Research Methods in Business

Research Methods in Business Purpose Design/methodology/approach Findings Research limitations/implications Practical and social implications Originality/value Keywords Critique (positive) Critique (negative) International Business Research January, 2010 35 Person-Environment Fit Approach to Intolerance of Inequity and Free-Riders Kamarul Zaman Ahmad Faculty of Business & Accountancy, University of Malaya Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia E-mail: drkamphd@yahoo.com, Website: http://w ww.drkamphd.com Abstract This study uses the person-environment fit approach to asse ss the dissatisfaction one has towards co-workers who fail to carry their own weight, in groups of varying sizes. It is posite d in these studies that in la rge groups where situations are more likely to be inequitable, highly sensitive people are more intolerant of inequity and thus more dissatisfied with their co-workers, compared with less sensitive ones. Sens itivity was measured as a personality trait by the 16PF (Cattell et al., 1987) and group size (obtained from comp any records) was the objec tive measure of the work environment. On the basis of data from 257 factory worker s in Wales, UK, results of hierarchical multiple regression generally indicated that the relationship between sensitivity and co-worker satisfaction are moderated by group size such that the relationship is positive in small groups and negative in large groups. Keywords: P-E fit, Objective fit, Equity theory, Sensitivity, Gr oup size, Co-worker satisfac tion, Hierarchical multiple regression 1. Introduction There is an abundance of research that examined the degree of fit between the person and the environment i.e. person-environment fit or P-E fit and how that is associated with satisfaction (Kristof, 1996). However, no studies have attempted to use P-E fit theory to explain why some people are more dissatisfied than others even though they are all placed in the same inequitable situation. Equity theory as proposed by Adams, ( 1963, 1965) also assumes that all people are equally intolerant of inequity. This research examines th e personality trait of sensitivity and aims to show how people who are highly sensitive are more intolerant of inequitable s ituations compared with less sensitive people. The objective of this study is to examine the interaction between equity sensitivity (person) and group size (work environment) and how that is associated with co-worker satisf action (dependent variable). For instance, does the relationship between equity sensitivity and co-worker satisfaction vary with group sizes ? This is the main research question that this study aims to answer. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Person–Environment fit or P-E fit and the argument for using objective measures of the work environment P-E fit was summarized by Edwards (1996: 292) as follows: “In essence, P-E fit embodies the premise that attitudes, behaviour and other individual level outcomes result not from th e person or environment separately, but rather from the relationship between the two (Lewin, 1951; Murray, 1938; Pervin, 1989).” Kristof (2005, 1996), Piasentin and Chapman (2006) and Verquer, Beehr and Wagner (2003) have done a thor ough literature review and as such, the bulk of it will not be reproduced here. Rather, what is discussed in this paper are the two main ways of conc eptualizing fit – direct and indirect. This eventually leads to th e researcher’s justification and recomme ndation that the environment should be measured objectively (in order to get a co rrespondingly objective measure of fit). Kristof, Zimmerman and Johnson (2005, 1996) indicated that some researchers have used direct measures of fit i.e. by asking people explicitly whether they believe a good fit exists. Posner, Kouzes and Schmidt (1985) used such a method. In their study, managers directly rated how compatible their values were with those of their organizations and how often they had to compromise personal principles to meet organizational expectations. This method is plagued by the consistency bias (i.e., “I think that I fit well, so I must be satisfied with my job”) and is therefore not adopted in the current research . Due to this drawback, some researchers have relied on indirect measures to assess fit. According to Kristof (1996), indirect measures are more reliable because the respondent is asked to rate the individual separately from the environment without being asked to assess the degree of fit. This method (hereinafter called “the moderator approach”) does not insist on commensurate measures. The person and the environment can be measured separately (as they should be), using entirely different instruments. The nature and ranges of the two scales can be entirely different. This does not require the respondent to assess fit either directly or indirectly. In fact, it makes it virtually impossible for the respondent to even attempt to assess fit. In this respect, the moderator approach is superior in that the consistency bias inherent in the direct Vol. 3, No. 1 International Business Research 36 measurement of fit approach can be tota lly eliminated. However, it can be argued that the biggest advantage with this method is that objective measures of the environment can be used. Objective measures are measures that do not require any conceptual transformation on the part of the respondent. Hence, it is entirely independent of the person (respondent). Unfortunately, many studies that have used the moderator approach have failed to capitalize on this advantage. For example, in Lee, Ashford and Bobko (1990), control was measured perceptually by the respondent. In Barrick and Mount (1993), autonomy was measured perceptually. Edwards (199 1) criticized direct measures primarily because they confound the constructs of the person and environment, th ereby preventing the estimation of their independent effects. Yet, amazingly, he did just that (in Edwards, 1996) - environmental supplies and personal values (S-V) fit were measured by asking respondents how much of each task was involved in their job and how much of each task they preferred. This procedure was also employed in another research by Livingstone, Nelson and Barr (1997) who also conducted a study that employed a similar measure of S-V fit in their research. Although Edwards (1991) pointed out that th ere is a real need for future research to use objective measures (of either the person or the environment), he has not done so himself and there appears to be none done by others reported even until today. Thus, there is a pressing need for a research to be conducted that uses a truly objective measure i.e. one which is obtained from a source other than the respondent. 2.2 Group Size Group size, a measure that can be obtain ed from company records, is one aspect of the work environment that can be measured objectively. Social interactio ns in groups are frequently characterized by conflicts between personal and collective interests (De Cremer and Leonardelli, 2003). Thus, it is not surprising that research has shown that smaller groups establish and maintain higher levels of communication (Lowry, Roberts, Romano, Cheney and Hightower, 2006) whereas larger groups have reported lower satisfaction (Frank and Anderson, 1971; Shaw, 1981; Slater, 1958; Worthy, 1950). As group size increases, almost every group experiences some degradation in group communication process due to social loafing (Chidambaram and Tung, 2005; Liden, Wayne, Jaworski, and Bennett, 2009). Dissatisfaction with large groups is also reflected by greater absenteeism and personnel turnover (Shaw, 1981). However, small groups are not always better than larger groups. Aiken and Wong (2003) discovered that for idea generation, groups may not be effective until they reach a certain size. However, this appa rent controversy over which size is better can be summed up by Worthy (1950) who stated that mere size is unquestionably one of the most important factors in determining the satisfaction of employees - and dissatisfaction can have serious consequences for the company. 2.3 Inequity and the personality trait of sensitivity Equity theory (Adams, 1963, 1965) proposed that we are concerned with how much we get (outcomes) in proportion to how much we contribute (inputs). According to equity theory, we then compare this ratio with that of another individual to determine whether the situation is equitable. When things are inequitable and the ratios are unequal, we are less satisfied. Huseman, Hatfield and Miles (1987) posited that some indivi duals are more sensitive to inequity than others. According to Cattell, Eber and Tatsuoka (1992) people whose traits are high on sensitivity crave affec tion and attention, are also fussy, insecure, anxious, theatrical, easily a ffected and have been often associated with mental breakdo wn. Therefore, the extremely sensitive person craves for equity, and it does not ma tter whether the inputs are greater than the outputs or the other way round – both are undesirable to them. For instance, Irving and Montes (2009) found that exceeded expectations are not always associated with high levels of satisfaction. Accordin gly, people whose traits are very high on sensitivity (Cattell et al., 1992) strongly favor equity and also cannot tole rate inequity in either direct ion, whereas people whose traits are low on sensitivity are more tolerant of inequity. The satisf action or dissatisfaction that people have concerning equity or inequity can be directed towards their co-workers. 2.4 Development of Hypotheses Thus, the main objective of this study is to determine whethe r the relationship between the pe rsonality trait of sensitivity and satisfaction is moderated by group size. It has also been explained in the literature review that, highly sensitive people are more dissatisfied with inequity than less sensitive people. Si nce social loafing is more likely to occur in larger groups, it would be reasonable to propose that large groups tend to be inequitable, whereas small groups tend to be more equitable. This is a proposition of course, which has to be tested. Ensuri ng workload equity is certainly more difficult as the group gets larger, simply because there are more people to consider . Therefore, it would be reasonable to propose that in large groups, highly sensitive people will be more dissatisfied with their co-workers than less sensitive ones. In small groups the relationship would be opposite because it would be easier that all the group members “carry their own weight” i.e. more equitable. Accordingly, the hypotheses are: Null Hypothesis HO: The association between sensitivity scor es and co-worker satisfaction scores is not moderated by group size. Alternative Hypothesis H1: The association between sensitivity scores and co-worker satisfaction scores is moderated by group size. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT :)