The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Product Quality and Pay Equity Between Lower-Level Employees and Top Management: An Investigation of Distributive Justice Theory
Abstract
Douglas M. Cowherd University of Michigan David 1. Levine University of California, Berkeley The relationship between interclass pay equity and product quality is examined in a sample of 102 corporate business units. A small pay differential between lower-level employees and upper-echelon managers (after controlling for inputs) is theorized to lead to high product quality by increasing lower-level employees' commitment to top-management goals, effort, and cooperation. Interclass pay equity is determined by comparing the pay and inputs of hourly workers and of lower-level managers and professionals to those of the top three levels of managers. Consistent with the predictions of distributive justice theory, both measures of pay equity are positively related to business-unit product quality.'
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Building Sustainable Organizations: The Human Factor.
Pfeffer, J. (2010) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2010.50304415 · Cited by 862
I-Deals: Idiosyncratic Terms in Employment Relationships
Rousseau, D. M., Ho, V. T., & Greenberg, J. (2006) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2006.22527470 · Cited by 652
Greckhamer, T. (2016) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2370 · Cited by 403
Tournament Theory: Thirty Years of Contests and Competitions
Connelly, B. L., Tihanyi, L., Crook, T. R., & Gangloff, K. A. (2014) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206313498902 · Cited by 338
Designing fair AI for managing employees in organizations: a review, critique, and design agenda
Robert, L. P., Pierce, C., Marquis, L., Kim, S., & Alahmad, R. (2020) · Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/07370024.2020.1735391 · Cited by 268
Metadata
- Authors
- Cowherd, D. M., & Levine, D. I.
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1992-06
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 302
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2024334610
- Cited by
- 704
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
