Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T11:06:16.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perceived Fairness of Pay: The Importance of Task versus Maintenance Inputs in Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Tae-Yeol Kim ,
Todd J. Weber ,
Kwok Leung  and
Yukiko Muramoto
Tae-Yeol Kim
Affiliation:
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Todd J. Weber
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA
Kwok Leung
Affiliation:
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Yukiko Muramoto
Affiliation:
Yokohama National University, Japan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study compares East Asians' evaluations of task and maintenance inputs in reward allocation decisions and examines the effects that inequity in various types of inputs and rewards have on fairness judgements. Based on a sample of 587 employees from various organizations in Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea, we find that Hong Kong Chinese and South Korean employees are more likely to want their organizations and supervisors to emphasize maintenance inputs, while Japanese employees value task inputs in reward allocation. Results also show that there are significant country differences in fairness judgements associated with various types of inputs. For example, the positive relationship between pay level and perceived fairness of pay is significantly stronger when task contributions are high rather than low among Japanese employees but not among Hong Kong and South Korean employees. The concept of independent self-construal (similar to individualism at the societal level) seems to provide an adequate account of the country differences in choice of input preferences but not fairness judgements.

Keywords

cross-cultural comparisonEast Asian differencesfairness judgementsorganizational justicereward allocation跨文化比较、东亚国家的差异、公平性评价、组织公平、奖励分配
Type
Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 31 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © International Association for Chinese Management Research 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, P. R., & Inglehart, R. 1995. Value change in global perspective. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Adams, J. S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 2: 267–299. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. 1996. Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (2): 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Au, K. Y. 1999. Intra-cultural variation: Evidence and implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(4): 799–812.Google Scholar
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6): 1173–1182.Google Scholar
Bond, M. H., Leung, K., & Wan, K. C. 1982. How does cultural collectivism operate? The impact of task and maintenance inputs on reward distribution. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 13(2): 186–200.Google Scholar
Brislin, R. W. 1986. The wording and translation of research instruments. In Lonner, W.J. & Berry, J. W. (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research: 137–164. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Brockner, J., Chen, Y., Mannix, E. A., Leung, K., & Skarlicki, D. P. 2000. Culture and procedural fairness: When the effects of what you do depend on how you do it. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1): 138–159.Google Scholar
Chaplin, W. F. 1991. The next generation of moderator research in personality psychology. Journal of Personality, 59(2): 143–178.Google Scholar
Chen, Y., Brockner, J., & Chen, X. 2002. Individual-collective primacy and ingroup favoritism: Enhancement and protection effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(5): 482–491.Google Scholar
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. 2001. The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 86(2): 278–321.Google Scholar
Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A. 1994. Percept inflation in microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1): 67–76.Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. 2001. Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2): 164–209.Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R., Slaughter, J. E., & Bachiochi, P. D. 2005. Organizational justice and black applicants' reactions to affirmative action. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6): 1168–1184.Google Scholar
Derlega, V. J., Cukur, C. S., Kuang, J. C. Y., & Forsyth, D. R. 2002. Interdependent construal of self and the endorsement of conflict resolution strategies in interpersonal, intergroup, and international disputes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(6): 610–625.Google Scholar
Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. 1998. Taking stock in our progress on individualism-collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community. Journal of Management, 24(3): 265–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, M. G. 1985. A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlational method variance in moderated multiple regression. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(3): 305–323.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J. 1974. Noncomparative justice. Philosophical Review, 83(3): 297–338.Google Scholar
Fischer, R., & Smith, P. B. 2003. Reward allocation and culture: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(3): 251–268.Google Scholar
Freedman, L. S., & Schatzkin, A. 1992. Sample size for studying intermediate endpoints within intervention trials of observational studies. American Journal of Epidemiology, 136(9): 1148–1159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geck, J. C. 2002. Global intercultural communication and effectiveness workshops. [Cited 25 March 2008.] Available from URL: http://www.global-intercultural-communication.com/Workshops.htm.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. 1980. Reactions to a postal rate increase: Justification or inequality? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10(2): 184–190.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. 2001. Studying organizational justice cross-culturally: Fundamental challenges. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(4): 365–375.Google Scholar
Heuer, L., Blumenthal, E., Douglas, A., & Weinblatt, T. 1999. A deservingness approach to respect as a relationally based fairness judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10): 1279–1292.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. H. 1980. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. 2004. Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. 1987. A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12(2): 222–234.Google Scholar
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. 2004. Employees' goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3): 368–384.Google Scholar
Kim, K.-I., Park, H.-J., & Suzuki, N. 1990. Reward allocations in the United-States, Japan, and Korea – A comparison of individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1): 188–198.Google Scholar
Kim, T.-Y., & Leung, K. 2007. Forming and reacting to overall fairness: A cross-cultural comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(1): 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, T.-Y., Wang, C., Kondo, M., & Kim, T.-H. 2007. Conflict management styles: The differences among the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18(1): 23–41.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. 1998. The social construction of injustice: Fairness judgments in response to own and others' unfair treatment by authorities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. 1993. Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2): 376–390.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. 2002. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1): 83–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. 1994. A collective fear of the collective: Implications for selves and theories of selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5): 568–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, M. W., & Leung, K. 2000. Justice for all? Progress in research on cultural variation in the psychology of distributive and procedural justice. Applied Psychology-An International Review, 49(1): 100–132.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. F., & Thomas, D. C. 2007. Organizational behavior in multinational organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(3): 261–279.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., PodsakofT, N. P., & Lee, J.-Y. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shin, S., & Choi, J. 2002. Duplicated value systems in modern Korean society. Seoul: Jip Mun Dang.Google Scholar
Singelis, T. M. 2000. Some thoughts on the future of cross-cultural social psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(1): 76–91.Google Scholar
Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. 1995. The nature and effects of method variance in organizational research. In Cooper, C. L. & Robertson, I. T. (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 10: 210–245. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Suh, E. M., Diener, E. D., & Updegraff, J. A. 2008. From culture to priming conditions: Self-construal influences on life satisfaction judgments. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(1): 3–15.Google Scholar
Super, D. E. 1973. The work values inventory. In Zytowski, D. G. (Ed.), Contemporary approaches to interest measurement: 189–205. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Tang, T. L., Sutarso, T., Akande, A., Allen, M. W., Alzubaidi, A. S., Ansari, M. A.et al. 2006. The love of money and pay level satisfaction: Measurement and functional equivalence in 29 geopolitical entities around the world. Management and Organization Review, 2(3): 423–452.Google Scholar
Triandis, H. C. 1995. Individualism and collectivism. San Francisco, CA: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. 2007. Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33(3): 426–478.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. 1994. Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5): 850–863.Google Scholar
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. 2000. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1): 4–69.Google Scholar
Walster, E., Berschcid, E., & Walster, G. W. 1973. New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2): 151–176.Google Scholar
Zhou, J., & Martocchio, J. J. 2001. Hong Kong Chinese and American managers' compensation award decisions: A comparative policy-capturing study. Personnel Psychology, 54(1): 115–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar