity perceived in relation to the Steelworker bargaining unit is the second greatest influence on RN pay satisfaction. The traditional collective bargaining objective of RN units to maintain an appropriate wage differential with LPN's is evidenced by this referent's influence. In the latter instance, once again we find evi- dence of downward pay comparisons. For the Steelworker bar- gaining unit, pay satisfaction is largely based upon percep- tions of equity made relative to a self referent (relative to what they "ought" to be earning given their skills, knowledge and abilities). Approximately one-third of the employees within this union are from the lower skill levels: orderlies, clerks, nurses aides, and ward helpers. The remainder of the bargaining unit is composed of equal parts of LPN's and medi- cation LPN's. On the basis of the present results, these individuals rely upon this internal standard as a primary pay referent. The pay satisfaction of Steelworkers is also sig— nificantly effected by the perceived input/outcome rations of 148 RN's. The present results using direct estimates of pay equality in relation to multiple reference standards substan- tiate earlier research suggestive of multiple referent usage (Goodman, 1974: Finn and Lee, 1972: Hills, 1980). Respondents in the current study did not appear to use a boundless vari- ety of reference sources, however. with regard to the total sample and each subsample, two sources were employed. This finding is supportive of Oldham et al. (1932) who found that most individuals use two or fewer referents when judging the complexity of their jobs. Goodman's (1974) contention that most individuals use multiple referents also receives sup- port. However, while an individual may be aware of a large number of potential pay referents (five or more) little sup- port is demonstrated for Goodman's contention that each has a recognizable impact. Conclusions The research findings of this field studyhave signifi— cant implications for both practitioners and researchers. These applications are discussed in the final section. The model of factors which influence perceived impor- tance of pay referents received limited support both in regard to the predictive value of the independent variables employed and for the dynamics through which they are theor- ized to gain importance. Personal characteristics, job char- acteristics and group identification variables do effect the perceived importance of potential pay referents. The amount of variation which can be accounted for in referent impor- tance is low but comparable with other research attempts. 149 The extent to which similarity between the comparer and the referent is an influential factor in referent selection may be understated in the present study. This may be due to unavoidable methodological considerations. The number of potential pay referents was reduced to a limited set of "relevant" referents on the basis of pilot testing. As described in Chapter IV, this reduction was completed in order to systematically study factors which may influence their importance. This pre-selection of "relevant" referents may have restricted the extent to which the similarity of relevant others was left to vary. Additional research is required which directly assesses the perceived similarity of the comparer and referent on variables within the person, job and group categories. Similarity and instrumentality may not be interrelated in a simple fashion as depicted in the model. A fundamental theoretical premise upon which most of the literature reviewed was based is an unidirectional flow of causality: Given that an individual has a number of similar referents from which to select pay standards, he or she does so on the basis of the instrumentality of each referent in satisfying a host of needs. It is conceivable and arguable that the pro- cess also occurs in the reverse: Groups or individuals which earn greater amounts of pay may be perceived (or at least publicly argued) to be similar. The data developed by Joann Martin and her colleagues can be reinterpreted as support for this latter process. Further research is required to deter— mine the causal interrelationship of the two dynamics. 150 The implications of the current research findings speak directly to human resource managers and to compensation administrators specifically. Typically, the internal wage relativities between jobs are established using some method of job evaluation focusing on such factors as the education required, experience, responsibility and other compensable factors. Competitive pay rates i.e., those which are equit- able with the "going rate" in the external labor market are established through wage surveys. Integration of these two processes results (in theory) in a wage structure which is equitable and competitive facilitating the organizations efforts to attract and maintain employees. The current find- ings demonstrate that, depending upon personal and job char- acteristics, the internal versus external equity of the posi- tion's pay rate may command relatively greater amounts of the employee's attention. We also find evidence to indicate that employees occupying positions from different occupational levels use each other as pay referents. Supervisors and man- agerial levels may perceive the wage levels of their subordi— nates to be perceptually indistinguishable (downward compari- sons indicating wage compression). Small increments in pay levels which accompany what are perceived to be large increases in the effort required to perform a job will result in little or no motivation on the part of the employees to rise within the organization. These considerations are equally true for collectively bargained wage rates. Negotia- tors must maintain an awareness of traditional relativities between wage rates which employees come to rely upon as bell— 151 weathers of bargaining success. As a rule, however, wage information is highly available in unionized environments: Collective bargaining agreements are publicly available: Union newsletters describe settlement provisions, and pay rates are openly discussed among union members. Inequities are easily identified and usually affect entire groups of employees - conditions which lead to perceptions of relative deprivation and group action. In the public sector, pay rates are a matter of public record. The secretive pay poli- cies of the private sector are unavailable to public sector administrators who are experiencing decreasing acceptance of arbitrarily set levels of pay. Self pay referents were found to be the premier standard by which equity is judged. This was true for both the per— ceived importance of this referent and its relative impact upon the determination of pay satisfaction. The inability of the present study to determine the factors which may influ— ence the development of this referent's importance leaves a significant gap in knowledge. Further refinements in the con- ceptualization of the self referent will be required to spe- cify the selective processes involved. It has been suggested that self referents are actually multidimensional referents composed of: historical or actual wage histories, perceptions of personal worth, perceptions of the cost-of-living, beliefs about adequate levels of pay and promises of future pay increases made by the organization (Heneman et al., 1973: Hills, 1980: Goodman, 1974). Clearly, more research is required to explore this referent which 152 individuals experience most directly. A final implication of this study derives from the num- ber of pay referents which actually have an impact on an individual's satisfaction with their pay. The present find- ings indicate that multiple (albeit few) referents actually receive perceptual recognition. It is the task of the com- pensative professional to determine those primary referents for individuals and to ensure that as the individual pro- gresses through his or her career equitability with these dynamic referents is maintained. APPEL‘JD IX APPENDIX A Dear MNA and USU Local - 206A Member: The study in which you are about to participate is designed to detenmine your attitudes toward your Union/Association and your Job. The leadership of the MNA. USH - Local 206A and the Hospital support this study. They feel that the study will help them understand your attitudes toward your job and the services which your Union/Association provides. Because part of the project involves certain statistical analyses, it is necessary for us to request your name and a signed waiver releasing your personnel file. No one at the Hospital, the Union, or the Association will see any of the completed questionnaires or the personnel materials. Only members of the MSU research team will see the questionnaires and personnel materials and they will immediately convert names to numbers. The leadership of MNA, USN - Local 206A, and the Hospital have agreed to this arrangement. The M.S.U. research team guarantees that these pledges will be honored. .A survey of this kind can only be as good as the cooperation given by the participants. Each question should be answered completely. We urge you to give each question your most thoughtful, careful consideration and accurate response. ‘ If you participate in this study and would allow the M.S.U. research team cosfidential access to your personnel file, please print your name. position, an date. flame Position Date Thank vou verv much for your cooperation and assistance. 154 We would like to ask you some specific questions about your and your job at the Hospital. Please circle or fill in the appropriate responses. 1. What union/association are you a member of? l. Michigan Nurses Association 2. United Steelworkers of America How long have you worked at the Hospital? years How old are you? years What is your sex? 1. Male 2. Female What is your ethnic background? 1. Black 4. American Indian 2. Caucasian 5. Asian 3. Hispanic 5. Other What is your marital status: 1. Single 2. Married What is your level of education? . Grade eight or less . Some high school . Completed high school 1 year LPN community college or hospital LPN program Community college - Associate degree Community college degree unrelated to nursing . Diploma grad (three-year nursing school program) Attended college - no degree completed Undergraduate university (B.S.N. or other) N H a \JGWUlqu) a \O 03 a o 10. Graduate courses at university 11. Completed graduate degree (M.S.N.) or other) Which of the following labels best describes your present job classification? 1. General Nurse (Staff Nurse) 7. Medication L.P.N. 2. Charge Nurse 8. L.P.N. 3. Unit Supervisor 3. Nurse Aid 4. Inservice Instructor lO. Orderlies 5. Quality Assur. Coordinator ll. Ward Clerk 6. House Supervisor 12. House Orderlies 13. Ward Helpers Below are several statements dealing with possible feel— ings that an individual might have about the union/asso- ciation which he/she belongs to. We would like you to indicate the degree to which you Agree or Disagree with each statement by circling the appropriate number. Please be honest: your answer will be kept in the strict- est of confidence. 155 Strongly E‘Disagree Slightly Disagree 9 Neither Slightly NDisagree U1Agree Agree 0»Agree \JStrongly w 1. I feel a sense of pride being a part of this union/association 2. Based on what I know now 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and what I can expect in the future, I plan to be a member of the union/assoc. the rest of the time I work for the Hospital. U1 Cl \J 3. The record of this union/ 1 2 3 4 assoc. is a good example of what dedicated people can get done. OT \1 4. The union/association's l 2 3 4 5 problems are my problems (fl \1 3. Even though he/she may not 1 2 3 4 5 like parts of it, the union/ assoc. member must "live up to" all terms of the Articles of Agreement R) U) 4;. U1 (A \J o. The only reason I belong to l the union/assoc. is to make sure I get promotions or transfers of job assignment Oh \I 7. My loyalty is to my work, 1 2 3 4 5 not to the union/assoc. 8. It's every union/assoc. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 member's responsibility to see to it that management "lives up to" all terms of the Articles of Agreement 0\ \l 9. It is the duty of every 1 2 3 4 5 worker "to keep his/her ears open" for information that might be useful to the union/association. IAL 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 17. 18. 19. 156 >10) (D HQ) 0) 033-4 H com Orb m HID m +LH «4 (DO 0 Members of this local are 1. 2 not expected to have a strong personal commitment to the union/association. Moving ahead in the Hospital 1 2 is more important than staying in the union/ association. Members should pay attention 1 2 to the union label. A union/association member 1 2 has more security than most members of management. I feel little loyalty toward 1 2 this union/association. As long as I'm doing the l 2 kind of work I enjoy, it does not matter if I belong to a union/association. It's every member's duty to l 2 support or help another worker use the grievance procedure. I believe that union member- 1 2 ship and participation should be positive factors of merit and efficiency. I am willing to put in a l 2 great deal of effort beyond that normally expected of a member in order to make the union/association successful. I could just as well work in l 2 a non-union hospital as long as the type of work was similar. wSlightly Disagree "i Neither UiSlightly Agree G‘Agree U1 U] Gi Oh 0W 0\ Ch ON Cl \JStrongly Agree 20. 21. 22. 23. 21. 25. 26. 27. 23. 29. 30. 157 I have little confidence and 1 trust in most members of my union/association. I talk up the union/assoc. to my friends as a great Organization to be a member of. There's a lot to be gained by joining a union/assoc. The council newsletter is not worth reading. I doubt that I would do special work to help the union/association. Deciding to join the union/ association was a smart move on my part. My values and the union/ association's values are not very similar. It's every member's duty to know exactly what the Articles of Agreement entitle him/her to. I rarely tell others that I am a member of the union/ association. It's the stewards's job, not the member's duty to see that management is living by the contract. It's every union member's responsibility to see that other members "live up to" all the terms of the of Agreement. Strongly Disagree k,Disagree 0,81ightly Disagree “3 Neither a ... 4.) szlw 002m "43-434 F1030 034!£ 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 \JStrongly Agree "" I 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 37. 158 Strongly *‘Disagree k>Disagree u,Slightly Disagree IsNeither Slightly Agree 0‘Agree \JStrongly Agree U1 If asked, I would serve on a committee for the union/ association. The union/association news— 1 2 3 4 5 6 letter does not contain any useful information. (A \1 If asked, I would run for l 2 3 4 5 an elected office in the union/association. It's easy "to be yourself" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and still be a member of the union/association. Very little that the l 2 3 4 5 6 7 membership wants has any real importance to the union/association. Ul 0x \l The member does not get 1 2 3 4 enough benefits for the money taken by the union/ association for initiation fees and dues. N bx) .L‘. U“ OW \l Every member must be 1 prepared to take the time and risk of filing a grievance. 10. What is the probability that you will QUIT YOUR JOB for whatever reason with the Hospital within the next TWO YEARS? ( AAAAA ) VVVVV 100% - I AM ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAI I WILL BE QUITTING 30% 60% 40% 20% 0% - I AM ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT I WILL NOT BE QUITTING ll. Listed below are a series of statements that represent 159 possible FEELINGS that YOU might have about the Hospital. Please indicate how strafigly you Agree or Disagree that each statement reflects YOUR ATTITUDES toward the Hospi— tal by circling the appropriate number. TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE THAT ....... >100) >ch >1 >1 raa)w 91034 H r4 U‘HHJJHOJJJ Ul {30103505500530 0G3!!! GNU-OJ moooo Hmm-Hm-H-HHH HH JJ-r-i-v-l u-l-u-ICDI-iUlUl-UU‘ . aunt: uaa:z 03¢ «c and 1. I am willing to put in l 2 3 4 5 6 7 a great deal of effort beyond that normally ex- pected to help the Hospi- tal be successful. 2. I talk up the Hospital to l 2 3 4 5 3 7 my friends as a great or- ganization to work for. 3. I feel very little loyalty 'l 2 3 4 5 6 7 to the Hospital. Ul Oi \l 4. I would accept almost any 1 2 3 4 types of job assignments in order to keep working for the Hospital. Cl \1 5. I find that my values and l 2 3 4 5 the values of the Hospital are very similar. ON \1 6. I am proud to tell others 1 2 3 4 3 that I am part of the Hospital. 7. I could just as well be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 working for a different hospital as long as the type of work was similar. 0W \1 3. The Hospital inspires the l 2 3 4 5 very best of me in the way of job performance. Ol \a 9. I would take very little 1 2 3 4 5 change in my present circumstances to cause me to leave the Hospital. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 160 I am extremely glad that I chose the Hospital to work for over others I was considering at the time I joined. There is not too much to be gained by sticking with the Hospital indefinitely. Often, I find it difficult to agree with the Hospital's policies on important mat- ters relating to its employ- ees. I really care about the fate of the Hospital. For me, the Hospital is the best of all possible organizations for which to work. Deciding to work for the Hospital was a definite mistake on my part. Strongly Disagree k» Disagree , H >10 >1 H G) H H 4-1 H 0) 4-, .Ctfi.£ £3010 GNU U (fifl)m 'I-i U) '0'! '0'! H H v-l-v-l G) H mm (DC) Z (0‘24 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 o 3 4 5 6 \1 Strongly Agree 12. Here are some questions reflecting how some people view themselves and those they work with. strongly you Agree or Disagree with each statement by cir- cling the appropriate number. There are very few people Hospital with whom I can share professional inter- ests. H Strongly Disagree N Disagree Please indicate how >~m a rim $4 a usq m +J .ctm.c J:Q)o UHU u two’s vim wi-HS4H ram: m Flows ma: 2 uano1w >1 m raaim r40) H Fl H msah 4JL4 m +’ ow GOU‘SU‘SSOO G0 omrd OWTUJJO‘OGJ OCD H mcp mum wi-H Hi4 Lin 4J-v-l-v-l H-u-IGJI—IU‘Ul-UU‘ UJDCJ wt: 2 names msc 2. I get most of my intellec- l ,2 3 4 5 6 7 tual stimulation from my Hospital colleagues. 3. I get most of my intellec- l 2 3 4 5 6 7 tual stimulation from my professional associates in other institutions. 13. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR PAY AS ..... (Please circle) '0 1. Income adequate YES NO ? 5. Satisfactory YES NO for normal ex- profit shar— penses ing 2. Less than I de- YES NO ? 6. Barely YES NO ? serve enough to live on 3. Insecure YES NO ? 7. Bad YES NO ? 4. Highly paid YES NO ? 3. Income pro— YES NO ? vides luxur 1es '0 9. Underpaid YES NO ***STOP*** Before you go on any further Raise Your Hand for A M.S.U. Research Member to assist you For each of the following questions we would like you to write a number as an answer. We will give you a yardstick to use in responding. These questions will deal with the amount you receive for wages at the Hospital. All answers will be compared to what we have defined as the average amount of fairness based on the typical duties, knowledge, skills and abilities required to do your job. the average amount of fairness is represented by 103. The total absence of fairness is represented by 2. _—— 162 Here is an example: QUESTION YARDSTICK ANSWER How fair is the amount of O = totally unfair time you receive for 100 = average coffee breaks? If you think the amount of time you receive for coffee breaks is average in terms of fairness, write 123. If you think it is above average you would write 105, 123: 144 or any other number. If you think it is twice as fair as average, write 229. If you think the amount of time you receive for coffee breaks is less fair than average, e.g., 1/2 as fair, write 59. If you think that it is less than 1/2 as fair you would write 42, 22, 19, 9 or any other number. QUESTION YARDSTICK ANSWER 14. How fair is the amount 0 = totally unfair you receive for wages? 100 = what others in your bargaining unit at the Hospi- tal receive. For the next set of questions we would like you to tell us how fair you think the amount you receive for wages is when compared to the amounts received by workers performing nurs— ing related duties (RNs, LPNs, orderlies, aides) employed in the surrounding area. When making these fairness judgments, think about your duties, knowledge, skills and abilities of workers performing nursing related duties in the surrounding area. Here, 100 = what workers performing nursing related duties employed in the surrounding area receive. QUESTION YARDSTICK ANSWER 17. How fair is the amount 0 = totally unfair you receive for wages? 100 what workers performifig—related duties employed in the surrounding area receive. For the next set of question we would like you to tell us how fair you think the amount you receive for wages is when compared to the amount received by workers performing nursing related duties (RNs, LPNs, orderlies, aides around the country. When making these fairness judgements, think about your duties, knowledge, skills and abilities of workers 164 performing nursing related duties around the country. Here, 100 = what workers performing nursing duties around the country receive. QUESTION YARDSTICK ANSWER 18. How fair is the amount 0 totally fair what workers performing nurs- ing related duties around the country receive. you receive for wages? lOO Now we would like you to indicate how important these other groups are in determining how fair you see your wages. Using the list presented below, distribute 100 points among the groups to indicate how important they are. Thus, the most important group would have the highest number of points. l9. DISTRIBUTE lOO POINTS AMONG THE GROUPS TO INDICATE THEIR IMPORTANCE IN YOUR FEELINGS OF FAIRNESS. POINTS a) Myself, in terms of the duties, knowledge and abilities I provide . . . . . b) Others in your bargaining unit at the Hospi— tal . D C O C c) Employees in the other bargaining unit at the Hospital . . . . . d) Workers performing nursing—related duties in the surrounding area . . . . . e) Workers performing nursing—related duties around the country . . . . . TOTAL 100 LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, J.S. Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 2, New York: Academic Press, 1965. Adams, J.S. Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1363, £1, 422—436. Adams, J.S. and Freedman, S. Equity theory revisited: Comments and annotated bibliography. In L. Berkowitz and E. Walster (Eds.), Equity Theory: Toward a General Theory of Social Interaction. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 9). New York: Academic Press, 1976. Alutto, J.A. and Belasco, J.A. Determinants of attitudinal militancy among nurses and teachers. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 1974, 3, 216-227. Anderson, J.C., and Milkovich, G.T. Propensity to leave: A preliminary examination of March and Simon's model. Relations Industrielles, 1930, 32, 273+292. Andrews, I.R. and Henry, M.M. Management attitudes toward pay. Industrial Relations, 1963, 2(1), 23-39. Andrews, I.R. and Valenzi, E. Overpay inequity or self— image as a worker: A critical examination of an experimental induction procedure. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1970, 23, 22-27. Angle, H.L. and Perry, J.L. Dual commitment and labor— management relationship climates. Academy of Management Journal, 1936, E3, 31—50. Arrowood, J.A. and Friend, R. Other factors determining the choice of a comparison other. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1969, 2, 233—23). Austin, W. Equity Theory and Social Comparison Processes. In J. Suls and R. Miller (Eds.), Social Comparison Theory: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives, Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1977. 165 166 Barnett, G.A., Hamlin, D.M., and Danowski, J.A. The use of fractionation scales for communication audits. In B. Rubin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 5. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books - ICA, 1982. Becker, H.S. Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 1960, fig, 32-40. Belcher, D.W. Compensation Administration. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, 1964. Bennis, W.G., Berkowitz, N., Affinito, M. and Malone, M. Reference groups and loyalties in the out-patient department. Administrative Science ggarterly, 1953, 481-500. Berkowitz, L. and Walster, E. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 9. New York: Academic Press, 1976. Blau, P.M., and Scott, W.R. Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach. San Francisco, Calif.: Chandler, 1962. Brown, W. Social determinants of pay. In G.M. Stephenson and C.J. Brotherton (Eds.), Industrial Relations: A Social Psychological Approach, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1979. Campbell, J., and Pritchard, R.O. Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organiza— tional Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976. Carrell, M.R., and Dittrich, J.E. Equity theory: The recent literature, methodological considerations, and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 1978, 3, 202-210. ‘ Carroll, S.J., Jr. and Tombari, H.A. Factors related to pay satisfaction in three occupational groups. Unpublished working paper, 1930. Chamberlain, and Kuhn. Collective Bargaining. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1934. Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. Applied Multiple Regres— sion/Correlation Analysis For the Behavioral Sciences. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1975: Cook, J.D., Crosby, F. and Hennigan, K.J. The construct validity of relative deprivation. In J.M. Suls and R.I. Miller (Eds.), Social Comparison Processes. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1979. 167 COOK, J.D., Hepworth, S.J., Wall, ToDol and ”an, P.B. The Experience of Work: A Compendium and Review of 249 Measures and Their Use. London: Academic Press, 1981. Cook, K.S. and Puarcel, T.L. Equity theory: Directions for future research. Sociological Inquiry, 1977, Al, ‘75-'88. Crosby, F. A model of egoistical relative Psychological RGVi~3Wl 1.976! Q.’ 85-113. Crosby, F. Relative Deprivation and Working Women. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. Davis, J.A. A formal interpretation of the theory of relative deprivation. Sociometry, 1959, EA, 230-296. Dean, L.R. Union activity and dual loyalty. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 1954, 1, 526-536. Delafield, G.L. Social Comparisons and Pay. In G.M. Stephenson and C.J. Brotherton (Eds.), Industrial Relations: A Social Psychological Approach, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1979. Doeringer, P., and Piore, M.I. Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis. Lexington, MA: Heath, 1971. Dutton, D. Attribution of cause for opinion change and liking for audience members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 23, 203-216. Dyer, L. and Theriault, R. The determinants of pay satisfac- tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, éi, 596-604. Etzioni, A. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: Free Press, 1975. Etzioni, A. The Semi-Professions and Their Organization. New York: Free Press, 1969. Feldman, N.S. and Ruble, D.N. Social comparison strategies: Dimensions offered and options taken. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1931, 7, 11—16. Festinger, L.A. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 1954, 1, 117-149. Finn, R.H. and Lee, S.M. Salary equity: Its determination, analysis and correlates, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972, ii, 233—292. 168 Flango, V.E. and Brumbaugh, R.E. The dimensionality of the cosmopolitan-local construct. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1975’ 20] 198-210. Gallagher, D.G. The relationship between organizational and union commitment among federal government employees. Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 1984, 319-323. Gartrell, C.D. On the visibility of wage referents. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 1982, 1, 117-143. Glaser, B.G. The local—cosmpolitan scientist. American Journal of Sociology, 1963, g9 249-259. Goethals, G.R. and Darley, J. Social comparison theory: An attributional approach. In J.M. Suls and R.L. Miller (Eds.), Social Comparison Process: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1977. Goodman, P.S. An examination of referents used in the evaluation of pay. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1974, $2, 179-195. Goodman, P.S. Social comparison processes in organizations. In S.M. Staw and G.R. Salancik (Eds.), New Directions in Organizational Behavior. Chicago: St. Clair Press, 1977. Goodman, P.S. and Friedman, A. An examination of the effect of wage inequity in the hourly condition. Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Performance, 1963, 3, 340-352. ‘ Goodman, P.S. and Friedman, A. An examination of Adam's theory of inequity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, gg, 271-233. Gordon, 8. Influence and social comparison as motives for affiliation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1966, E (Supplement 1): 55-65. Gordon, M.E., Philpot, J.W., Burt, R.R., Thompson, C.A., Spiller, W.E. Commitment to union: Development of a measure and an examination of its correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1939, ii, 479-499. Gouldner, A. Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an analysis of latent social roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1957, a, 231—396. Grimes, A.J., and Berger, P.K. Cosmopolitan-local: Evaluation of the construct. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1979, ii, 497-415. 169 Gruder, C.L. Choice of comparison persons in evaluating oneself. In J.M. Suls and R.L. Miller (Eds.), Social Comparison Processes: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1977b. Gruder, C.L. Determinants of social comparison choices. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1977, 1, 473-499. Gurney, J.N. and Tierney, K.J. Relative deprivation and social movements: A critical look at twenty years of theory and research. The Sociological Quarterly, 1932, 2;, 33-49. Gurr, T.R. Why Men Rebel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970. Hakmiller, K. Need for self—evaluation, perceived similar— ity, and comparison choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1936, 3, (Supplement 1): 49-54. Haire, M., Ghiselli, E.E., and Porter, L. Psychological research on pay: An Overview. Industrial Relations, 1963, 3, 3-3. Handren, K.L. Collective bargaining in the Michigan nursing profession. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Michigan State University, 1933. Heneman, H.G. III: Schwab, D.P.: Standal, J.T. and Peterson, R.E. Pay comparisons, dimensionality and predictabil- ity. Proceedings of the 33th Annual Academy of Management Meetings, San Francisco, 1973, 211-215. Hills, P.S. The relevant other in pay comparisons. Indus- trial Relations, 1930, 19(3), 345-351. Hinton, B.L. The experimental extension of equity theory to interpersonal and group interaction situations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972, a 434-449. Homans, G.C. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt Brace & World, 1961. Hoxie, R.E. Trade Unionism in the United States. New York: Appleton, 1919. Hrebiniak, L.G., and Alutto, J.A. Personal and role-related factors in the development of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, $1, 555-572. 17o Hyman, H.H. The psychology of status. Archives of Psychology, 1942, 38, 1-99. Cited in H.H. Hyman and E. Singer, (Eds.), Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research,. New York: Free Press, 1968. Hyman, R. and Brough, I. Social Values and Industrial Relations: A Study of Fairness and Equality. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975. Jaques, E. quitable Payment. London: Pelican, 1967. Jaques, E. Timespan Handbook. London: Hineman, 1964. Katz, D., and Kahn, R.L. The Social Psychology of Organiza- tions (2nd ed.) New York: Wiley, 1978. Katz, F.E. Nurses. In A. Etzioni (Ed.), The Semi- Professions and Their Organization, New York: Free Press, 1969. Kelly, H.H. Two functions of reference groups. In G.E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb and E.L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in Social Psychology, New York: Holt, 1952. Kidron, A. Work values and organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 1978, El, 239-247. Lawler, E.E. Manager's perceptions of their subordinates' pay and of their superiors' pay. Personnel Psychology, 1965, Li, 413-422. Lawler, E.E. Pay and Organizational Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. Lawler, E.E., and O'Gara, P.W. The effects of inequity produced by underpayment on work output, work quality and attitudes toward the work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 2;, 403-413. Lipset, S.M. and Trow, M. Reference group theory and trade union wage policy. In M. Komarovsky (Ed.), Common Frontiers of the Social Sciences, Glencoe: Free Press, 1957. Livernash, E.R. Wage administration and production stan- dards. In A. Kornhauser, R. Dubin and A.M. Ross (Eds.), Industrial Conflict, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954. Major, B., McFarlin, 0.8., and Gagnon, D. Overworked and underpaid: On the nature of gender differences in personal entitlement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1984, 31, 50-54. March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1953. 171 Martin, J. Distributional determinants of the perception of injustice: The multidimensionality of unrestricted pay comparisons. Invited Address, 1978 Rains Wallace Dissertation Award American Psychological Association Toronto, Canada'TAugust), 1978b. Martin, J. The fairness of earnings differentials: An experimental study of the perceptions of blue collar workers. The Journal of Human Resources, 1982, fig 280-296. Martin, J. Pay comparisons and the perception of injustice. Paper presented at the American Psychological Associa- tion, Toronto, Canada (August), 1978a. Martin, J. Relative deprivation: A theory of distributive injustice for an era of shrinking resources. In L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research In Organiza- tional Behavior, 1981, 3, 53-107. Martin, J. and Murray, A. Distributive injustice and unfair exchange. In K.S. Cook and D.M. Messick (Eds.), Theories of Equity: Psychological and Sociological Perspectives. New York: Praeger, 1933. Martin, J., Price, R., Bies, R., and Powers, M. Relative deprivation among secretaries: The effects of the token female executive. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, New York (September), 1979. Martin, J.E. and Peterson, M.M. Two-tier wage structures: An equity theory approach. Paper presented at the Industrial Relations Research Association, 1985. McFarlin, 0.8., Major B., Frone, M.R. and Konar, E. The relationship between reference group comparisons and career-entry pay expectations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1984, ii' 1222-1229. McPhail, C. Civil disorder participation: A critical examination of recent research. American Sociological Review, 1971, gg, 1058-1073. Merton, R.K. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press, 1957. Merton, R.K., and Kitt, A. Contributions to the theory of reference group behavior. In R.K. Merton and P.F. Lazarsfeld (Eds.), Continuities in Social Research: Studies in the Sc0pe and Methods of:TAmerican Soldier". Glencoe, I11.: Free Press, 1950. 172 Miller, R.U. Hospitals. In G.G. Somers (Ed.), Collective Bargaining: Contemporary American Experience. Madison, Wisconsin: Industrial Relations Research Association, 1930. Morley, I., and Stephenson, S.M. The Social Psychology of Bargaining. London: Allen and Unwin, 1977. Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., and Porter, L.w. Employee- Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover. New York: Academic Press, 1982. Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., and Porter, L.W. The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1979, 13, 224-247. Oldham, G.R., Nottenburg, G., Kassner, M.W., Ferris, G., Fedor, D., and Masters, M. The selection and consequences of job comparisons. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1932, 22, 84-111. Opsahl, R.L. and Dunnette, M. The role of financial compensation in industrial motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 1966, 66, 94-113. Patchen, M. The Choice of wage Comparisons. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1961. Patchen, M.A. A conceptual framework and some empirical data regarding comparisons of social rewards. Sociometry, 1961, 23, 136—156. Patten, T.M., Jr. Pay: Employee Compensation and Incentive Plans. New York: Free Press, 1977. Pelz, D.C. and Andrew, F.M. The Scientist in Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966. Pettigrew, T. Social evaluation theory: Convergence and applications. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1967. Pincus, D.M. and Reagan, P.M. The Pincus-Reagan Equity Scale. Unpublished paper, Michigan State University, 1932. Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. and Boulian, P.V. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971 21, 603—699. 173 Pritchard, R.D. Equity theory: A review and critique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1969, 4, 176-211. Pritchard, R.D., Dunnette, M.D. and Jorgenson, D.O. Effects of perceptions of equity and inequity on worker performance and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972, 26, 75-94. Purcell, T.V. Blue Collar Man: Patterns of Dual Allegiance In Industry. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960. Reynolds, L.G. Labor Economics and Labor Relations. New York: Prentice Hall, 1975. Ritzer, G. and Trice, H.M. An empirical study of Howard Becker's side-bet theory. Social Forces, 1969, 41, 475-479. Ross, A.M. Trade Union Wage Policy. Berkely: University of California Press, 1949. Ross, M. and McMillen. External referents and past outcomes as determinants of social discontent. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1973, 9, 437-449. Runciman, W.G. Relative Deprivation and Social Justice. London: Routledge, Kegan and Paul, 1966. Russell, T. Organizational involvement and commitment to organization and profession. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 417-426. Sears, D. and McConahay, J. Racial socialization, comparison levels, and the Natts riot. Journal of Social Issues, 1970, 26, 121-140. Sheldon, M.E. Investments and involvements as mechanisms producing commitment to the organization. Administra- tive Science Quarterly, 1972, 11 143-150. Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M. and Hulin, C.L. The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969. Steers, R.M. Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1977, 22, 46-56. Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.N. Motivation and Work Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1933. 174 Stern, E., and Keller, S. Spontaneous reference groups in France. In W. Hyman and E. Singer (Eds.), Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research. New York: Free Press, 1968. Stouffer, S.A., Suckman, E.A., Devinney, L.C., Star, S.A. and Williams, R.M. The American Soldier: Adjustment During Army Life. Vol. 1, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949. Suls, J., and Miller, R. Social Comparison Processes. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1977. Telley, C.S., French, W.L., and Scott, W.G. The relationship of inequity to turnover among hourly workers. Administrative Science Quarterly 1971, 16, 164-172. Thornton, D., and Arrowood, J.A. Self-evaluation, self- enhancement, and the locus of social comparison. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1966, 2 (Supplement 17: 40-48. Valenzi, E.R., and Andrews, I.R. Effect of hourly overpay and underpay inequity when tested with a new induction procedure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 22-27. Vanneman, R.D. and Pettigrew, T.F. Race and relative deprivation in the urban United States. Race, 1972, 13, 461-436. Walker, I. and Pettigrew, T.F. Relative deprivation theory: An overview and conceptual critique. British Journal of Social Psychology, 1934, 23, 301-310. Walster, E., Berscheid, E. and Walster, G.W. New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 22, 151-176. Walster, E., and Piliavin, J.A. Equity and the innocent bystander. Journal of Social Issues, 1972, 23, 165-189. Weick, K.E. The concept of equity in the perception of pay. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1966, 2, 414—439. Wheeler, L., Koestner, R., and Driver, R.E. Related attributes in the choice of comparison others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Zanna, M., Goethals, G., and Hill, J. Evaluating a sex- related ability: social comparison with similar others and standard setters. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1975, 11, 36-33. 175 Zelditch, M., Jr., Anderson, J., and Cohen, B.P. Equitable comparisons, Pacific Sociological Review, 1970, 13, 19-26 0 ”Tllllllllllllllllllllfll