Content area
Full Text
The concept of equity sensitivity suggests profound differences in individual notions of fairness, and distinguishes between 'benevolents' (givers) and 'entideds' (takers). This study extended existing research by exploring the connections between equity sensitivity and business ethics variables. It unfolded in three phases and utilized samples of employed North American respondents. Entitleds tended to respond in less conventionally ethical ways than benevolents; for example, by being more Machiavellian. A proposed model depicting the relationships among the variables provided a good fit to the data in the first of these samples, and some of the findings were replicated in the second sample. A portrait of benevolence began to emerge that contradicted earlier conceptualizations. Benevolents seemed to hold disparaging views of others who lack strong work ethics, and to regard ethically dubious behaviours in which the employing organization could benefit as relatively acceptable. In a third sample, benevolence was surprisingly associated with right-wing authoritarianism. Implications for the conceptualization and etiology of benevolence were derived, and the assumption of homogeneity in concepts of what is fair and equitable was further challenged by the results.
Concern about fairness in organizations may be seen in a number of themes in the management literature, such as workplace participation and democratic decision making (Nightingale, 1981), coalition formation (Mannix & White, 1992) and the use of selection tests (Gilliland, 1993). The assumption in these directions seems to be that individuals share similar interpretations of fairness and justice.
Huseman, Hatfield & Miles (1987) proposed instead that individuals need not have the same preferences for equity. In their tripartite categorization of equity sensitivity, people can be classified as benevolents, entitleds or equity sensitives. Members of this latter grouping are presumed to follow the precepts of classical equity theory (Adams, 1963), which proposes that individuals assess the ratio of their outcomes from and inputs to a relationship against those of a comparison other. If these ratios are seen as unequal, inequity exists. Any perceived inequity leads first to distress and then to attempts to reduce distress by restoring equity. One could alter actual or perceived inputs or outcomes, act on or select a different comparison other, or end the relationship entirely in an effort to restore equity.
Unlike equity sensitives, benevolents and entitleds may be attracted to...