在全球虚拟团队中重新审视公平理论

IF 3.1 Q2 MANAGEMENT
Ernesto Tavoletti, Eric David Cohen, Longzhu Dong, Vas Taras
{"title":"在全球虚拟团队中重新审视公平理论","authors":"Ernesto Tavoletti, Eric David Cohen, Longzhu Dong, Vas Taras","doi":"10.1108/mrr-05-2023-0334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>The purpose of this study is to test whether equity theory (ET) – which posits that individuals compare their outcome/input ratio to the ratio of a “comparison other” and classify individuals as Benevolent, Equity Sensity, and Entitled – applies to the modern workplace of global virtual teams (GVT), where work is mostly intellectual, geographically dispersed and online, making individual effort nearly impossible to observe directly.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>Using a sample of 1,343 GVTs comprised 6,347 individuals from 137 countries, this study tests three ET’s predictions in the GVT context: a negative, linear relationship between Benevolents’ perceptions of equity and job satisfaction in GVTs; an inverted U-shaped relationship between Equity Sensitives’ perceptions of equity and job satisfaction in GVTs; and a positive, linear relationship between Entitleds’ perceptions of equity and job satisfaction in GVTs.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>Although the second prediction of ET is supported, the first and third have statistically significant opposite signs.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Practical implications</h3>\n<p>The research has important ramifications for management studies in explaining differences in organizational behavior in GVTs as opposed to traditional work settings.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>The authors conclude that the main novelty with ET in GVTs is that GVTs are an environment stingy with satisfaction for “takers” (Entitleds) and generous in satisfaction for “givers” (Benevolents).</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":47769,"journal":{"name":"Management Research Review","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting equity theory in the global virtual teams\",\"authors\":\"Ernesto Tavoletti, Eric David Cohen, Longzhu Dong, Vas Taras\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/mrr-05-2023-0334\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Purpose</h3>\\n<p>The purpose of this study is to test whether equity theory (ET) – which posits that individuals compare their outcome/input ratio to the ratio of a “comparison other” and classify individuals as Benevolent, Equity Sensity, and Entitled – applies to the modern workplace of global virtual teams (GVT), where work is mostly intellectual, geographically dispersed and online, making individual effort nearly impossible to observe directly.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\\n<p>Using a sample of 1,343 GVTs comprised 6,347 individuals from 137 countries, this study tests three ET’s predictions in the GVT context: a negative, linear relationship between Benevolents’ perceptions of equity and job satisfaction in GVTs; an inverted U-shaped relationship between Equity Sensitives’ perceptions of equity and job satisfaction in GVTs; and a positive, linear relationship between Entitleds’ perceptions of equity and job satisfaction in GVTs.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Findings</h3>\\n<p>Although the second prediction of ET is supported, the first and third have statistically significant opposite signs.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Practical implications</h3>\\n<p>The research has important ramifications for management studies in explaining differences in organizational behavior in GVTs as opposed to traditional work settings.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\\n<p>The authors conclude that the main novelty with ET in GVTs is that GVTs are an environment stingy with satisfaction for “takers” (Entitleds) and generous in satisfaction for “givers” (Benevolents).</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\",\"PeriodicalId\":47769,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Management Research Review\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Management Research Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/mrr-05-2023-0334\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Management Research Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/mrr-05-2023-0334","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是检验公平理论(ET)是否适用于全球虚拟团队(GVT)的现代工作场所,该理论认为个人会将自己的成果/投入比率与 "对比他人 "的比率进行比较,并将个人分为仁慈型、公平倾向型和权利型。设计/方法/途径本研究以来自 137 个国家的 6347 人组成的 1343 个全球虚拟团队为样本,检验了 ET 在全球虚拟团队中的三个预测:本分者对公平的感知与全球虚拟团队中的工作满意度之间存在负线性关系;公平敏感者对公平的感知与全球虚拟团队中的工作满意度之间存在倒 U 型关系;有权者对公平的感知与全球虚拟团队中的工作满意度之间存在正线性关系。研究结果虽然 ET 的第二项预测得到了支持,但第一项和第三项在统计上却出现了显著的相反迹象。原创性/价值作者总结说,龙8国际pt官方网站中 ET 的主要新颖之处在于,龙8国际pt官方网站是一种对 "索取者"(Entitleds)的满意度吝啬而对 "给予者"(Benevolents)的满意度慷慨的环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Revisiting equity theory in the global virtual teams

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to test whether equity theory (ET) – which posits that individuals compare their outcome/input ratio to the ratio of a “comparison other” and classify individuals as Benevolent, Equity Sensity, and Entitled – applies to the modern workplace of global virtual teams (GVT), where work is mostly intellectual, geographically dispersed and online, making individual effort nearly impossible to observe directly.

Design/methodology/approach

Using a sample of 1,343 GVTs comprised 6,347 individuals from 137 countries, this study tests three ET’s predictions in the GVT context: a negative, linear relationship between Benevolents’ perceptions of equity and job satisfaction in GVTs; an inverted U-shaped relationship between Equity Sensitives’ perceptions of equity and job satisfaction in GVTs; and a positive, linear relationship between Entitleds’ perceptions of equity and job satisfaction in GVTs.

Findings

Although the second prediction of ET is supported, the first and third have statistically significant opposite signs.

Practical implications

The research has important ramifications for management studies in explaining differences in organizational behavior in GVTs as opposed to traditional work settings.

Originality/value

The authors conclude that the main novelty with ET in GVTs is that GVTs are an environment stingy with satisfaction for “takers” (Entitleds) and generous in satisfaction for “givers” (Benevolents).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
7.70%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: Management Research Review publishes a wide variety of articles outlining the latest management research. We emphasize management implication from multiple disciplines. We welcome high quality empirical and theoretical studies, literature reviews, and articles with important tactical implications. Published 12 times a year, the journal prides itself on quick publication of the very latest research in general management. The key issues featured include: Business Ethics and Sustainability Corporate Finance Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management Industrial Relations Information and Knowledge Management International Business Human Resource Management Organizational Theory and Behaviour Production and Operations Management Strategic Management and Leadership
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信