Gender Effects in Injustice Perceptions: An Experiment on Error Evaluation and Effort Provision

  • Lucia Marchegiani
  • Tommaso Reggiani
  • Matteo Rizzolli
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

As performances are rarely observable, evaluation errors may occur. We observe how women react to evaluation errors and wrongful reward assessment in organizations. In particular, we focus on severity and leniency errors in the evaluation of performances. Severity errors occur when workers do not receive the reward although they exerted high effort and reached the target. Leniency errors occur when workers are rewarded even when they exerted low effort and did not reach the target. They are both detrimental to motivation and effort provision. Our findings from a laboratory experiment show that, when gender is considered, asymmetric results are shown for men and women. Whereas males drop their contribution more under severity errors rather than leniency errors, female tend to do the opposite. We discuss these results contributing to the literature on organizational justice by investigating the role of gender in the perception of justice within organizations.

Keywords

Injustice Performance appraisal Gender Leniency bias Severity bias Economic experiment 

References

  1. Abeler, J., Falk, A., Goette, L., & Huffman, D. (2011). Reference points and effort provision. The American Economic Review, 101(2), 470–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2009). Women don’t ask: Negotiation and the gender divide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2000). Gender Differences in Pay. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(4), 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brockner, J., & Adsit, L. (1986). The moderating impact of sex on the equity–satisfaction relationship: A field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 585.Google Scholar
  6. Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 34–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Foley, S., Hang-Yue, N., & Wong, A. (2005). Perceptions of discrimination and justice: Are there gender differences in outcomes? Group & Organization Management, 30(4), 421–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 9–22.Google Scholar
  11. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Konow, J. (2003). Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature, 41(4), 1188–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee, C., & Farh, J. L. (1999). The effects of gender in organizational justice perception. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(1), 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marchegiani, L., Reggiani, T., & Rizzolli, M. (2016). Loss averse agents and lenient supervisors in performance appraisal. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 131, 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mitchell, T. R. (1982). Expectancy-value models in organizational psychology. InExpectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology (pp. 293–312).Google Scholar
  17. Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1067–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Shapiro, D. L. (2004). Introduction to special topic forum: The future of work motivation theory. The Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 379–387.Google Scholar
  19. Sweeney, P.D., & McFarlin, D.B. (1997). Process and outcome: Gender differences in the assessment of justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 83–98.Google Scholar
  20. Pritchard, R. D. (1969). Equity theory: A review and critique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(2), 176–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Examining the construct of organizational justice: A meta-analytic evaluation of relations with work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(3), 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation (p. 45). NY: John Wiley & sons.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucia Marchegiani
    • 1
  • Tommaso Reggiani
    • 2
    • 3
  • Matteo Rizzolli
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Business StudiesRoma Tre UniversityRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Public EconomicsMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  3. 3.IZA Institute of Labor EconomicsBonnGermany
  4. 4.Department of Social SciencesLUMSA UniversityRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations