Rational selective exploitation and distress: Employee reactions to performance-based and mobility-based reward allocations.

Abstract

Prior research (e.g., M. R. Carrell; see record 1979-02464-001) demonstrated that allocators distribute greater rewards to persons with high professional and geographic mobility than to persons with constrained mobility, especially among the very competent. This phenomenon is termed rational selective exploitation. Do recipients of such allocations experience this distribution rule as unjust and distressing, or is it a misnomer to refer to this phemomenon as exploitation? Two studies explored this question. Study 1 manipulated relative performance level, relative mobility level, and allocation standard: performance based vs mobility based. Study 2 surveyed employees who reported the degree to which performance and mobility were the basis for pay decisions at their places of employment, as well as the degree to which they perceived each standard to be fair. Both studies demonstrated that people regard mobility-based allocations as less fair and more distressing than performance-based allocations. The degree of distress resulting from mobility-based allocations is greater among persons with constrained mobility who perform at high levels. Findings support the assertion that rational selective exploitation is distressing to employees. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)