Management Attitudes Toward Pay

Andrews, Isaiah; Henry, Mildred M.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-232x.1963.tb00807.x

Cited by 67 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In column 2 the coefficient on the share of employees with a university education is positive, with p-value = .055. This result agrees with Andrews and Henry (1963), who report that interest in external pay increases with the job level. Finally, the coefficient on the share of female employees is negative and statistically significant in both columns 1 and 2.…”

Section: The Theory Of Keynessupporting

confidence: 95%

Wage incentives and wage rigidity: A representative view from within

Agell

Bennmarker

2007

Labour Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Theory Of Keynessupporting

confidence: 95%

Wage incentives and wage rigidity: A representative view from within

Agell

Bennmarker

2007

Labour Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Hills (1980) investigated the pay comparison process of 275 private sector employees in a variety of occupational groups and job levels. In contrast to earlier research (Andrews and Henry, 1963;Finn and Lee, 1972), his study sug gested that individuals do not tend to concentrate either on internal refer ents (i.e. those who work for the same employer as the comparer) or external referents (i.e.…”

Section: Relative Pay and Pay Satisfaction Theory Behind The Processcontrasting

confidence: 83%

“…His work showed that variables such as education, seniority, and skill were major influences in determining whether comparisons increased or decreased pay satisfaction. Andrews and Henry (1963), in a study of 228 private sector managers, found that the types of pay comparisons made by individuals were a function both of management level and amount of formal education. No consistent trend was found for the relationship between pay satisfaction and management level.…”

Section: Relative Pay and Pay Satisfaction Theory Behind The Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pay Comparisons and Pay Satisfaction among Public Sector Employees

Taylor¹,

Vest²

1992

Public Personnel Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When deciding if they are fairly paid, people look at both the absolute amount of pay and the relative amount of pay. The relative amount of pay is determined by comparing their own pay with that of others. This study investigated the relative component of pay satisfaction for 143 municipal employees. Town employees were asked to rate the importance of 17 different pay comparisons which represented 4 broad categories of referents: external, personal, economic, and ego comparisons. The effects of each type of referent on feelings of pay satisfaction then were assessed. Results suggest that external comparisons may lower pay satisfaction while personal comparisons tend to increase pay satisfaction. For decades scholars have investigated the issue of pay satisfaction. ByThe major reason for this interest is the behavioral outcomes believed to Michael j'Vest' °* accompany pay dissatisfaction. For instance, compensation policies and amounts: 1) influence individuals to remain with or to leave an employer (Finn and Lee, 1972; Mahoney, 1979), 2) influence individual decisions to come to work on a given day (Mobley, Hand, Meglino, and Griffeth, 1979; Porter and Steers, 1973; Steers and Rhodes, 1978), and 3) influence the extent to which workers are willing to perform as the organization desires (Lawler, 1971; Lawler and O'Gara, 1967; Mahoney, 1979; Vroom, 1964).Despite numerous studies of this issue, little is known about the factors that cause employees to be satisfied or dissatisfied with their pay. It is known that "pay satisfaction" is both an absolute and a relative concept. That is, people decide if they are paid fairly by evaluating both the absolute and relative amount of pay received. The absolute amount is very straight forward, and is simply the gross pay. The relative component is more complex, as it involves individuals comparing their pay with that of such referent others as coworkers, family members, and the general cost of living. Consequently, pay satisfaction becomes an issue of psychological adequacy as well as financial adequacy.

show abstract

“…Indeed, under pay openness conditions, companies attempt to maintain pay equity since pay information is visible to employees. In support of this notion, previous findings demonstrate that under pay secrecy conditions employees still make pay comparisons (Andrews & Henry, 1963), but the accuracy of pay comparisons is compromised in that managers consistently underestimate superiors' pay, and overestimate subordinates' and peers' pay (Lawler, 1965a(Lawler, ,b, 1966(Lawler, , 1967(Lawler, , 1972Mahoney & Weitzel, 1978;Milkovich & Anderson, 1972). Additionally, these misestimations were manifested two levels above and below the manager with the inaccuracy being more pronounced the further away from the manager's position (Lawler, 1967(Lawler, , 1972Milkovich & Anderson, 1972), and were also demonstrated with other pay dimensions besides pay level, such as pay raise size and pay raise frequency (Lawler, 1972).…”

Section: Theory Developmentsupporting

confidence: 58%