Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 16, Issue 3, 2021
Integrating Fairness Evaluations into Social Comparison
Processes: The Construct of Fairness of Relative Perceived
Organizational Support (FRPOS)
Irene Tsachouridi
Marketing & Communication, Athens University of Economics and Business
76, Patission Str., Athens, 10434, Greece
Tel: 0030 210 8203431
Email: etsachouridi@aueb.gr
Abstract
This study incorporates fairness evaluations into social comparison processes and proposes a new
construct, namely Fairness of Relative Perceived Organizational Support (FRPOS). FRPOS captures an
employee’s belief that it is fair to receive higher organizational support than his/her coworkers. Τhe
effects of FRPOS on intent to quit through Perceived Organizational Support (POS) are examined.
Moreover, this study investigates whether Relative Perceived Organizational Support (RPOS)
moderates the relationship between FRPOS and subsequent employee reactions. Based on a field study
in which 289 employees took part, the findings indicate that FRPOS exerts a statistically significant
positive effect on intent to quit, while POS can only partially explain such an effect. RPOS was found
to moderate (weaken) the negative relationship between FRPOS and POS, thus affecting the ability of
POS to mediate the FRPOS-intent to quit relationship (moderated mediation). These findings suggest
that employees seek to understand whether they deserve relatively better treatment than their coworkers
and react positively only when they actually receive it. Generally, this study has significant practical
implications, proposing that organizations and HR managers should pay attention not only to
“objective” fairness, but also to “subjective” aspects of fairness, as perceived by employees.
Keywords: social comparison, fairness, perceived organizational support, intent to quit
Irene Tsachouridi
89
1. INTRODUCTION
The central question in Organizational Behaviour literature is the need to understand what motivates
employees to remain loyal to their organization and express better attitudes and behaviors within
organizational settings. Employees personify their organization and form an “interpersonal” relationship
with it, which is important for their subsequent reactions (Eisenberger, Jones, Aselage, & Sucharski,
2004; Levinson, 1965). Within this relationship, employees do not evaluate the benefits and the treatment
they receive in isolation, but they take into account the treatment of their coworkers in order to make
fairness evaluations (Adams, 1965; Erdogan & Bauer, 2010; Le & Pan, 2021). Social comparisons are
an integral aspect of fairness (Greenberg, Ashton-James, & Ashkanasy, 2007) and have a motivational
power, sparking employees’ reciprocity (Tsachouridi & Nikandrou, 2019; Vidyarthi, Liden, Anand,
Erdogan, & Ghosh, 2010).
According to Equity Theory, individuals feel distress when they perceive inequity between what
they give and what they receive (Adams, 1965; Huseman, Hatfield & Miles, 1987). Research findings
have strongly supported the rationale of Equity Theory indicating that employees who perceive fairness
express positive attitudes and behaviours towards their organization, while those perceiving unfairness
express negative reactions, thus restoring the balance in their relationship with their organization
(Ambrose, Rice, & Mayer, 2021; Clercq, Kundi, Sardar, Shahid, 2021; Colquitt, Scott, Rodell, Long,
Zapata, Conlon, & Wesson 2013; Khaola & Rambe, 2021; Khattak, Zolian, & Muhammad, 2021).
Perceptions of fairness seem to be more important than objective equality per se, given that
employees evaluate fairness subjectively and seek symbolic and existential recognition within their
collective (Morand & Merriman, 2012; Rea, Froehle, Masterson, Stettler, Fermann, & Pancioli, 2021).
An important aspect of this symbolic recognition has to do with employees’ relative treatment. Recent
research has confirmed such a view, indicating that employees evaluate their relative treatment and
reciprocate their organization when they perceive relatively better standing within their workplace
(Tsachouridi & Nikandrou, 2019). Doing so, they manifest their ubiquitous tendency to compare
themselves with others in order to gain personal insights (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Corcoran, Crusius,
& Mussweiler, 2011).
This study argues that relative treatment is one of the factors that employees take into account in
order to form their fairness perceptions. More specifically, integrating the rationale of Equity and Social
Comparison Theory, this study suggests that employees evaluate whether they consider it fair to receive
relatively better treatment than their coworkers.
Until now literature has focused on the fact that employees form perceptions of organizational
support (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Eisenberger et al., 2004), as well as
perceptions of relative organizational support (Tsachouridi & Nikandrou, 2019). This study extends the
aforementioned stream of research and proposes that employees form perceptions of whether they
consider it fair to receive high relative organizational support. To do so, this paper introduces a new
construct, namely Fairness of Relative Perceived Organizational Support (FRPOS). FRPOS builds on
the rationale of Perceived Organizational Support (POS) and Relative Perceived Organizational Support
(RPOS) and extends the literature by adding the dimension of fairness to RPOS.
The paper also examines the effects of FRPOS on subsequent employee reactions. Ιt suggests that
FRPOS will act as a wariness of fairness (fear of not receiving the relative organizational support
employees consider fair to receive) and not as an actual manifestation of fairness. Acting as a wariness,
FRPOS is expected to make employees conserve their positive attitudes and reactions until they receive
the relative suppοrt they consider fair to receive.
This study contributes to the existing literature in two main ways. First of all, it adds to a better
understanding of what is considered fair, despite not being equal. The debate about “equality” versus
“equity” has featured in the equity literature (Morand & Merriman, 2012; Rea et al., 2021). This study
aspires to contribute to the examination of the aforementioned issue, by investigating whether employees
seek to evaluate whether it is fair to receive more support than their coworkers and whether they form
their reactions based on this evaluation.
Second, the study contributes to a deeper understanding of the reciprocation activated by
differentiated treatment in organizational settings. Until now research has indicated that employees
respond positively to relatively better standing (Henderson, Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2008;
Hu & Liden, 2013; Tsachouridi & Nikandrou, 2019; Vardaman, Allen, Otondo, Hancock, Shore, &
Rogers, 2016; Vidyarthi et al., 2010). However, research has also indicated that at the supervisor-
subordinate level differentiated treatment provokes negative reactions if not accompanied by a justice
climate (Erdogan & Bauer, 2010). This study further explores this stream of research by focusing on
relative treatment at the organizational level and by examining a complementary aspect of the employees’
fairness perceptions. Instead of exploring the general evaluation of the justice climate, it directly
examines employees’ fairness wariness about their relatively better treatment. Doing so, we gain a more
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
90
complete understanding of the conditions under which employees positively react to their relative
standing.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES
2.1. The concept of Fairness of Relative Perceived Organizational Support (FRPOS)
Organizational justice could be defined as perceived fairness within organizational settings and has
been found to spark employees’ reciprocity within organizational settings (Adamovic, 2021; Ambrose et
al., 2021; Colquitt et al., 2013; Mehmood, Malik, Saood Akhtar, Faraz, & Memon, 2021). Given that
perceptions of fairness lie in the eye of the beholder, it is important to understanding how employees
form not only their evaluations of fairness, but also their wariness of fairness. Within the workplace
employees inevitably obtain social information that enables them to compare themselves with others
(Goodman & Haisley, 2007). Making social comparisons and positively evaluating relative better
organizational treatment (Tsachouridi & Nikandrou, 2019; Vidyarthi et al., 2010), employees are
expected to be wary about the relative support they receive and its fairness. Based on this rationale, this
study suggests the construct of Fairness of Perceived Organizational Support (FRPOS), which captures
employees’ belief that they deserve to receive more organizational support relatively to their coworkers.
In other words, FRPOS has to do with employees’ perceptions of fairness regarding the relative treatment
they deserve to receive within the workplace.
FRPOS draws on equity and social comparison theory. It is based on the assumption that individuals
make social comparisons in order to gain insights into themselves and understand their value within the
collective (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Corcoran et al., 2011; Greenberg et al., 2007). Moreover, it is based
on the rationale of equity theory. Adams (1965) has proposed that in order to perceive equity between
two parties, individuals should receive a normatively appropriate rate of return in their social exchange.
“This is defined in terms of the ratio of benefits one receives (i.e., outcomes) relative to the contributions
one has made (i.e., inputs) as compared to the corresponding ratio of some referent other” (Greenberg et
al., 2007, p. 23). Social comparisons and fairness judgments seem to be intertwined (Austin, McGinn, &
Susmilch, 1980).
Despite the fact that the evaluation of fairness is comparative in nature (Greenberg et al., 2007), as
well as the fact that social comparison and fairness seem to predict employee attitudes and behaviours
(Arnéguy, Ohana, & Stinglhamber, 2020; DeConinck, 2010; Hooper & Martin, 2008; Hu & Liden, 2013;
Sen, Mert, & Abubakar, 2021; Panicker & Sharma, 2020; Tsachouridi & Nikandrou, 2019; Vidyarthi et
al., 2010; Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002), until now there has been no direct integration of
the dimension of fairness into comparative evaluations. Research has focused on the role of the justice
climate in differentiated treatment at the supervisor-subordinate dyad (Erdogan & Bauer, 2010).
However, it has paid no attention to fairness evaluations regarding the social comparisons per se.
The concept of FRPOS addresses this limitation by incorporating fairness perceptions into relative
organizational support and proposes that employees compare themselves with their coworkers, building
expectations regarding their relative standing. FRPOS extends previous literature suggesting that
employees evaluate not only the organizational support they receive (POS) (Eisenberger et al., 1986) and
their relative organizational support (RPOS) (Tsachouridi & Nikandrou, 2019), but also examine whether
they deserve it.
This study suggests that FRPOS, making employees wary about their relatively better treatment
increases their “threshold” of fairness. More specifically, it proposes that FRPOS will lead to decreased
perceptions of organizational support (POS) and as such to higher intent to quit. This study also suggests
that perceptions of relative organizational support (RPOS) will weaken the negative effects of FRPOS,
indicating that employees’ fairness expectations have been successfully met. Figure 1 depicts the
research model proposed.
Irene Tsachouridi
91
Figure 1. Conceptual Model
2.2. Hypotheses
2.2.1. FRPOS, POS and intent to quit
Combining the social comparison and fairness literature, this study expects that employees who
believe that it is fair for them to receive better treatment than their coworkers will have high wariness
about their relative treatment. Employees conserve their positive attitudes and behaviours until receiving
the fairness they think they deserve. Based on this rationale, we expect that employees with high FRPOS
will perceive the organizational treatment as lower given their fairness expectations and the strong
association between perceptions of fairness and perceptions of support (Baran, Shanock, & Miller, 2012;
DeConinck, 2010; Sen et al., 2021; Wayne et al., 2002). This wariness about relatively better treatment
may harm employees’ self-evaluation, self-enhancement and self-improvement associated with social
comparisons (Wood, 1989) and may make them feel reserved regarding organizational treatment. Based
on the above we expect that:
Hypothesis 1: FRPOS is negatively related to POS
Moreover, this study suggests that FRPOS will make employees more willing to leave the
organization. Having a higher “threshold” of fairness, employees with high FRPOS realize a discrepancy
between what they expect and what they receive (until their expectations are finally met) and as such
they may feel that their exchange relationship with their organization is of low quality. According to
social exchange theory, employees who perceive an exchange relationship of low quality tend to express
worse attitudes and behaviours towards their organization, trying to return the unfavourable
organizational treatment (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Eisenberger et al., 2004). Based on this
rationale, we expect that high FRPOS will increase employees’ intent to quit.
This study suggests that the positive effects of FRPOS on employees’ intent to quit will be explained
by POS. Given a) the negative effects of FRPOS on employees’ POS, b) the positive effects of FRPOS
on employees’ intent to quit, as well as c) the negative effects of POS on employees’ intent to quit (Allen
& Shanock, 2013; Karagonlar, Eisenberger, & Aselage, 2015; Mignonac & Richebé, 2013; Muse &
Wadsworth, 2012), this study proposes that POS will mediate the effects of FRPOS on intent to quit.
Based on the above we expect that:
Hypothesis 2: FRPOS is positively related to intent to quit
Hypothesis 3: POS mediates the effects of FRPOS on intent to quit
2.2.2. RPOS as moderator of the effects of FRPOS on intent to quit
It is suggested that RPOS moderates the effects of FRPOS on employee reactions. RPOS captures
a focal employee’s perception that he/she receives more support than his/her coworkers (Tsachouridi &
Nikandrou, 2019). This means that high RPOS indicates that employees’ expectations regarding their
relatively better treatment are fulfilled. This can transform employees’ reactions to FRPOS. According
to social exchange theory employees who believe that the organization provides economic and socio-
emotional benefits and treats them in a fair way express better attitudes and behaviours trying to
reciprocate the favourable treatment (Allen & Shanock, 2013; Colquitt et al., 2013; Lemmon & Wayne,
2015; Mignonac & Richebé, 2013; Tran, Hien, & Baker, 2021; Wayne et al., 2002).
Based on the rationale of equity and social exchange theory, this study suggests that RPOS will
weaken the negative effects of FRPOS on employees’ reactions. High wariness associated with FRPOS
FRPOS
POS
Intent to quit
RPOS
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
92
can make employees feel unfairness and perceive their exchange relationship with the organization as
lower quality, thus decreasing their POS and increasing their intent to quit. However, RPOS indicates
that employees finally receive the relatively better treatment they consider fair to receive. As such, in the
case of high RPOS employees’ exchange with the organization is successful and they do not have any
reason to express negative reactions as a response to FRPOS. Based on the above we expect that:
Hypothesis 4: RPOS moderates (weakens) the negative relationship between FRPOS and POS
Hypothesis 5: RPOS moderates (weakens) the positive relationship between FRPOS and intent to
quit
Taking into account a) the proposed mediating effect of POS on the FRPOS-intent to quit
relationship, as well as b) the proposed moderating effect of RPOS on the FRPOS-POS relationship, we
expect that RPOS moderates the indirect FRPOS-intent to quit relationship. When employees perceive
high RPOS, they do not translate FRPOS into low POS, because they believe that their organization
provides the relatively better treatment they deserve. On the other hand, employees who perceive low
RPOS translate FRPOS into low POS and high intent to quit. The mediating role of POS seems to be
dependent on RPOS, which renders it a weaker or a stronger mediator. This means that the “path” linking
FRPOS to intent to quit through POS is dependent on RPOS. Under high RPOS this path is weaker, while
under low RPOS this path is stronger. Based on the above we expect that:
Hypothesis 6: The mediating power of POS regarding the FRPOS-intent to quit relationship is
moderated by RPOS (it is weaker under high RPOS).
3. METHOD
3.1. Sample and data collection
To test the hypotheses a field study was conducted, in which 289 employees working in various
organizations of Greece took part. Eighty-eight undergraduate students provided 396 names and contact
details of employees to participate in the survey. Of these 396 employees 294 agreed to participate in the
survey and returned the questionnaires (a participation rate of about 74%). Out of the 294 returned
questionnaires, 289 were usable and were included in the analyses. Of those 289 employees, 116 were
male (40.1%), 169 were female (58.5%) and 4 (1.4%) did not specify their gender. Respondents had an
average age of 38.9 years (SD= 11.35), an average total work experience of 15.49 years (SD= 9.79) and
an average tenure in the current organization of 10.34 years (SD= 8.70). Among the respondents, 37
(12.8%) reported an upper management position, 89 (30.8%) reported a middle management position,
38 (13.1%) reported a lower management position, 120 (41.5%) reported a non-managerial position and
5 (1.7%) did not report their position.
3.2. Measures
Fairness of Relative Perceived Organizational Support (FRPOS): FRPOS was measured with six
items developed for the purposes of the current study. The items were written to capture the extent to
which employees believe that it would be fair to receive more support than their coworkers. The items
were written to parallel the scale of RPOS (Tsachouridi & Nikandrou, 2019) and POS (Eisenberger et
al., 1986).
The items were: “I believe that it is fair of my company to consider more strongly my own goals
and values, because I contribute to the workplace more than my coworkers”, “I believe that it is fair of
my company to help me more than my coworkers when I have a problem and I need help, because I
contribute to the workplace more than my coworkers”, “I believe that it is fair of my company to care
more about me than about my coworkers, because I contribute to the workplace more than my
coworkers”, “ I believe that it is fair of my company to help me more than my coworkers when I need a
special favour, because I contribute to the workplace more than my coworkers”, “I believe that it is fair
of my company to care about my opinions more than about my coworkers’, because I contribute to the
workplace more than my coworkers” and “I believe that it is fair of my organization to care about my
well-being more than about my coworkers’, because I contribute to the workplace more than my
coworkers”. A 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was employed
(Cronbach a= 0.96).
Perceived Organizational Support (POS): POS was measured with 6 items of the scale of
Eisenberger et al. (1986). Sample items included: “My organization really cares about my well-being”
and “My organization strongly considers my goals and values”. Response options ranged from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (Cronbach a= 0.90).
Irene Tsachouridi
93
Intent to quit: Intent to quit was measured with the 3-item scale of Michaels and Spector (1982)
measuring how often somebody thinks about quitting, how much somebody would like to quit and how
likely it is that they will quit within the next year. A 5-point Likert scale was used with Cronbach a=
0.82.
Relative Perceived Organizational Support (RPOS): RPOS was measured with five items of the
scale of Tsachouridi and Nikandrou (2019). Sample items included: “Compared to my coworkers I
consider that my organization shows more concern for me” and “Compared to my coworkers I consider
that my organization helps me more when I have a problem and I need help”. Response options ranged
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (Cronbach a= 0.88).
3.3. Validation of the measurement model
Before testing the Hypotheses, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using LISREL and maximum
likelihood estimation was conducted. CFA included all the constructs (FRPOS, POS, intent to quit,
RPOS) in order to examine the validity of the whole measurement model. Fit indices indicated an
acceptable fit of the measurement model (Chi-square= 428.95, df= 164, NFI= 0.94, NNFI= 0.95, CFI=
0.96, IFI= 0.96, RMSEA= 0.075, SRMR= 0.054). Each construct had convergent and discriminant
validity as the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of each construct surpassed 0.50 and was greater than
the squared correlation between this construct and any other. Descriptive statistics, reliabilities and
correlations among constructs are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities and Pearson Correlations among the constructs
To reduce common method variance respondents’ anonymity was protected and verbal labels for
each point of the scales were provided (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). The single-
factor measurement model indicated an unacceptable fit and could not converge (Chi-square= 4226.59,
df= 170, NFI= 0.63, NNFI= 0.60, CFI= 0.64, IFI= 0.64, RMSEA= 0.29, SRMR= 0.45), thus alleviating
concerns regarding the existence of common method variance.
Mean
Deviation
1
2
3
4
5
1
FRPOS
2.51
(0.96)
----
----
---
---
2
POS
3.59
-0.18**
(0.90)
---
---
---
3
Intent to quit
1.91
0.15*
-0.37**
(0.82)
---
---
4
RPOS
2.64
0.47**
0.08
0.03
(0.88)
---
5
Age
38.9
0.12
-0.19**
-0.21**
-0.01
---
6
Hierarchy (1=
upper
management, 2=
middle
management, 3=
lower
management, 4=
non-
management)
---
-0.01
-0.04
0.04
-0.03
-0.08
Numbers in parentheses represent the reliabilities of the constructs
**p<0.01
*p<0.05
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
94
4. RESULTS
To test the Hypotheses the bootstrapping technique proposed by Hayes (2013) was employed
(PROCESS macro, model 4 for mediation and model 8 for moderated mediation). FRPOS was the
independent variable, POS was the mediator, intent to quit was the dependent variable and RPOS was
the moderator. The items of each construct were averaged and their composite scores in the analyses
were used. Initially gender, age, hierarchical position, total tenure (in years) and tenure in the current
organization (in years) were used as control variables. As only age and hierarchical position exerted a
statistically significant effect on the variables of interest, only these variables were used as controlled
variables in the subsequent analyses.
The results of bootstrapping (model 4 of PROCESS macro) (Table 2) indicate that FRPOS is
positively related to intent to quit (b= 0.18, t= 3.28, p<0.01) (Hypothesis 2 supported). Moreover, FRPOS
has a statistically significant negative relationship with POS (b= -0.16, t= -3.33, p<0.01) (Hypothesis 1
supported). Additionally, the analysis indicates that the mediator (POS) has a statistically significant
negative relationship with intent to quit (b= -0.49, t= -7.41, p<0.001). After controlling for POS, the
effect of FRPOS on intent to quit decreases but remains statistically significant (b= 0.11, t= 2.06, p<
0.05), indicating partial mediation. The indirect effect of FRPOS on intent to quit through POS is
statistically significant, as the confidence intervals of this indirect effect do not include zero (Hypothesis
3 supported).
Table 2. Mediation and Moderated Mediation for the FRPOS-intent to quit relationship through
POS (RPOS as moderator)
Model 4 (mediation)
Beta
t-test
R
2
0.08***
FRPOS on intent to quit
0.18**
3.28
0.13***
FRPOS on POS
-0.16**
-3.33
0.24***
POS on intent to quit controlling for FRPOS
-49***
-7.41
FRPOS on intent to quit controlling for POS
0.11*
2.06
Unconditional Indirect effect of FRPOS on intent to quit through POS= 0.08 , 95% bias
corrected confidence intervals [0.03, 0.13]
Model 8 (moderated mediation)
0.17***
FRPOS on POS controlling for RPOS and the interaction
(FRPOSxRPOS)
-0.23***
-4.40
RPOS on POS controlling for FRPOS and the interaction
(FRPOSxRPOS)
0.19**
2.73
Interaction (FRPOSxRPOS) on POS controlling for FRPOS and
RPOS
0.12*
2.10
0.24***
POS on intent to quit controlling for FRPOS, RPOS and the
interaction (FRPOSxRPOS)
-0.49***
-7.30
FRPOS on intent to quit controlling for POS, RPOS and the
interaction (FRPOSxRPOS)
0.10
1.73
RPOS on intent to quit controlling for FRPOS, RPOS and the
interaction (breachxRPOS)
0.00
0.01
Interaction (FRPOSxRPOS) on intent to quit controlling for FRPOS,
POS and RPOS
0.03
0.53
Conditional Indirect effect of FRPOS on intent to quit through POS
a) at low RPOS (-1SD of RPOS)= 0.15, 95% CI [0.07, 0.26]
b) at high RPOS (+1SD of RPOS)= 0.07, 95% CI [0.01, 0.14]
-Number of bootstrap samples: 1000, 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were bias corrected
-Control variables used in the model: age and hierarchical position
-Unstandardized coefficients (beta) are shown
-FRPOS and RPOS were mean centered prior to the analysis regarding moderation (Model 8)
***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05
Irene Tsachouridi
95
The results (based on model 8, PROCESS macro) (Table 2) indicate a statistically significant
interaction between RPOS and FRPOS regarding the prediction of POS (b= 0.12, t= 2.10, p<0.05)
(Hypothesis 4). The sign as well as the graphical representation of interaction indicate that RPOS
moderates (weakens) the negative relationship between FRPOS and POS (Figure 2).
Figure 2. RPOS as moderator of the FRPOS-POS relationship
Due to the fact that the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator is moderated
by a third variable, there is moderated mediation (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes,
2007). 95% confidence intervals (Table 2) indicate that POS becomes a weaker mediator of the
relationship between the FRPOS and intent to quit relationship as RPOS receives higher values (indirect
effect through POS under low levels of RPOS= 0.15, indirect effect through POS under high levels of
RPOS= 0.07) (Hypothesis 6 supported). It is noteworthy that RPOS does not moderate the direct
relationship between FRPOS and intent to quit (b= 0.03, p>0.10) (Hypothesis 5 failed to receive support).
5. DISCUSSION
Integrating the rationale of Equity and Social Comparison theory, this study suggests that employees
do not care only about the relative support they perceive (RPOS) (Tsachouridi & Nikandrou, 2019), but
they also seek to understand whether it is fair to receive relatively better treatment. More specifically,
this study proposes the concept of Fairness of Relative Perceived Organizational Support (FRPOS),
capturing employees’ belief that it is fair to receive more organizational support than their coworkers.
FRPOS, indicating that employees consider it fair to receive relatively better treatment, can act as a
wariness of fairness and can make employees withhold positive employee attitudes and behaviours until
they receive it.
Acting as a wariness of fairness, FRPOS differs from employees’ evaluations of organizational
justice. Organizational justice focuses on employees’ evaluations of fairness and has been found to spark
employees’ positive reciprocity (Baran et al., 2012; Colquitt et al., 2013; Sen et al., 2021). By contrast,
FRPOS acting as a wariness of fairness seems to withhold employees’ positive reciprocity. Until now,
research has focused only on individual attributes affecting employees’ fairness considerations and
wariness (Eisenberger, Shoss, Karagonlar, Gonzalez-Morales, Wickham, & Buffardi, 2014; Huseman et
al., 1987; Lynch, Armeli, & Eisenberger, 1999). This study extends this stream of research and suggests
that employees are also wary about whether they deserve relatively better treatment.
More specifically, the study findings support the claim that FRPOS has a negative relationship with
employees’ perceptions of organizational support and a positive relationship with intent to quit.
Employees who believe that they deserve relatively better treatment do not feel supported by the
organization and these decreased levels of organizational support partially explain their intention to quit.
Of course, based on the study findings, these negative reactions to FRPOS are alleviated when employees
perceive relatively better treatment (RPOS), given that in this case the expectation of fairness is met.
These findings further extend previous research results regarding the importance of relative
organizational support for employee reactions (Tsachouridi & Nikandrou, 2019).
Low FRPOS High FRPOS
Low RPOS
High RPOS
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
96
5.1 Theoretical and practical implications
Existing literature has paid extensive attention to employees’ fairness evaluations and has indicated
that employees take them seriously into account in order to form their subsequent reactions (Ambrose et
al., 2021; Colquitt et al., 2013; Clercq et al., 2021; Khaola & Rambe, 2021; Kayaalp, Page, & Gumus,
2021; Khattak et al., 2021; Panicker & Sharma, 2020; Rea et al., 2021). Further extending the existing
stream of research, this study suggests that employees form fairness evaluations regarding their relative
organizational support and they form their subsequent reactions based on these evaluations. This work
contributes to the “equality” versus “equity” debate by indicating that employees probably care more
about perceived equity than about perceived equality (Morand & Merriman, 2012; Rea et al., 2021).
Organizations should be aware that employees subjectively define fairness and fear that they will
not receive the relative treatment they consider fair to receive. Instead of trying to define justice
objectively, they should seek to understand how employees conceptualize fairness. Supervisors and HR
managers should also try to explain each managerial decision to employees with clarity and open
channels of communication. Doing so, they will help employees justify managerial choices and voice
their own views and arguments concerning the treatment they consider fair.
Moreover, this study contributes to the stream of research on employees’ relatively better treatment.
Until now research has indicated that employees react positively when they receive relatively better
treatment on the part of the organization or the supervisor (Henderson et al., 2008; Hu & Liden, 2013;
Tsachouridi & Nikandrou, 2019; Vardaman et al., 2016; Vidyarthi et al., 2010). Relatively better
treatment has a symbolic value and makes employees feel recognized members of their collective, thus
sparking their reciprocity (Tsachouridi & Nikandrou, 2019; Vidyarthi et al., 2010). However, other
research findings have indicated that differentiated treatment does not always spark positive employee
reactions due to the antagonism among coworkers (Hooper & Martin, 2008). Perceptions of justice seem
to be able to weaken these negative employee reactions to differentiated treatment provided by their
leader (Erdogan & Bauer, 2010).
The present study further extends the above stream of research at the organizational level. Far from
responding negatively to perceived differentiated organizational treatment, employees seem to positively
evaluate relatively better treatment. The findings suggest that this relatively better treatment is a boundary
condition of employees’ reactions when they believe that they deserve this better treatment. Without
these perceptions of relative support, employees believe that their fairness expectations remain
unfulfilled and they are wary. As such they conserve their positive reactions. These findings propose that
we should add the dimension of employees’ expectations about relative support.
Employees’ reciprocity seems to be the result not only of their organizational treatment per se but
also of their expectations regarding this treatment. Until now, literature has paid attention to employees’
reciprocation of favourable or unfavourable organizational treatment (Baran et al., 2012; Cropanzano &
Mitchell, 2005; Eisenberger et al., 2001; Kayaalp et al., 2021; Panicker et al., 2020). The findings of this
study add the dimension of expectations about relative treatment to the existing literature and underline
their importance for employees’ reciprocation.
On the practical level, based on the study findings, organizational systems should be designed to
provide the standards of comparison through which employees understand their uniqueness within the
workplace. Employees evaluate the treatment they receive in a multifaceted way (economic,
developmental, socioemotional) (Bal, Jansen, van der Velde, de Lange, & Rousseau, 2010). This means
that HR managers and supervisors could have an individualized approach and find ways to enable each
employee to feel relatively supported at some level.
5.2. Limitations and suggestions for future research
This study has some limitations which provide fertile ground for future research. First, FRPOS is a
newly created measure. Future research could further validate this measurement instrument.
Additionally, the cross-sectional nature of the study limits the ability to claim causality. Future research
could include longitudinal designs in order to provide a stronger test of causality.
Moreover, this research indicated that POS partially mediates the relationship between FRPOS and
employees’ intent to quit. Despite the fact that POS has been found to be a strong predictor of turnover
intention and behaviour (Allen & Shanock, 2013; Avanzi, Fraccaroli, Sarchielli, Ullrich., & van Dick,
2014; Dulac, Coyle-Shapiro, Henderson., & Wayne, 2008; Karagonlar et al., 2015; Riggle, Edmondson.,
& Hansen, 2009; Shen, Jackson, Ding, Yuan, Zhao, Dou, & Zhang, 2014), the relationship between
FRPOS and intent to quit needs additional mechanisms to be fully explained. Future research should
further investigate such issues to broaden our understanding of this newly suggested norm of fairness.
Future research should also focus on the role of individual attributes (e.g. reciprocation wariness,
equity sensitivity, social comparison orientation) in employee responses to FRPOS. Individual attributes
can alter employee responses to their organizational treatment (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch,
Irene Tsachouridi
97
& Rhoades, 2001; Eisenberger et al., 2014; Karagonlar et al., 2015). Employees with high reciprocation
wariness fear exploitation and believe that the norm of reciprocity is a trap (Eisenberger et al, 2014). As
such, they may react more negatively to FRPOS if it is not accompanied by high RPOS. Similarly,
employees with high equity sensitivity (Huseman et al., 1987) may react especially negatively if they
believe that their organization does not offer them the relatively better treatment they deserve.
Additionally, employees with high social comparison orientation frequently enter social comparison
processes (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007) and as such they may pay special attention to whether they receive
the relative treatment they deserve.
Τhis study could also motivate future research to further explore the “equality” versus “equity”
debate. Employees seem to define fairness subjectively and include relative support in their “equation of
fairness”. We need to better understand what they need in order to perceive high relative support, as well
as how they react when they perceive a climate of equality within their group, while at the same time
they believe that they personally deserve better relative treatment.
6. CONCLUSION
To sum up, this paper extends the study of social comparison processes in organizational settings
by highlighting the point that social comparisons and perceptions of fairness should not be studied in
isolation. Employees form perceptions regarding the fairness of their relative treatment and they base
their behaviour on whether they believe they are receiving the relative treatment they deserve. The new
concept of FRPOS deserves further academic research and should be systematically integrated into the
literature of equity, social exchange and social comparison.
REFERENCES
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.
Adamovic, M. (2021). The vicious cycle of unfairness and conflict in teams. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 32(1), 126-157.
Allen, D.G., & Shanock, L.R. (2013). Perceived organizational support and embeddedness as key
mechanisms connecting socialization tactics to commitment and turnover among new employees.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(3), 350–369.
Ambrose, M.L., Rice, D.B., & Mayer, D.M. (2021). Justice climate and workgroup outcomes: The role
of coworker fair behavior and workgroup structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 172, 79–99.
Arnéguy, E. Ohana, M. & Stinglhamber, F. (2020). Overall justice, perceived organizational support
and readiness for change: the moderating role of perceived organizational competence. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 33(5), 765-777.
Austin, W., McGinn, N. C., & Susmilch, C. (1980). Internal standards revisited: effects of social
comparisons and expectancies on judgments of fairness and satisfaction. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 6, 401–408.
Avanzi, L., Fraccaroli, F., Sarchielli, G., Ullrich, J., & van Dick, R. (2014). Staying or leaving: A
combined social identity and social exchange approach to predicting employee turnover
intentions. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(3), 272-289.
Bal, P.M., Jansen, P.G.W., van der Velde, E.G., de Lange, A.H., & Rousseau, D.M. (2010). The role of
future time perspective in psychological contracts: A study among older workers. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 76, 474–486
Baran, B.E., Shanock, L.R., & Miller, L.R. (2012). Advancing organizational support theory into the
twenty-first century world of work. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(2), 123–147.
Buunk, A.P., & Gibbons, F.X. (2007). Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a
field. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 3-21.
Clercq, D.D., Kundi, Y.M., Sardar, S., & Shahid, S. (2021). Perceived organizational injustice and
counterproductive work behaviours: mediated by organizational identification, moderated by
discretionary human resource practices. Personnel Review, 50(7), 1545-1565
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
98
Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., Rodell, J.B., Long, D.M., Zapata, C.P., Conlon, D.E., & Wesson, M.J.,
(2013). Justice at the Millennium, a Decade Later: A Meta-Analytic Test of Social Exchange and
Affect-Based Perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199-236.
Corcoran, K., Crusius, J., & Mussweiler, T. (2011). Social comparison: Motives, standards, and
mechanisms. In D. Chadee (Ed.), Theories in social psychology (pp. 119-139). Oxford: UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M.S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal
of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
DeConinck, J. (2010). The effect of organizational justice, perceived organizational support, and
perceived supervisor support on marketing employees' level of trust. Journal of Business
Research, 63, 1349–1355.
Dulac, T., Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M., Henderson, D.J., & Wayne, S.J. (2008). Not all responses to breach
are the same: The interconnection of social exchange and psychological contract processes in
organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1079-1098.
Edwards, J.R., & Lambert, L.S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general
analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1-22.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of
perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42-51.
Eisenberger, R., Jones, J.R., Aselage, J., & Sucharski, I.L. (2004). Perceived organizational support. Ιn
J.A.-M. Coyle- Shapiro, L.M. Shore, M.S. Taylor, & L.E. Tetrick (Eds.), The employment
relationship: examining psychological and contextual perspectives (pp.206-225). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Eisenberger, R., Shoss, M.K., Karagonlar, G., Gonzalez-Morales, M.G., Wickham, R.E., & Buffardi,
L.C. (2014). The supervisor POS–LMX–subordinate POS chain: Moderation by reciprocation
wariness and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(5),
635-656.
Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T.N. (2010). Differentiated Leader-Member Exchange: The buffering role of
justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1104-1120.
Goodman, P.S., & Haisley, E. (2007). Social comparison processes in an organizational context: New
directions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 109–125.
Greenberg, J., Ashton-James, C.E., & Ashkanasy, N.M. (2007). Social comparison processes in
organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 22-41.
Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, New York: Guilford Press.
Henderson, D.J., Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., Bommer, W.H., & Tetrick, L.E. (2008). Leader–member
exchange, differentiation, and psychological contract fulfillment: A multilevel examination.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1208-1219
Hooper, D.T., & Martin, R. (2008). Beyond personal Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) quality: The
effects of perceived LMX variability on employee reactions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 20-30.
Hu, J., & Liden, R.C. (2013). Relative Leader-Member Exchange within team contexts: How and when
social comparison impacts individual effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 66(1), 127–172.
Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J., & Miles, E.W. (1987). A new perspective on Equity Theory: The Equity
Sensitivity Construct. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 222-234.
Kayaalp, A., Page, K.J., & Gumus, O. (2021). Job satisfaction and transformational leadership as the
antecedents of OCB role definitions: The moderating role of justice perceptions. International
Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 16(2), 89-101.
Karagonlar, G., Eisenberger, R., & Aselage, J. (2015). Reciprocation wary employees discount
psychological contract fulfillment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(1), 23-40.
Khaola, P., & Rambe, P. (2021). The effects of transformational leadership on organisational
citizenship behaviour: the role of organisational justice and affective commitment. Management
Research Review, 44(3), 381-398.
Irene Tsachouridi
99
Khattak, M.N., Zolin, R., & Muhammad, N. (2021). The combined effect of perceived organizational
injustice and perceived politics on deviant behaviors. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 32(1), 62-87
Le, H, & Pan, L. (2021), Examining the empirical redundancy of organizational justice constructs.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 165, 21-44.
Lemmon, G., & Wayne, S.J. (2015). Underlying motives of organizational citizenship behavior:
Comparing egoistic and altruistic motivations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
22(2), 129-148.
Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 9(4), 370–390.
Lynch, P. D., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1999). Perceived organizational support: Inferior versus
superior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 467–483.
Mehmood, S.A., Malik, M.A.R., Saood Akhtar, M., Faraz, N.A. and Memon, M.A. (2021).
Organizational justice, psychological ownership and organizational embeddedness: a conservation
of resources perspective. International Journal of Manpower, 42(8), 1420-1439.
Michaels, C.E., & Spector, P.E. (1982). Causes of employee turnover: a test of Mobley, Griffeth, Hand
and Meglino model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(1), 53-59.
Mignonac, K., & Richebé, N. (2013). 'No strings attached?': How attribution of disinterested support
affects employee retention. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(1), 72–90.
Morand, D.A., & Merriman, K.K. (2012). ‘‘Equality Theory’’ as a counterbalance to Equity Theory in
Human Resource Management. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 133–144
Muse, L.A., & Wadsworth, L.L. (2012). An examination of traditional versus non traditional benefits.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2), 112-131.
Panicker, A., & Sharma, A. (2020). Demonstrating the impact of participative decision making,
distributive justice perception and growth opportunities on favorable and unfavorable employee
outcomes: Mediating effect of workplace inclusion in Indian HEIs. International Journal of
Business Science and Applied Management, 15(1), 30-46.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., & Hayes, A.F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses:
Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227.
Rea, D., Froehle, C., Masterson, S., Stettler, B.. Fermann, G., & Pancioli, A. (2021). Unequal but fair:
Incorporating distributive justice in operational allocation models. Production and Operations
Management, 30(7), 2304–2320.
Riggle, R.J,, Edmondson, D.R., & Hansen, J.D. (2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship between
perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of Business
Research, 62(10), 1027-1030.
Sen, C., Mert, I.S., & Abubakar, M. (2021). The nexus among perceived organizational support,
organizational justice and cynicism. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, ahead-of-
print.
Shen, Y., Jackson, T., Ding, C., Yuan, D., Zhao, L., Dou, Y., & Zhang, Q. (2014). Linking perceived
organizational support with employee work outcomes in a Chinese context: Organizational
identification as a mediator. European Management Journal, 32(3), 406-412.
Tran, L.T.T., Thi Vinh Hien, H., & Baker, J. (2021). When supportive workplaces positively help work
performance. Baltic Journal of Management, 16(2), 208-227.
Tsachouridi, I., & Nikandrou, I. (2019). Integrating social comparisons into perceived organizational
support (POS): The construct of relative perceived organizational support (RPOS) and its
relationship with POS, identification and employee outcomes, Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 68(2), 276-310.
Vardaman, J.M., Allen, D.G., Otondo, R.F., Hancock, J.I., Shore, L.M., & Rogers, B.L. (2016). Social
comparisons and organizational support: Implications for commitment and retention. Human
Relations, 69(7), 1-23.
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
100
Vidyarthi, P.R., Liden, R.C., Anand, S., Erdogan, B., & Ghosh, S. (2010). Where do I stand?
Examining the effects of leader-member exchange social comparison on employee work
behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 849-861.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., Bommer, W.H., & Tetrick, L.E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and
rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader–member exchange. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(3), 590-598.
Wood, J. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes.
Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 231-248.