Interplay between different forms of power and meritocratic considerations shapes fairness perceptions

Abstract

Power imbalance often leads to unequal allocations. However, it remains largely unknown how different forms of power and meritocratic considerations interact to shape fairness perceptions. Using modified Ultimatum Games, we examined how two power forms—decision power and availability of attractive outside option—affect bargaining behavior and fairness perceptions, and how meritocratic considerations are incorporated into the fairness perceptions of powerful and powerless individuals. We identified an asymmetric power effect: having increased decision power or attractive outside options independently increased self-advantageous allocations and self-serving fairness perceptions, whereas the combined lack of both power forms led to self-disadvantageous allocations but had no influence on fairness perceptions. The power effect on fairness perceptions became symmetric when power was obtained through a meritocratic process (procedural justice). In contrast, relative contributions to resource production (distributive justice) did not moderate power effects. We provide causal evidence that the powerful, but not the powerless, strive to minimize cognitive dissonance between behavior and fairness perceptions by interpreting fairness in self-serving ways. This study contributes novel insights into the interplay between different power forms, the asymmetry of power effects, the moderating role of procedural justice, and the mediating role of behavior in the power-driven adjustment of fairness perceptions.

Do employees find inclusive talent management fairer? It depends. Contrasting self‐interest and principle

“…We do not wish to assume a normative position about whether or not evaluating fairness based on self‐interest is ‘wrong’. Our point is rather, that the conflation of outcome favorability with fairness is problematic in condemning exclusive talent management practices based specifically on a justice or ethics rhetoric (Goldman & Cropanzano, 2015; Lois & Riedl, 2022; O’Connor & Crowley‐Henry, 2019). In fact, both proponents of exclusive and inclusive talent management could use the findings of the present study to support their claims.…”

“…If fairness is a function of self‐interest, however, the question becomes whether the original premise of disproportionate organizational investments in ‘talents’ (Huselid & Becker, 2011; Michaels et al., 2001) should in fact be fundamentally reevaluated based on the observation that specifically those employees with the lowest talent ratings dislike it. Please note that we are not saying that the idea of exclusive talent management does not deserve a critical examination (excellent points have been made in particular by Swailes, 2013); rather, we question whether a fairness rationale is the best way to go about it, since perceived fairness is often conflated with self‐interest (Goldman & Cropanzano, 2015; Lois & Riedl, 2022), as demonstrated by our and others' research findings (Davey et al., 1999; Gelens et al., 2014; Schneider & Valet, 2013; Sparr & Sonnentag, 2008).…”

“…The pattern across these studies is clear: respondents rated organizational practices that create inequalities between co-workers as fair when they benefited from them personally, and as unfair when they did not. This implies a dominant role of self-interest in fairness perceptions (Lois & Riedl, 2022). We thus hypothesize that: Hypothesis 2.…”

“…An alternative explanation to equality as a default allocation norm is that allocation preferences are in fact largely driven by self‐interest (Lois & Riedl, 2022). That is, seeing as the majority of employees will not be allocated talent status in an exclusive talent management program (Swailes et al., 2014), it makes sense that this type of talent management would be perceived as less fair on average .…”

Self-serving Regret: Experimental Evidence from a Reciprocity Game

“…Some people also tell lies to maintain a positive self-image 18,19 . People in different power situations prefer to see fairness in ways that bene t themselves the most 20 . Moreover, people tend to misremember the extent of their sel shness, rationalize their immoral acts and thereby protect their moral self-image 21 .…”