Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the behavioral operations effect in production inventory decision of supply chain consisting of one manufacturer and one buyer, and analyze how the unfairness concerns impact the decision of production inventory in a supply chain system.

First, a model without the buyer’s unfairness concern is established; then, advantage unfairness concern and disadvantage unfairness concern behavior of buyer are taken into account in the production inventory system. The authors analyze how advantage unfairness concern and disadvantage unfairness concern impact the optimal decisions and channel coordination.

The result shows several important conclusions. First, the buyer’s optimal ordering quantity and expected utility show opposing trend when the buyer has advantage unfairness concern. Second, the stronger bargaining power of the manufacturer results in an increasing buyer’s optimal ordering quantity under the advantage unfairness concern case, but decreasing under the disadvantage unfairness concern case. Third, the supply chain production-inventory can be coordinated under advantage unfairness concern case, but cannot be coordinated under disadvantage unfairness concern.

The study can provide to practitioners with important implications that when the vendor or the buyer in supply chain wants to make the decision of inventory replenishment, taking unfairness concerns into account will lead to different results. Therefore, to effectively improve the operations performance of supply chain, partners of the supply chain should not only care about their own interest, but also need to consider the fairness concern of the other partner, reflecting the cooperation consciousness of supply chain management.

This paper contributes to the new field of creative management–behavioral operations, offering managerial implications for the decision and optimization of supply chain production-inventory problem.

This paper aims to offer a multi-dimensional scale for measuring the concept of perceived unfairness of revenue management pricing (RMP) in the context of hospitality.

To develop a measurement scale for the perceived unfairness of RMP, the authors conducted a qualitative study using the critical incident technique to identify the key components of our measurement tool. They then collected two samples of quantitative data enabling them to have compelling evidence of the scale’s reliability and validity.

This research identified three dimensions of perceived unfairness of RMP in the context of hospitality: perceived normative deviation, perceived opacity and negative effects. The new scale proposed here is an alternative measurement instrument that could be useful for detecting and correcting some negative aspects of RMP.

This measurement scale will help hotel managers to detect potential feelings of unfairness in relation to the RMP policies. It might also be used within the framework of market analyses and pricing strategy plans. Finally, the results of this research show that transparency, fairness and ethics based pricing could help hotel managers increase their revenue-per-available-room during and post COVID-19 pandemic.

This research develops a complete measurement scale for perceived unfairness of RMP, including cognitive and affective dimensions. The richness of this scale will help hospitality companies effectively identify the indicators that denote perceived unfairness of RMP, making them better equipped to handle customer dissatisfaction.

This study aims to present and test a conceptual framework for the consequences of price unfairness, positing trust and emotions as two important mediators of the perception of price unfairness and its relationship to switching and negative word‐of‐mouth intentions.

An experiment with one factor with three levels (price unfairness: no price unfairness vs low price unfairness vs high price unfairness) is applied to 253 participants. The mediation analysis is made using bootstrapping procedure.

The findings reveal that existing customers that compare their price to a lower price offered to prospective customers experience the perception of price unfairness that, in turn, triggers negative behavioral intentions toward the company, through trust (cognitive driver) and negative emotions (emotional driver).

The findings indicate that companies should consider the damage that targeted promotions to new customers may do among existing customers in the long run. They also highlight the importance of the companies' strategies to build consumer trust over time as this construct seems only partially affected by perceived price unfairness and is a key determinant of customers' behavioral intentions.

This study contributes to the understanding of price unfairness perception and its negative behavioral consequences, testing and validating a parallel mediating process with trust and negative emotions as mediators.

The purpose of the paper is to examine perceptions of unfairness and accompanying cognitive and emotional outcomes exhibited by present versus prospective customers when faced with targeted promotions. The targeted promotions were designed to be alternatively advantageous or disadvantageous to the targeted group.

An experiment was conducted with a two (customers categories: present /prospective customer) × two (inequality conditions: advantaged/disadvantaged condition) between‐subject design. A total of 104 valid questionnaires were completed with a minimum of 24 participants per cell.

Present customers perceive higher unfairness than prospective customers when faced with disadvantaged conditions. However, perceived unfairness was not significantly different when faced with advantaged conditions. Further, perceived unfairness cognitively and affectively influences purchase intentions through perceived value and negative emotions.

Although prospective customers are price‐sensitive, targeted promotions should favor present customers instead of prospective customers to lower the perceived price unfairness of present customers. In addition, when relatively low prices are necessary to attract prospective customers, firms should create a type of “segmentation fence”, where present customers are exposed as little as possible to special offers designed to attract prospective customers.

This research contributes to three streams of literature. The first is related to perceived reference price unfairness, focusing on self/other comparisons (present versus prospective customers) rather than self/self comparisons. The second contribution is related to the outcomes of perceived price unfairness. The mediating effect of perceived value (i.e. cognitive outcomes) and negative emotions (i.e. affective outcomes) between perceived price unfairness and purchase intentions is examined concurrently. The third contribution is that this research raises echoes with the perspective of customer relationship management.

Teams often cannot fulfill their managers’ expectations due to unfairness issues and dysfunctional conflicts with teammates. This paper aims to create a fair team environment, it is important to analyze the interrelationship between unfairness and conflict. However, only a few studies have done this and reported inconsistent results. Using negative reciprocity research as a theoretical foundation, this paper analyzes the interconnection between unfairness and conflict dimensions in the team context. This paper further integrates conflict management research to show employees and managers how to handle unfairness and conflict in teams.

The authors conducted a longitudinal survey study (three points in time) with 237 employees from different German organizations.

The results of cross-lagged structural equation modeling provide some evidence that interpersonal, procedural and informational unfairness predict relationship conflict and process conflict. Several of these effects become non-significant over time. Further, relationship and process conflict have several significant relationships with the unfairness dimensions, while task conflict did not have any significant relationship. The results also suggest that employees can break up the vicious cycle of unfairness and conflict by using a cooperative conflict management approach.

This paper focuses on members of autonomous, interdependent and existing teams and the interpersonal relationship of a team member with her or his teammates. Future research could analyze leader-member relationships in different team types.

The application of cooperative conflict management enables employees to break up the vicious cycle of unfairness.

This paper clarifies the interrelationship between unfairness and conflict and shows that a team member can apply a cooperative conflict management style to handle effectively unfairness and conflict.

The purpose of this paper is to study what happens when firms misuse customers’ information and perceptions of unfairness arise because of privacy concerns. It explores a unifying theoretical framework of perceptions of unfairness, explained by the advantaged–disadvantaged (AD) continuum. It integrates the push, pull and mooring (PPM) model of migration for understanding the drivers of unfairness.

The paper is conceptual and develops a theoretical model based on extant research.

Using the PPM model, the paper explores the effects of information-based marketing tactics on the AD framework in the form of two types of customers. Findings from the review suggest that three variables have a leading direct effect on the AD customers. Traditionally, the fairness literature focuses on price, but findings show that service and communication variables impact customers’ unfairness perceptions. This paper examines the importance of these variables, in the context of an AD framework, to help explain unfairness and consider the implications.

To explain information misuse and unfairness perceptions, the paper develops a unifying theoretical framework of perceptions of unfairness, explained by linking the PPM model of migration with the AD continuum.

The purpose of this study is to (a) develop a conceptual framework exploring the relationships between perceived negative firm customization, unfairness perceptions, and customer loyalty intentions, and (b) investigate the moderating effects of trust in these relationships. The study explores how customizing offers to match customers’ individual needs and how treating customers differentially provoke unfairness perceptions among those not being considered most important. While the literature discusses unfairness perceptions of pricing, promotion, and service, less is known about unfairness in customization practices.

Using a survey approach, 443 completed questionnaires we collected. Following validation of our item measures, a hierarchical linear regression analysis was conducted to test the conceptual model and hypothesized linkages between our constructs.

The results demonstrate that customers’ negative perceptions of customization increase their unfairness perceptions. Unfairness perceptions drastically reduce customer loyalty intentions with trust acting as a significant moderator. Trust increases loyalty intentions even when unfairness perceptions are present. Our findings provide a foundation for understanding how firms may improve their perceived fairness. This increase in perceived fairness creates positive attributions, reduces negative customer experience perceptions and increases loyalty intentions.

Key contribution is the development and validation of a conceptual model explaining the linkages between firm customization and unfairness perceptions, firm customization and customer loyalty intentions and the moderating role of trust between these relationships. This study extends the understanding of how customization practices impact unfairness perceptions and, subsequently, influence consumers’ perceptions, intentions and behavior.

Most politicians and ethical observers are not interested in pure health inequalities, as they want to distinguish between different causes of health differences. Measures of “unfair” inequality – direct unfairness and the fairness gap, but also the popular standardized concentration index (CI) – therefore neutralize the effects of what are considered to be “legitimate” causes of inequality. This neutralization is performed by putting a subset of the explanatory variables at reference values, for example, their means. We analyze how the inequality ranking of different policies depends on the specific choice of reference values. We show with mortality data from the Netherlands that the problem is empirically relevant and we suggest a statistical method for fixing the reference values.

Purpose – This chapter reviews the authors’ research on group procedural justice and group-serving behavior. It makes the case that fairness and unfairness can both motivate group-serving behavior; the former makes group members feel good about their identity, leading them to “reward” the group, and the latter indicates a group shortcoming, leading members to “repair” the group.

Design/methodology/approach – The chapter describes several studies published elsewhere. Correlational research with employees and students examines the relationship between group procedural fairness and group members’ positive affect, which should translate into group-serving behavior. Experimental research with students investigates whether group procedural unfairness can result in group-serving behavior (measured via self-report and observed helping). Complementary findings from other authors are briefly described and discussed in support of a developed theoretical model of group procedural justice and group-serving behavior.

Findings – Group procedural fairness was more strongly related to arousing positive affect for strongly identified group members. Separately, strongly identified group members engaged in more group-serving behavior when their group had unfair rather than fair procedures.

Research limitations/implications – Possible boundary conditions for the motivating effects of unfairness are discussed (e.g., group permeability, time frame, and anonymity of unfairness). Suggestions for future research are proposed (e.g., examine the effect of justice information on group-serving behavior when group members can also modify group procedures).

Practical implications – Better understanding the effects of group procedural unfairness should influence how organizations and societies promote group-serving behavior.

Originality/value – Research on the motivating effects of both group procedural fairness and unfairness are synthesized into one theoretical model.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the contours of fairness by showing how different facets of fairness impact three important employee outcomes (job satisfaction, turnover intention and employer advocacy) and examining the mediating role of quality of management and leadership (through perceptions of both senior management and the quality of exchange with immediate supervisors) in attenuating negative impacts of unfairness on these outcomes. The study extends the concept of fairness beyond the traditional focus on organizational justice and models the mediating role of leadership on the relationship between (un)fairness and the three employee-level outcomes in a sample of employees representative of the UK workforce.

Data were obtained from a nationally representative sample of 2,067 employees in the UK. Exploratory factor analysis and then confirmatory factor analysis is used to refine three unfairness factors and address their dimensionality of the unfairness scale and then multiple regression analysis is used to test a fairness-leadership-employee performance outcome model.

Results of multiple regression analysis revealed that both trust in leadership and leader-member exchange partially mediate the relationship between organizational (un)fairness and job satisfaction, advocacy and turnover intention, respectively.

The findings highlight the important role that leaders play in influencing the relationship between perception of unfairness and employee outcomes. This has implications for both theory and practice as it suggests that the pattern of inclusion that leaders create through the relationships that they develop with their followers has a significant impact on the relationship between unfairness and the work outcomes. They not only must manage traditional perceptions of justice, but also the assessments employees make about trust in management judgements and the perceived consequences of such judgements.

In an environment where perceptions of unfairness are becoming both more endemic but also more complex, the study shows that both senior leaders and immediate supervisors have important agency in managing negative consequences. Through the measurement of satisfaction, turnover intention and employer advocacy it also provides potential links to link fairness into the engagement literature.