Download PAY FAIRNESS AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN THE

1
PAY FAIRNESS AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN THE HEALTHCARE SECTOR
Working Paper, Purdue University: Please do not cite without permission
Benjamin B. Dunford
Krannert Graduate School of Management
Purdue University
403 W. State Street
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (765)496-7877
Abbie J. Shipp
Mays School of Business
Texas A&M University
Email: [email protected]
Alan D. Boss
Business Program
University of Washington Bothell
18115 Campus Way NE
Bothell, WA 98011
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (425)352-3764
R. Wayne Boss
Leeds School of Business
University of Colorado at Boulder
Campus Box 419
Boulder, CO 80309
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (303)494-1718
Ingo Angermeier
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (864)560-6000
Trenton A. Williams
Kelly School of Business
Indiana University
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (940) 368-6017
2
PAY FAIRNESS AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN THE HEALTHCARE SECTOR
ABSTRACT
In today’s economy healthcare organizations face a tradeoff between cost reduction and
employee engagement. Organizational justice theory suggests that employers can preserve
employee engagement during labor cost reduction initiatives (e.g., pay freezes, benefit
reductions) by taking steps to ensure that they are perceived as fair. However, little empirical
research has examined the link between pay fairness and employee engagement outcomes. Thus,
we test the relationship between pay fairness and employee trust, performance, and retention in a
large healthcare organization. Our findings underscore the importance of pay fairness and
suggest practical managerial prescriptions as well as directions for future research.
3
Employee wages and benefits are estimated to represent 70-80% of the operating
expenses of healthcare organizations (Malvey, 2010). Consequently, in today’s economic
downturn (Moore, Coddington, & Byrne, 2009), healthcare executives face a daunting tradeoff
between reducing labor costs and fostering employee engagement. On one hand, current
financial pressures have led many healthcare organizations to freeze wages, withhold bonuses
and reduce employee benefits (Carlson, 2010; Evans, 2010; Kirchheimer, 2009). On the other
hand, the attraction, retention and engagement of employees remain pivotal to the effectiveness
and delivery quality of any healthcare organization (Ogden, 2010). Thus, employers are faced
with the strategic challenge of finding ways to reduce labor costs (e.g., freezing pay, withholding
bonuses, or reducing benefits) while simultaneously preserving the retention, trust, and
engagement of employees. How can this be done?
According to research in organizational behavior, one strategy for minimizing the
likelihood of negative employee reactions to labor cost reductions is by taking steps to maximize
the fairness of such pay initiatives. Research over several decades has shown that employees’
perceptions of their employer’s fairness play a dominant role in how they respond to negative
outcomes (van den Bos, 2005). Employees facing disappointing administrative outcomes (like
pay freezes or reductions in benefits) are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs, be more
loyal, and less likely to leave the organization if they feel that their employer acted fairly
(Greenberg, 2000; van den Bos, 2005).
Yet despite the vast empirical evidence on fairness, surprisingly little research has been
done on the effects of pay fairness perceptions in organizations (Shaw & Gupta, 2001). Studies
have shown that pay fairness is associated with employee pay satisfaction, job satisfaction, and
related perceptions (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992) but little is known
4
about how pay fairness drives key behavioral outcomes that impact an organizations operating
strategy (Heneman, 1985). Indeed, we know of no study which has examined the impact of pay
fairness on employee engagement outcomes in the healthcare industry. Thus, the literature is
deficient in providing healthcare managers with evidence-based insights on how to manage the
labor cost-employee engagement tradeoff. To fill this, gap, the purpose of our study is to
examine the impact of pay fairness perceptions on organizational trust, employee job
performance and actual voluntary turnover in a large healthcare organization. To that end, we
begin by defining organizational justice, and then draw on theory from organizational behavior
to develop and test a model of how pay fairness impacts these engagement outcomes.
Organizational Justice
Over the past 30 years, researchers have identified four different dimensions of
organizational justice that are related but distinct and important in their own right. First,
distributive justice is defined as the perceived fairness of outcomes or decisions, such as pay
levels, promotions, pay raises, etc. (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Procedural
justice is defined as the perceived fairness of procedures used to arrive at decision outcomes such
as pay levels, promotions, or pay raises. Fair procedures are characterized by consistency,
freedom of bias, accuracy, the ability to appeal decisions, and giving employees input into
decisions. Interactional justice is defined as the perceived fairness of the interpersonal treatment
associated with the administration of an outcome for employees. For example, pay raises or
promotions could be announced and administered with varying levels of dignity, propriety and
respect toward employees. Finally, informational justice is defined as the perceived fairness or
adequacy of the information given about the decision. For instance, pay may be considered to be
5
more fair when there is an adequate and truthful explanation for why outcomes were distributed
in a certain way (e.g., why benefits were reduced, or a pay freeze implemented).
Decades of research on organizational justice shows that various dimensions of justice
are associated with important attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, including job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, trust, organizational citizenship behavior, withdrawal outcomes, and
job performance (Colquitt et al., 2001). Justice has also played an important role in explaining
employee responses to perceived organizational mistreatment. Indeed, research on the legal
claiming process shows that perceived justice is a primary determinant of whether or not
mistreated employees will seek recourse against their employer, and how far they will pursue the
legal claiming process (Bies & Tyler, 1993; Goldman, Paddock, & Cropanzano, 2004; Lind,
Greenberg, Scott, & Welchans, 2000). Individuals who perceive greater injustice are more likely
to be committed to seeking a formal resolution for a perceived mistreatment (Bies & Tyler, 1993;
Lind et al., 2000). In summary, justice plays a crucial role in explaining employees’ responses to
their employer’s actions, including reaction to pay freezes, layoffs, or other cost cutting
measures.
In recent years, organizational justice theorists have advocated a “holistic” or “gestalt”
approach to the study of justice (Greenberg, 2001; Hauensteien, McGonigle, & Flinder, 2001) by
considering justice as a higher order construct with distinct sub dimensions (Colquitt & Shaw,
2005). This view posits that even though employees can reliably distinguish between the various
types of organizational justice, the causal mechanism underlying their responses to
organizational (mis) treatment is an overall sense of fairness (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009;
Shapiro, 2001). Consequently, overall justice has been defined as a global judgment of the
6
overall fairness of an entity, such as an organization, group, or supervisor (Ambrose &
Schminke, 2009).
Compensation is a key focal point of employee perceptions of organizational fairness,
because “pay is arguably…the most critical outcome of organizational membership for
employees” (Shaw & Gupta, 2001: 299). Thus, we propose that employees develop distinct pay
fairness perceptions based on their judgments of the organization’s distributive, procedural,
interactional, and interpersonal justice concerning pay and benefits. In other words, we
conceptualize pay fairness as a global judgment of the fairness of one’s pay, based on the extent
to which employees perceive their pay levels are fair (distributive justice), determined by fair
procedures (procedural justice), administered with dignity and respect (interactional justice), and
given with adequate explanation (informational justice). In the sections that follow, we draw on
social exchange theory to develop and test specific hypotheses concerning the relationship
between pay fairness and three key engagement outcomes which are crucial to the effectiveness
of healthcare organizations (organizational trust, citizenship behavior, and actual voluntary
turnover).
Social Exchange Theory
Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) asserts that in addition to economic exchanges (i.e.,
pay and benefits in exchange for work and intellectual capital) between employers and
employees, there is also a social exchange in which positive treatment, goodwill, and support in
various forms motivates employees to respond with positive work attitudes and cooperation
toward the organization. Indeed, the social exchange relationship is based on a reciprocity norm
(Blau, 1964). Within this social exchange framework, organizational justice has long been
viewed as key initiator of social exchange outcomes. When employees are treated fairly by an
7
organization it is perceived as a gesture of goodwill which results in a perceived obligation to
reciprocate in many different ways, including increased trust of the organization, improved
cooperative behavior, and retention (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002; Colquitt et al., 2001). We
now describe each of these outcomes in turn and develop hypotheses about how they are
associated with pay fairness.
Organizational trust. Trust has been defined as a “willingness of a party to be vulnerable
to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other party will perform a
particular action important to the trustor irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other
party (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995: 712). The trust literature shows that employees
develop distinct trust perceptions of various parties, including co-workers, supervisors, and the
organization as a whole (Robinson & Morrison, 1995).
Since the origins of social exchange theory, organizational trust has been considered
fundamental to the social exchange process, because the employment relationship requires
employers and employees to trust each other (Blau, 1964). Blau (1964: 98) noted that “the
establishment of exchange relations involves making investments that constitute commitment to
the other party. Since social exchange requires trusting others to reciprocate, the initial problem
is to prove oneself trustworthy.” Indeed, organizational trust is viewed as a key outcome of
organizational justice perceptions such that fair treatment fosters employee trust in the
organization as a whole (Aryee et al., 2002). In support of these views, numerous empirical
studies have supported linkages between justice and trust (Lewicki, Wiethoff, & Tomlinson,
2005).
Drawing on social exchange theory and empirical linkages between organizational justice
and organizational trust, we argue that an organization’s policies and decisions concerning
8
employee compensation represent highly salient signals of the social exchange relationship that
establish and reinforce trust among employees. To the extent that employees feel that their pay
level is fair and that their pay is fairly determined, they will respond with greater trust in the
organization. Accordingly, we hypothesize that pay fairness will be positively related to trust in
the organization as a whole.
Hypothesis 1. Pay fairness will be positively related to organizational trust.
Organizational citizenship behavior. A second important social exchange outcome that
is likely to result from pay fairness perceptions is organizational citizenship behavior (OCB),
which is defined as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly
recognized by the formal reward system and that in the aggregate promotes the effective
functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988: 4). This type of cooperative behavior may be
directed at an individual (OCB-I) or an organization (OCB-O) (Williams & Anderson, 1991).
We focus here on OCB-O because the organization is the likely source of pay fairness justice
perceptions, and research shows that employees direct their attitudinal and behavioral responses
toward the source of the justice (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). Numerous studies have supported
the link between justice and cooperative behaviors, such as OCB (Colquitt et al., 2001).
Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) suggests that organizational justice is important to
employees because it communicates how they are viewed by the employer (Cropanzano & Rupp,
2002). Based on the reciprocity norm (Gouldner, 1960), fair treatment obliges employees to
reciprocate the organization’s support in kind by engaging in cooperative actions that support the
organization’s interests and contribute to its effectiveness (Blader & Tyler, 2005; Tyler &
Blader, 2000). Indeed, prior research has established consistent empirical linkages between
9
organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior (Colquitt et al., 2001; Moorman,
Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997).
We argue that given the importance of compensation to the employment relationship
(Shaw & Gupta, 2001), fair pay and pay related policies represent a powerful signal of goodwill
to employees. Drawing on social exchange theory we propose that employees who perceive that
the organization pays them fairly will respond in kind with greater levels of cooperative
behavior.
Hypothesis 2. Pay fairness will be positively related to organizational citizenship
behavior directed to the organization (OCB-O).
Actual voluntary turnover. Finally, employee withdrawal from the organization is
considered another key outcome of the social exchange relationship (Conlon, Meyer, &
Nowakowski, 2005; Tekleab, Takeuchi, & Taylor, 2005). Employee withdrawal can take various
forms including, turnover intentions, absenteeism, tardiness, and actual turnover (Hom,
Caranikas-Walker, Prussia, & Griffeth, 1992; Steel & Ovalle, 1984). We focus here on actual
voluntary employee turnover of valued talent because it has become a critical challenge for the
healthcare industry as the population of skilled employees ages and retires (Aiken, Clarke,
Sloane, Sochalski, & Silber, 2002). For example, the average age of the healthcare workforce
population has been projected to reach 45.1 years in 2010 (Buerhaus, Staiger, & Auerbach,
2000). Approximately half of United States (US) healthcare employees are over 40 and will be
eligible for retirement over the next 10 years (Cordeniz, 2002). Estimates suggest that turnover in
the healthcare industry costs $12.3 billion annually, representing more than 5% of the total
annual operating budget of healthcare organizations today (Waldman, Kelly, Aurora, & Smith,
2004).
10
Previous research has established linkages between pay related justice perceptions and
turnover intentions, and turnover (Shaw & Gupta, 2001; Tekleab, Bartol, & Liu, 2005). Yet more
research is needed on actual turnover (Heneman, 1985; Summers & Hendrix, 1991), particularly
in the healthcare industry where voluntary turnover continues to be problematic. Drawing on
social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), and previous models linking justice to withdrawal
behaviors (Conlon et al., 2005), we propose that pay fairness will be a key determinant of
employee retention. When employees feel that their pay is fair, they will reciprocate by
remaining in the organization. Conversely, when they feel their pay is unfair, they will be more
likely to leave voluntarily.
Hypothesis 3. Pay fairness will be negatively related to voluntary employee turnover.
METHODS
Participants and Procedure
A large healthcare organization located in the southern US provided the data for our
study. Our data set was drawn from an employee attitudes survey in administered in August
2009, a supervisor survey in September 2009, and employee personnel file information from
September 2009 to May 2010.
Employee attitudes survey. The employee attitudes survey was administered in August of
2009 and provided the data for pay fairness and organizational trust. One week before the
employee attitudes survey link was sent out, a “pre-notice” (Dillman, 2000) email was sent to all
employees. This email came from the CEO and explained the upcoming study (noting that its
purposes were to better understand employee opinions and to help improve the quality of work
life), encouraged employees to participate, and assured employees that the data would go directly
to the researchers and that the healthcare center would not have access to individual responses. A
11
week later, the email containing a link to the online survey was sent to employees. Three
additional email reminders were sent over the subsequent two weeks to employees who had not
yet completed the survey.
We guaranteed participants that their responses would be kept strictly confidential, due to
the sensitive nature of the data, and ensured them that under no circumstances would anyone
inside the organization have access to their data or be able to identify them in any way. They also
provided email addresses and employee identification (ID) numbers to link participants
confidential survey responses to their personnel file data. Employees used their ID as a username
to access the online survey as well as to verify that they were indeed employees of the healthcare
organization, for security purposes, as they logged into the independent and secure server.
Supervisor survey. One month after the employee attitudes survey was sent, the host
organization conducted their annual employee performance evaluation. In conjunction with that
evaluation, we asked all supervisors in the host organization to rate each of their subordinates on
their organizational citizenship behavior (see below for details). The supervisor survey had a
100% response rate.
Personnel data. The host organization gave us access to demographic and turnover data
in personnel files for the 9 month period following the employee attitudes survey (see below).
Final sample. The employee attitudes survey was sent to 5,456 employees. We obtained
responses from a total of 2,895 employees, resulting in a response rate of 53.1%. From that
sample of employees, we excluded 575 responses due to missing data (using listwise deletion as
a conservative approach to analyzing the data) and insufficient information to link survey
responses to personnel archival records. Thus, our final sample consisted of 2,320 employees.
12
On average, respondents to our survey were 42 years-old and had been with the
organization 8 years. Approximately 84% of the respondents were female, and 81% were
Caucasian. In terms of education, 8% of our participants had a high school diploma or less, 58%
had some college without a four-year degree, 22% had obtained a four-year-college degree, and
12% had graduate work in progress or had received a master’s, professional, or doctoral degree.
Our sample consisted of 21% office and clerical workers, 5% support services workers, 8%
professional services workers, 15% technical services workers, and 34% RN and other nursing
services staff. The remaining 17% were management and physicians (including coordinators,
team leaders, managers, directors, administration, and physicians). There were no significant
differences between the demographics of our sample and the organization as a whole.
Measures
Pay fairness. Pay fairness was measured using a 20-item measure adapted from
Colquitt’s (2001) organizational justice subscales. The items were adapted so that the employing
organization was the source of the justice perceptions and that pay was the referent for each of
the items. Employees used a 5-point Likert-type scale on the employee attitudes survey to
indicate their perceptions of the pay fairness on each of the four different types of justice
perceptions; i.e., interactional, distributive, procedural, and informational justice. All pay
fairness items are included in the Appendix.
We averaged the four pay fairness subscales following Colquitt and Shaw’s (2005)
recommendations that in field settings, organizational justice may be appropriately modeled as a
higher order latent construct based on four justice sub dimensions (distributive, procedural,
interactional, and informational). Following their approach, confirmatory factor analysis
indicated strong support for a higher order model of pay fairness with one latent superordinate
13
factor and four sub factors corresponding to each sub dimension of pay fairness [χ2 = 3327.79, p
< .001, df = 166; χ2 /df = 20.05; CFI=.95; IFI=.95; SRMR=.05; RMSEA=.08, 90% CI: .08, .09].
Indeed, our model fit was highly comparable to the fit that Colquitt and Shaw (2005) reported for
a higher order model of overall justice based on 16 independent samples of data.
Thus we aggregated the four individual justice scales into a higher order factor of pay
fairness. The chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio was higher than the typically considered
acceptable maximum of 5 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998; Kline, 2005). However, this
index is highly sensitive to sample size and can potentially lead to erroneous rejection of wellfitting models with large samples (Bagozzi, 2004; Kline, 2005; Hair et al., 1998) if other fit
indices are not consulted. Therefore, in our evaluation of the fit of measurement for pay fairness,
we focused on fit indices that are less sensitive to sample size (Hair et al., 1998; Kline, 2005).
The reliability of the overall scale was α = .95.
Organizational trust. We measured organizational trust with Mayer and Davis’ (1999)
seven-item scale. These items were included on the web-based survey. Using a seven-point
Likert scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7), participants indicated
their trust for the organization. Sample items include “My employer is always honest and
truthful,” “In general, I believe my employer’s motives and intentions are good,” and “I think my
employer treats me fairly.” The reliability of the scale was excellent, α = .97.
Organizational citizenship behavior. One month after the initial survey, supervisors
rated their employees on organizational citizenship behaviors toward the organization using Lee
and Allen’s (2002) eight-item scale using a 5 point (1=lowest OCB, 5=highest OCB) Likert-type
response format. Sample items include “[Employee] attends functions that are not required but
that help the organizational image,” “[Employee] defends the organization when other
14
employees criticize it,” and “[Employee] demonstrates concern about the image of the
organization.” Alpha reliability for this scale was .95.
Voluntary turnover. Individual level turnover information was obtained from the
organization’s personnel archives, and matched to employee’s confidential survey data through
employee ID numbers. In this organization, 322 employees left the organization voluntarily
during the nine months following the employee attitudes survey, 97 (30%) of whom had
participated in our previous survey. Voluntary turnover was coded 1 while involuntary turnover
or active employee was coded 0.
Control variables. We controlled for four variables in our analyses: age, organizational
tenure, education, and gender. We selected these controls primarily because each could be
related to all of the variables in our conceptual model and confound our findings. Specifically,
longer tenured employees may show higher levels of organizational citizenship behavior and
higher levels of organizational trust. Older and more educated employees may be less likely to
leave the organization and be satisfied with their current position. Moreover, due to the high
percentage of women who work in the healthcare field, we controlled for gender. Age and tenure
(actual years), education (on a 1 to 9 scale where 1 = less than a high school education and 9 =
PhD/MD/JD), and gender (coded 0 for male and 1 for female) were drawn from the employees’
personnel archives.
RESULTS
The descriptive statistics and correlation matrix are presented in Table 1. The correlation
results indicate that pay fairness was positively related to both organizational trust and
organizational citizenship behaviors focused on the organization, and negatively related to
voluntary turnover.
15
-----------------------------Insert Table 1 about here
----------------------------We tested hypotheses 1 and 2 using OLS multiple regression analysis. These hypotheses
predicted that pay fairness would be positively related to both organizational trust and
organizational citizenship behavior directed at the organization. Model 1 of Table 2 indicates
support for Hypothesis 1 (B = 1.31, p < .001), and Model 2 of Table 2 indicates support for
Hypothesis 2 (B = .16, p < .000). We tested hypothesis 3 using logistic regression because of the
dichotomous nature of voluntary turnover. As Model 3 of Table 2 indicates, pay fairness was
significantly and negatively related to voluntary turnover (B = -.46), supporting hypothesis 3. In
sum, regression analysis showed that controlling for age, organizational tenure, education, and
gender, pay fairness explained significant incremental variance in all 3 outcome variables.
-----------------------------Insert Table 2 about here
-----------------------------DISCUSSION
Healthcare organizations today face difficult tradeoffs between reductions in labor costs,
and preserving employee engagement. Our study provides evidence that pay fairness initiatives
may be an effective means of addressing that tradeoff. Indeed our results show that pay fairness
was significantly associated with three crucial employee engagement outcomes: perceived
organizational trust, citizenship behavior, and actual turnover. In practical terms, for every one
unit increase in pay fairness (on a 7 point scale from ranging from very strongly disagree to very
strongly agree), employees showed a 19% increase in organizational trust, a 3% increase in
organizational citizenship behavior, and a 13% reduction in the likelihood of voluntary turnover.
Thus, in our sample even slight increases in employee pay fairness perceptions were associated
16
with meaningful differences in employee engagement. Consequently, as they seek ways to
minimize employee labor costs, organizations may preserve or significantly improve employee
engagement by taking steps to maximize perceived fairness.
Organizational justice theory provides numerous managerial prescriptions about how to
maximize pay fairness perceptions among employees. Indeed, over the past three decades, justice
researchers have identified specific justice rules (Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt & Shaw, 2005) that
can be fruitfully applied by healthcare managers in the context of compensation and benefits
reductions to maximize employee pay fairness perceptions. These justice rules (see Table 3)
represent each of the four sub dimensions of justice we noted at the outset of the paper:
distributive justice, procedural justice, interactional justice, and informational justice. For
example, the justification rule of informational justice suggests that employees should be given
an adequate explanation for pay related initiatives. Thus, when organizations announce pay
freezes or changes to employee benefits, employers could maximize pay fairness perceptions by
giving employees a candid and complete explanation for why the change is being made. Table 3
summarizes additional examples of how justice rules can be applied to compensation and
benefits initiatives.
----------------------------Insert Table 3 about here
----------------------------In addition to practical contributions, our study makes two contributions to the justice
literature. First, our findings support recent thinking by justice theorists conceptualizing justice
as a higher order construct combining procedural, distributive, interactional, and informational
justice sub dimensions (Colquitt & Shaw, 2005). Specifically our confirmatory factor analysis
results are consistent with arguments that employees formulate global views about fairness based
17
on these sub dimensions (Greenberg, 2001; Hauensteien et al., 2001). Second, our study
responds to calls in the pay fairness literature for more attention to behavioral outcomes
(Heneman, 1985). Indeed, the vast majority of pay fairness research has been focused on
identifying the antecedents of pay fairness (Shaw & Gupta, 2001; Tremblay, Sire, & Balkin,
2000). We know of no study that has examined the relationship between pay fairness and
organizational citizenship behavior in the healthcare industry.
Study limitations and future research directions. Certain methodological limitations to
the study provide additional opportunities for future research. First, this study was conducted in a
single healthcare organization in the US, limiting the generalizability of its findings to other
organizations industries and countries. Future research should examine the impact of pay fairness
on engagement outcomes across a wide variety of industries across the world. Indeed it is
possible that the relationship between pay fairness and behavioral outcomes is influenced by
local laws, customs, and culture. Second, our employee attitude survey was conducted prior to
the collection of OCB and turnover data, which helps assuage concerns that the findings are due
to mono-method bias. However, our study design was cross sectional in nature, and thus unable
to address questions about how pay fairness perceptions vary within individuals over time.
Future research could advance pay fairness research by examining how intra-individual change
in pay fairness is associated with employee engagement outcomes. Finally, our study was
conducted at a single (individual) level of analysis. Future research could advance the pay
fairness literature by exploring pay fairness climate as a group level construct and examining its
relationship with group or unit-level outcomes. For example, given the prevalence of group and
unit based rewards such as gainsharing and profit sharing in the healthcare industry (Barbusca &
Cleek, 1994; Ketcham & Furukawa, 2008) it would be interesting to study how work units differ
18
in pay fairness, and how those differences are associated with efficiency, performance, and
retention rates at the unit level. Indeed, future research could examine how an emphasis on
organizational justice impacts the ability to execute business strategy.
CONCLUSION
In a large US healthcare organization, we examined the relationship between pay fairness
and three employee engagement related outcomes: organizational trust, organizational
citizenship behavior, and actual voluntary turnover. Our results showed that pay fairness was
significantly associated with each of these outcomes. Thus, healthcare organizations may benefit
substantially by implementing practices and procedures to increase pay fairness among
employees, particularly in an economic climate where reductions to labor costs are at a premium.
19
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. H., S. P. Clarke, D. M. Sloane, J. Sochalski, & J. H. Silber. 2002. Hospital nurse
staffing and patient mortality, nurse burnout and job dissatisfaction. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 288(16): 1987-1993.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. 2009. The role of overall justice judgments in organizational
justice research: A test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 491-500.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. 2002. Trust as a mediator of the relationship between
organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23: 267-285.
Bagozzi, R. P. 2004. Self-control and the self-regulation of dieting decisions: The role of
prefactual attitudes, subjective norms, and resistance to temptation. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology 26(2&3): 199-213.
Barbusca, A., & Cleek, M. 1994. Measuring gainsharing dividends in acute care hospitals.
Healthcare Management Review, 19(1): 28-3.
Bies, R. J., Tyler, T. R. 1993. The “litigation mentality” in organizations: A test of alternative
psychological explanations. Organization Science, 4: 352-366.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. 2005. How can theories of organizational justice explain the effects
of fairness? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice:
329-354. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Buerhaus, P. I., Staiger, D. O., Auerbach, D. I. 2000. Implications of an aging registered nurse
workforce. Journal of American Medical Association, 283: 2948-2954.
Carlson, J. 2010. Falling flat. Modern Healthcare, 40 (33): 24-29.
20
Colquitt, J. A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a
measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 386-400.
Colquitt, J. A., & Shaw, J. C. 2005. How should organizational justice be measured? In J.
Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice: 113-152.
Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. 2001. Justice at
the millennium: A meta analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 425-445.
Conlon, D. E., Meyer, C. J., & Nowakowski, J. M. 2005. How does organizational justice affect
performance, withdrawal, and counterproductive behavior? In J. Greenberg & J. Colquitt
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice: 301-327. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cordeniz, J. A. 2002. Recruitment, retention and management of generation X: A focus on
nursing professionals. Journal of Healthcare Management, 47: 237-249.
Cropanzano, R., & Rupp, D. E. 2002. Some reflections on the morality of organizational justice.
In S. Gilliland, D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on managing
organizational justice: 225-278. Greenwich, CT: Informational Age Publishing.
Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John
Wiley.
Evans, M. 2010. Pensions picked apart. Modern Healthcare, 40(16): 8-9.
Folger R., & Konovksy, M. A. 1989. Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to
pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 115-130.
Goldman, B. M., Paddock, E. L., & Cropanzano, R. A. 2004 Transformational model of legal
claiming. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16: 417-441.
21
Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25: 161-178.
Greenberg, J. 2000. Promote procedural justice to enhance acceptance of work outcomes. In E.
A. Locke (Ed.), A handbook of principles of organizational behavior: 181-195. Oxford
England: Blackwell.
Greenberg, J. 2001. Setting the justice agenda: Seven unanswered questions about “what, why
and how.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58: 210-219.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., and Black, W. C. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis,
(5th ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hauenstein, N. M. T., McGonigle, T., & Flinder, S. W. 2001. A meta-analysis of the relationship
between procedural justice and distributive justice: Implications for justice research.
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 13: 39–56.
Heneman, H. G., III. 1985. Pay satisfaction. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 3: 115–140.
Hom, P. W., Caranikas-Walker, F., Prussia, G. E., & Griffeth, R. W. 1992. A meta-analytical
structural equations analysis of a model of employee turnover. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77: 890–909.
Ketcham, J. D., & Furukawa, M. F. 2008. Hospital physician gainsharing in cardiology. Health
Affairs, 27: 803-812.
Kirchheimer, B. 2009. Belt-tightening time. Modern Healthcare, 39(2): 33.
Kline, R. B. 2005. Principles and practice of equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. 2002. Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role
of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology. 87: 131-142.
22
Lewicki, R. J., Wiethoff, C., & Tomlinson, E. 2005. What is the role of trust in organizational
justice? In J. Greenberg & J. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice:
Fundamental questions about fairness in the workplace: 247-270. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lind, E. A., Greenberg, J., Scott, K. S., Welchans, T. D. 2000. The winding road from employee
to complainant: Situational and psychological determinants of wrongful-termination
claims. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 557-590.
Malvey, D. 2010. Unionization in healthcare: Background and trends. Journal of Healthcare
Management, 55(3):154-157.
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. 1999. The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for
management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 123-136.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20: 709-734.
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. 1992. Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of
satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management
Journal, 35: 626-637.
Moore, K., Coddington, D., & Byrne, D. 2009. The long view: How the financial downturn will
change healthcare. Healthcare Financial Management, 63(1): 56 -65.
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. 1998. Does perceived organizational support
mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship
behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41: 351-357.
Ogden, G. 2010. Talent management in a time of cost management. Healthcare Financial
Management, 64(3): 80-84.
23
Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. 1995. Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of
unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16:
289-298.
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. 2002. The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in
predicting workplace outcomes from multi-foci organizational justice. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89: 925-946.
Shapiro, D. 2001. The death of justice theory is likely if theorists neglect the “wheels” already
invented and the voices of the injustice victims. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58:
235–242.
Shaw, J. D., & Gupta, N. 2001. Pay fairness and employee outcomes: Exacerbation and
attenuation effects of financial need. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 74: 299-320.
Steel, R. P., & Ovalle, N. K. 1984. A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship
between behavioral intentions and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology,
69: 673–686.
Summers, T. P., & Hendrix, W. H. 1991. Modeling the role of pay equity perceptions: a field
study. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64: 145–157.
Tekleab, A. G., Takeuchi, R., & Taylor, M. S. 2005. Extending the chain of relationships among
organizational justice, social exchange, and employee reactions: The role of contract
violations. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 146-157.
24
Tekleab, A. G., Bartol, K. M., & Liu, W., 2005. Is it pay levels or pay raises that matter to
fairness and turnover? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26: 899-921.
Tremblay, M., Sire, B., & Balkin, D. B. 2000. The role of organizational justice in pay and
employee benefit satisfaction, and its effect on work attitudes. Group and Organization
Management, 25: 269-290.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. 2000. Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity,
and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Psychological Press.
van den Bos, K. 2005.What is responsible for the fair process effect? In Greenberg, J., and
Colquitt, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice: Fundamental questions
about fairness in the workplace: 273-300. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Waldman, J. D., Kelly, F., Aurora, S., & Smith, H. L. 2004. The shocking cost of turnover in
health care. Health Care Management Review, 29(1): 2-7.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. 1997. Perceived organizational support and leadermember exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal,
40: 82-111.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in role behaviors. Journal of Management,
17: 601–617.
25
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Study Variables
#
Variable Name
1
Age
2
Tenure
7.93
8.20
.42**
--
3
Education
4.69
1.70
-.07**
-.05**
--
4
Gender
.84
.36
.01
.05**
-.12**
--
5
Pay fairness
3.20
.75
.16**
.12**
.09**
-.11**
.95
6
Organizational trust
5.31
1.37
.11**
.07**
.05**
-.03
.71**
.97
7
Organizational citizenship
behaviors – Organization
Voluntary turnover
3.97
.61
.09**
.10**
.15**
-.02
.22**
.20**
.95
.03
.18
-.02
-.10**
-.01
.02
-.07**
-.06**
-.07**
8
Mean
SD
42.60 11.44
1
2
3
4
**p<.01
6
7
8
--
Notes: N= 2320. Where appropriate, coefficient alphas are reported in boldface on the diagonal.
*p<.05
5
--
26
TABLE 2
Results of Multiple Regression Analyses and Logistic Regression Analysis
Model 1
DV: Organizational
trust
Model 2
DV: OCB-O
Model 3
DV: Voluntary
turnover
OLS regression
OLS regression
Logistic regression
Age
.00
(.00)
.00
(.00)
.02
(.01)
Tenure
-.00
(.00)
.01**
(.00)
-.14***
(.03)
Education
-.01
(.01)
.05***
(.01)
-.02
(.06)
Gender
.16**
(.05)
.01
(.04)
.24
(.32)
1.31***
(.02)
.16***
(.02)
-.46***
(.14)
.51
.51
F= 595.30***
.07
.07
F= 36.43***
.07†
-χ2= 55.24***
Estimation Method
Controls
Independent Variable
Pay Fairness
R2
Adjusted R2
Model Summary
Notes: N= 2320. Unstandardized coefficients are reported, with standard errors in parentheses.
†= Nagelkerke R2
*p<.05
**p<.01
***p<.001
For every 1 unit increase in pay fairness, there is a 1.31 unit increase in trust. For every 1 unit
increase in pay fairness there is a .16 unit increase in OCB.
27
TABLE 3
Applying Justice Rules to Maximize Pay Fairness
Adapted from Colquitt (2001) and Colquitt & Shaw (2005)
Justice Type
Justice Rule
Rule Application: Employee
compensation and benefits should…
Source
Distributive
Equity
Be distributed in proportion to
employees’ individual inputs (e.g., job
performance).
Leventhal
(1976)
Procedural
Process Control
Provide employees with opportunities to
express their views and input into
compensation policy making.
Decision Control
Give employees opportunities to
influence compensation outcomes (e.g.,
raises, promotions, pay freezes, benefit
decisions).
Thibaut &
Walker
(1975);
Leventhal
(1976)
Consistency
Be administered consistently across
employees, and over time.
Bias Suppression
Be neutral and free of bias.
Accuracy
Be based on accurate information.
Correctability
Include mechanisms for employee
appeals.
Representativeness
Be representative of concerns across all
employee groups.
Ethicality
Uphold ethical and moral standards.
Respect
Utilize respectful communication.
Propriety
Refrain from improper comments or
treatment (e.g., maintain employee
dignity).
Justification
Include adequate explanations for why
pay and benefits decisions were made.
Truthfulness
Be truthful and candid with employees.
Interactional
Informational
Bies &
Moag
(1986)
Bies &
Moag
(1986)
28
APPENDIX
Pay Fairness Items Adapted from Colquitt (2001)
All items below use the following Likert type response scale
1=To a Very Small Extent, 2=To a Small Extent, 3=Neutral, 4=To a Large Extent, 5=To a Very
Large Extent
Distributive Justice
At [name of organization], to what extent:
1. does your pay reflect the effort you have put into work?
2. is your pay appropriate for the work you have completed?
3. does your pay reflect what you have contributed to the organization?
4. is your pay justified given your performance?
Procedural Justice
The following items refer to the decision making procedures that [name of organization] uses to
determine your pay. To what extent does [name of organization]:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
enable you to express your views and feelings?
allow you to influence decisions concerning your pay?
act consistently?
use procedures that are free of bias?
use accurate information in decision making?
allow you to appeal decisions about your pay?
adhere to ethical and moral standards?
Interactional Justice
The following items refer to the decision maker(s) at [name of organization] who determine your
pay. To what extent have they:
1.
2.
3.
4.
treated you with respect?
treated you in a polite manner?
treated you with dignity?
treated you in a courteous manner?
Informational Justice
The following items refer to how [name of organization] communicates pay-related information
to you.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Has [name of organization] been candid in its communications with you?
Has [name of organization] explained pay related procedures thoroughly?
Were [name of organization]’s explanations regarding pay related decisions reasonable?
Has [name of organization] communicated details about your pay in a timely manner?
Has [name of organization] seemed to tailor pay related communications to individual’s
specific needs?