Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 140, Issue 1, pp 43–64 | Cite as

Is Fair Treatment Enough? Augmenting the Fairness-Based Perspective on Stakeholder Behaviour

Article

Abstract

Fairness and justice are core issues in stakeholder theory. Although such considerations receive more attention in the ‘normative’ branch of the stakeholder literature, they have critical implications for ‘instrumental’ stakeholder theory as well. In research in the instrumental vein, although the position has seldom been articulated in significant detail, a stakeholder’s inclination to take action against the firm or, conversely, to cooperate with it, is often taken to be a function of its perceptions concerning the fairness or unfairness (or equity or inequity) of the treatment it receives in its relationship with the firm. Thus, from various works in this domain can be distilled what might be termed a ‘fairness-based perspective on stakeholder behaviour’. This perspective, as it currently stands, assumes a high degree of homogeneity in stakeholders’ responses to fair, unfair, or munificent treatment by the firm. This supposition is itself typically based on a presumption that stakeholders consistently and uniformly adhere to norms of equity and reciprocity in their relationships with firms. However, research developments in equity theory and social exchange theory suggest that such assumptions are likely untenable. Accordingly, in this work, after outlining the fairness-based perspective on stakeholder behaviour, I undertake to augment it by presenting propositions concerning the possible influences of stakeholders’ equity preferences and exchange ideologies on their propensities to sanction or support the firm. Incorporating these stakeholder traits into the fairness-based perspective should enhance the predictive validity of its propositions concerning stakeholder behaviour in response to fairness or unfairness in the firm–stakeholder relationship.

Keywords

Equity sensitivity Exchange ideology Justice Reciprocity Stakeholder mobilization Stakeholder theory 

References

  1. Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Adams, G. L., Treadway, D. C., & Stepina, L. P. (2008). The role of dispositions in politics perception formation: The predictive capacity of negative and positive affectivity, equity sensitivity, and self-efficacy. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20(4), 545–563.Google Scholar
  4. Allen, R., & White, C. (2002). Equity sensitivity theory: A test of responses to two types of under-reward situations. Journal of Managerial Issues, 14, 435–451.Google Scholar
  5. Andiappan, M., & Treviño, L. (2010). Beyond righting the wrong: Supervisor-subordinate reconciliation after an injustice. Human Relations, 64(3), 359–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Barraquier, A. (2013). A group identity analysis of organizations and their stakeholders: Porosity of identity and mobility of attributes. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S. K., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? An empirical examination of the relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 488–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. Lewicki, B. Sheppard, & M. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bin Ahmad, K. Z. (2011). Group size as a moderator of the effect of equity sensitivity on employee job satisfaction. International Journal of Management, 28(3), 716–729.Google Scholar
  11. Bing, M. N., & Burroughs, S. M. (2001). The predictive and interactive effects of equity sensitivity in teamwork-oriented organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 271–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of equity sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 259–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2008). Creating value by giving it away: The influence of reciprocation on firm performance. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
  15. Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 447–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brenner, S. N., & Cochran, P. (1991). The stakeholder theory of the firm: Implications for business and society theory and research. In J. F. Mahon (Ed.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the International Association for Business and Society (pp. 449–467).Google Scholar
  17. Bretz, R. D., & Thomas, S. L. (1992). Perceived equity, motivation, and final-offer arbitration in Major League Baseball. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 280–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bundy, J., Shropshire, C., & Buchholtz, A. (2013). Strategic cognition and issue salience: Toward an explanation of firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 352–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Butterfield, K. D., Reed, R., & Lemak, D. J. (2004). An inductive model of collaboration from the stakeholder’s perspective. Business and Society, 43(2), 162–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bynum, L., Bentley, J., Holmes, E., & Bouldin, A. (2012). Organizational citizenship behaviors of pharmacy faculty: Modeling influences of equity sensitivity, psychological contract breach, and professional identity. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 9(5), 99–111.Google Scholar
  21. Chiaburu, D. S., & Baker, V. L. (2006). Extra-role behaviors challenging the status-quo: Validity and antecedents of taking charge behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 620–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chiaburu, D. S., Muñoz, G. J., & Gardner, R. G. (2013). How to spot a careerist early on: Psychopathy and exchange ideology as predictors of careerism. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 473–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Clarkson, M. (1994). A risk based model of stakeholder theory. Proceedings of the Second Toronto Conference on Stakeholder Theory. Toronto: Centre for Corporate Social Performance and Ethics, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  24. Clarkson, M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117.Google Scholar
  25. Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., Morrow, P. C., & Kessler, I. (2006). Serving two organizaitons: Exploring the employment relationship of contracted employees. Human Resource Management, 45(4), 561–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Crosno, J. L., & Dahlstrom, R. (2008). A meta-analytic review of opportunism in exchange relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
  29. Dunfee, T. (2006). A critical perspective of integrative social contracts theory: Recurring criticisms and next generation research topics. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(3), 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Eisenberger, R., Cotterell, N., & Marvel, J. (1987). Reciprocation ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(4), 743–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Evan, W., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. Beauchamp & N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical Theory and Business (pp. 75–93). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Fassin, Y. (2012). Stakeholder management, reciprocity, and stakeholder responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., & Gachter, S. (2002). Strong reciprocity, human cooperation, and the enforcement of social norms. Human Nature, 13, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fehr, E., & Gachter, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14, 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fehr, E., & Tyran, J. (1996). Institutions and reciprocal fairness. Nordic Journal of Political Economy, 23, 133–144.Google Scholar
  40. Fok, L. Y., Hartman, S. J., Patti, A. L., & Razek, J. R. (2000). The relationships between equity sensitivity, growth need strength, organizational citizenship behavior, and reactions to the quality environment: A study of accounting professionals. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15(1), 99–120.Google Scholar
  41. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  42. Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.Google Scholar
  43. Frooman, J., & Murrell, A. (2005). Stakeholder influence strategies: The roles of structural and demographic determinants. Business and Society, 44(1), 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gintis, S. (2000). Strong reciprocity and human sociality. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 206(2), 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Greenberg, J. (1979). Protestant ethic endorsement and the fairness of equity inputs. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hahn, T. (2004). Why and when companies contribute to societal goals: The effect of reciprocal stakeholder behavior. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (pp. D1–D6).Google Scholar
  49. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.Google Scholar
  50. Harrison, J. S., & Bosse, D. A. (2013). How much is too much? The limits to generous treatment of stakeholders. Business Horizons, 56, 313–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2007). Stakeholder theory and competitive advantage. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
  52. Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hayibor, S. (2012). Equity and expectancy considerations in stakeholder action. Business and Society, 51(2), 220–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hayibor, S., & Collins, C. (2015). Motivators of mobilization: Influences of inequity, expectancy, and resource dependence on stakeholder propensity to take action against the firm. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2638-9.
  55. Hendry, J. (2001). Missing the target: Normative stakeholder theory and the corporate governance debate. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11, 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hill, C. W., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakehoder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hochwarter, W. A., Stepina, L. P., & Perrewe, P. L. (1996). Always getting the short end of the stick: The effects of negative affectivity on perceptions of equity. Journal of Managerial Issues, 8(4), 457–469.Google Scholar
  58. Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hosmer, L. T., & Kiewitz, C. (2005). Organizational justice: A behavioral science concept with critical implications for business ethics and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(1), 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Hunter, K. H. (2011). Organizational support and motivation theories: Theoretical integration and empirical analysis, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.Google Scholar
  61. Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. (1985). Test for individual perceptions of job equity: Some preliminary findings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1055–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12, 222–234.Google Scholar
  63. Husted, B. W. (1998). Organizational justice and the management of stakeholder relations. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(6), 643–651.Google Scholar
  64. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Jolls, C., Sunstein, C., & Thaler, R. (1998). A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Review, 50, 1471–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Jones, T. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404–437.Google Scholar
  67. Kaler, J. (2003). Differentiating stakeholder theories. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kang, B., & Jindal, R. P. (2015). Opportunism in buyer–seller relationships: Some unexplored antecedents. Journal of Business Research, 68, 735–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kickul, J., Gundry, L., & Posig, M. (2005). Does trust matter? The relationship between equity sensitivity and perceived organizational justice. Journal of Business Ethics, 56, 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kickul, J., & Lester, S. (2001). Broken promises: Equity sensitivity as a moderator between psychological contract breach and employee attitudes and behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(2), 191–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. King, W., & Hinson, T. (1994). The influence of sex and equity sensitivity on relationship preferences, assessment of opponent, and outcomes in a negotiation experiment. Journal of Management, 20, 605–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. King, W. C., & Miles, E. W. (1994). The measurement of equity sensitivity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. King, W. C., Miles, E. W., & Day, D. (1993). A test and refinement of the equity sensitivity construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ladd, D., & Henry, R. A. (2000). Helping coworkers and helping the organization: The role of support perceptions, exchange ideology, and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2028–2049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Lampe, M. (2001). Mediation as an ethical adjunct of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 31(2), 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Langtry, B. (1994). Stakeholders and the moral responsibility of business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 431–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Review, 19, 51–89.Google Scholar
  80. Lloyd, S. D., Restubog, P. B., & Tang, R. L. (2007). Behavioral outcomes of psychological contract breach in a non-Western culture: The moderating role of equity sensitivity. British Journal of Management, 18, 376–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Luo, Y., Yi, L., Yang, Q., Maksimov, V., & Hou, J. (2015). Improving performance and reducing cost in buyer–supplier relationships: The role of justice in curtailing opportunism. Journal of Business Research, 68, 607–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. MacMillan, K., Money, K., Downing, S., & Hillenbrand, C. (2005). Reputation in relationships: Measuring experiences, emotions, and behaviors. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(3), 214–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Major, B., & Deaux, K. (1982). Individual differences in justice behavior. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and Justice in Social Behavior (pp. 89–110). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  84. Miles, E. W., Hatfield, J. D., & Huseman, R. C. (1989). The equity sensitivity construct: Potential implications for worker performance. Journal of Management, 15, 581–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Miles, E. W., Hatfield, J. D., & Huseman, R. C. (1994). Equity sensitivity and outcome importance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 585–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identifcation and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
  87. Mudrack, P. E., & Mason, S. E. (1995). More on the acceptability of workplace behaviors of a dubious ethical nature. Psychological Reports, 76, 639–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Mudrack, P. E., Mason, E. S., & Stepanski, K. M. (1999). Equity sensitivity and business ethics. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 539–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. O’Connell, L. L., Stephens, C. U., Betz, M., Shepard, J. M., & Hendry, J. R. (2005). An organizational field approach to corporate rationality: The role of stakeholder activism. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(1), 93–111.Google Scholar
  90. O’Malley, M. N., & Davies, D. K. (1984). Equity and affect: The effects of relative performance and moods on resource allocation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5, 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. O’Neill, B. S., & Mone, M. A. (1998). Investigating equity sensitivity as a moderator of relations between self-efficacy and workplace attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 805–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Opsahl, R. L., & Dunnette, M. D. (1966). The role of financial compensation in industrial motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Orpen, C. (1994). The effects of exchange ideology on the relationship between perceived organizational support and job performance. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 407–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Parnell, J. A., & Sullivan, E. (1992). When money isn’t enough: The effect of equity sensitivity on performance-based pay systems. Human Resource Management Review, 2(2), 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Patrick, S., & Jackson, J. (1991). Further examination of the equity sensitivity construct. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 1091–1106.Google Scholar
  96. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  97. Phillips, R. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(1), 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Phillips, R. A. (2003). Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Phillips, R. A., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Rehbein, K., Waddock, S., & Graves, S. (2004). Understanding shareholder activism: Which corporations are targeted? Business and Society, 43(3), 239–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Restubog, S., Bordia, P., & Bordia, S. (2009). The interactive effects of procedural justice and equity sensitivity in predicting responses to psychological contract breach: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Business Psychology, 24, 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Roehling, M. V., Roehling, P. V., & Boswell, W. R. (2010). The potential role of organizational setting in creating “entitled” employees: An investigation of the antecedents of equity sensitivity. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 22, 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.Google Scholar
  104. Rowley, T. J. (1998). A normative justification for stakeholder theory. Business and Society, 37(1), 105–107.Google Scholar
  105. Rowley, T. J., & Berman, S. (2000). A new brand of corporate social performance. Business and Society, 39, 397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Rowley, T. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act? An interest and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28, 204–219.Google Scholar
  107. Sass, M. D., Liao-Troth, M. A., & Wonder, B. D. (2011). Determining person-organization fit for healthcare CEOs: How executive equity sensitivity relates to nonprofit and for-profit sector selection. Nonprofit Managment and Leadership, 22(2), 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organisational stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Scheer, L. K., Kumar, N., & Steenkamp, J. E. (2003). Reactions to perceived inequity in US and Dutch interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Schrempf-Stirling, J., Bosse, D. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2013). Anticipating, preventing, and surviving secondary boycotts. Business Horizons, 56, 573–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Scott, B. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2007). Are organizational justice effects bounded by individual differences? An examination of equity sensitivity, exchange ideology, and the Big Five. Group and Organization Management, 32(3), 290–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Shore, T. (2004). Equity sensitivity theory: Do we all want more than we deserve? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(7), 722–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Shore, L., & Coyle-Shapiro, J. (2003). New developments in the employee-organization relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 443–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Sinclair, R. R., & Tetrick, L. E. (1995). Social exchange and union commitment: A comparison of union instrumentality and union support perceptions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 669–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Thibault, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  116. Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Tsui, A. S., & Wang, D. X. (2002). Employment relationships from the employer’s perspective: Current research and future directions. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 77–114). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  118. Vecchio, R. P. (1981). An individual-differences interpretation of the conflicting predictions generated by equity theory and expectancy theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 470–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Waddock, S., & Graves, S. (1997). Quality of management and quality of stakeholder relations: Are they synonymous? Business and Society, 36(3), 250–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Wang, Q., Li, J. J., Ross, W. T., & Craighead, C. W. (2013). The interplay of drivers and deterrents of opportunism in buyer–supplier relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Wang, D., Tsui, A., Zhang, Y., & Ma, L. (2003). Employment relationships and firm performance: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 511–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Wasieleski, D. M., & Hayibor, S. (2009). Evolutionary psychology and business ethics research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(4), 587–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Wathne, K. H., & Heide, J. B. (2000). Opportunism in interfirm relationships: Forms, outcomes, and solutions. Journal of Marketing, 64, 36–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Weick, K. E., Bougon, M. G., & Maruyama, G. (1976). The equity context. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 32–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Wheeler, K. G. (2002). Cultural values in relation to equity sensitivity within and across cultures. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 612–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  127. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  128. Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 269–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Witt, L. A. (1991). Exchange ideology as a moderator of job attitudes-organizational citizenship behaviors relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(18), 1490–1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Witt, L. A., & Broach, D. (1993). Exchange ideology as a moderator of the procedural justice-satisfaction relationship. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133(1), 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Witt, L. A., Kacmar, K. M., & Andrews, M. C. (2001). The interactive effects of procedural justice and exchange ideology on supervisor-rated commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 505–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Witt, L. A., & Wilson, J. W. (1990). Exchange ideology as a predictor of job satisfaction and organizational commitment: Dispositional differences. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 267–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(3), 229–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Yiu, T. W., & Law, Y. M. (2011). Moderating effect of equity sensitivity on behavior-outcome relationships in construction dispute negotiation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(5), 322–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Yiu, T. W., Keung, C. W., & Wong, K. L. (2011). Application of equity sensitivity theory to problem-solving approaches in construction dispute negotiation. Journal of Managment in Engineering, 27(1), 40–47.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sprott School of BusinessCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations