We advanced and tested a multiple-motive model of resource allocation. In this model we identified important instrumental, social-emotional, and group maintenance goals, and asserted that rational managers will sometimes allocate reduced rewards to employees with constrained mobility. Consistent with predictions, managers allocated greater salary funds to more deserving employees: those with high competence and dedication. However, allocations also differed as a function of employee mobility. This effect was strongest among competent employees, whose membership was most desirable. Furthermore, the tendency to allocate lesser rewards to low-mobility employees was particularly pronounced under conditions of low reward availability and low labor availability. These effects were not mediated by changes in perceptions of the competence of low-mobility employees. The findings are discussed as a form of rational selective exploitation: The rational manager's need to attend to employee mobility, particularly under conditions of reward or labor constraint, may erode equity. Every social system has rewards and resources that are used to achieve group goals and satisfy individual needs. How do group managers divide rewards among individual members? One answer has been provided by equity theory, which proposes that managers allocate resources to recipients in proportion to the usefulness of their contributions to the group (Adams, 1965; Cohen & Greenberg, 1982; Walster, Berscheid, & Walster, 1973). Indeed, numerous studies of the process of reward allocation have confirmed the assertion in equity theory that the outcomes of allocations are typically commensurate with indi
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.