The equity theory: a quantitative perspective using data envelopment analysis
RAIRO. Operations Research, Tome 56 (2022) no. 5, pp. 3711-3732

Equity theory (ET) is an organizational theory investigating how fairly people feel they have been treated. The literature on ET does not address two essential questions: what is the magnitude of the equity that one may perceive compared to other members in an organization?, and how much should be the resources (outcomes) of an underpaid member reduced (increased) to feel equal? The group members may respond to these questions emotionally, and their answers could be biased based on their personalities. This paper proposes a novel method using data envelopment analysis (DEA) to quantify the ET and answer these questions more logically. DEA is a mathematical model that is conceptually similar to ET. We will show how DEA can estimate the degree of equity perceived by members of a group with different personalities, including optimistic, pessimistic, benevolent, and entitled characters.

DOI : 10.1051/ro/2022178
Classification : 90Bxx, 90C05, 90C90
Keywords: Data envelopment analysis (DEA), equity theory (ET), personality, fairness
@article{RO_2022__56_5_3711_0,
     author = {Ahmadpour-Samani, Parto and Arman, Hosein and Foukerdi, Amirali and Hadi-Vencheh, Abdollah and Mavi, Reza Kiani},
     title = {The equity theory: a quantitative perspective using data envelopment analysis},
     journal = {RAIRO. Operations Research},
     pages = {3711--3732},
     year = {2022},
     publisher = {EDP-Sciences},
     volume = {56},
     number = {5},
     doi = {10.1051/ro/2022178},
     mrnumber = {4503330},
     language = {en},
     url = {https://www.numdam.org/articles/10.1051/ro/2022178/}
}
TY  - JOUR
AU  - Ahmadpour-Samani, Parto
AU  - Arman, Hosein
AU  - Foukerdi, Amirali
AU  - Hadi-Vencheh, Abdollah
AU  - Mavi, Reza Kiani
TI  - The equity theory: a quantitative perspective using data envelopment analysis
JO  - RAIRO. Operations Research
PY  - 2022
SP  - 3711
EP  - 3732
VL  - 56
IS  - 5
PB  - EDP-Sciences
UR  - https://www.numdam.org/articles/10.1051/ro/2022178/
DO  - 10.1051/ro/2022178
LA  - en
ID  - RO_2022__56_5_3711_0
ER  - 
%0 Journal Article
%A Ahmadpour-Samani, Parto
%A Arman, Hosein
%A Foukerdi, Amirali
%A Hadi-Vencheh, Abdollah
%A Mavi, Reza Kiani
%T The equity theory: a quantitative perspective using data envelopment analysis
%J RAIRO. Operations Research
%D 2022
%P 3711-3732
%V 56
%N 5
%I EDP-Sciences
%U https://www.numdam.org/articles/10.1051/ro/2022178/
%R 10.1051/ro/2022178
%G en
%F RO_2022__56_5_3711_0
Ahmadpour-Samani, Parto; Arman, Hosein; Foukerdi, Amirali; Hadi-Vencheh, Abdollah; Mavi, Reza Kiani. The equity theory: a quantitative perspective using data envelopment analysis. RAIRO. Operations Research, Tome 56 (2022) no. 5, pp. 3711-3732. doi: 10.1051/ro/2022178

[1] J. S. Adams, Toward an understanding of inequity. J. Abnormal Soc. Psychol. 67 (1963) 422–436. | DOI

[2] J. S. Adams, Inequity in social exchange. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2 (1965) 267–299. | DOI

[3] R. C. Huseman, J. D. Hatfield and E. W. Miles, A new perspective on equity theory: the equity sensitivity construct. Acad. Manage. Rev. 12 (1987) 222–234. | DOI

[4] P. Wijck, Evaluating income distributions. J. Econ. Psychol. 15 (1994) 173–190. | DOI

[5] R. S. Lapidus and L. Pinkerton, Customer complaint situations: an equity theory perspective. Psychol. Market. 12 (1995) 105–122. | DOI

[6] S. E. Kaplan, P. M. J. Reckers and K. D. Reynolds, An application of attribution and equity theories to tax evasion behavior. J. Econ. Psychol. 7 (1986) 461–476. | DOI

[7] C. K. Kim, Does fairness matter in tax reporting behavior? J. Econ. Psychol. 23 (2002) 771–785. | DOI

[8] C. K. Kim, J. H. Evans and D. V. Moser, Economic and equity effects on tax reporting decisions. Accounting Org. Soc. 30 (2005) 609–625. | DOI

[9] D. E. Douglas, T. P. Cronan and J. D. Behel, Equity perceptions as a deterrent to software piracy behavior. Inf. Manage. 44 (2007) 503–512. | DOI

[10] J. C. Ryan, Old knowledge for new impacts: equity theory and workforce nationalization. J. Bus. Res. 69 (2016) 1587–1592. | DOI

[11] W. M. Lim, An equity theory perspective of online group buying. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 54 (2020) 101729. | DOI

[12] A. Diamantopoulos, M. Matarazzo, M. G. Montanari and A. Petrychenko, The “Pricing Footprint” of country-of-origin: conceptualization and empirical assessment. J. Bus. Res. 135 (2021) 749–757. | DOI

[13] S. J. Adams and S. Freedman, Equity theory revisited: comments and annotated bibliography. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 9 (1976) 43–90. | DOI

[14] V. J. Gates and N. L. J. Reinsch, Commentary: employee counseling, equity theory, and research opportunities. Int. J. Bus. Commun. 59 (2022) 148–157. | DOI

[15] D. Davlembayeva, S. Papagiannidis and E. Alamanos, Sharing economy platforms: an equity theory perspective on reciprocity and commitment. J. Bus. Res. 127 (2021) 151–166. | DOI

[16] R. Folger, Emerging issues in the social psychology of justice, in Chapter book: The Sense of Injustice: Social Psychological Perspectives. Plenum Press, New York (1984) 3–24. | DOI

[17] R. Folger, Rethinking equity theory: a referent cognations model, in Chapter book: Justice in Social Relations. Plenum Press, New York (1986) 145–162.

[18] R. D. Pritchard, Equity theory: a review and critique. Organiz. Behav. Human Perform. 4 (1969) 176–211. | DOI

[19] M. Graso, J. Camps, N. Strah and L. Brebels, Organizational justice enactment: an agent-focused review and path forward. J. Vocational Behav. 116 (2020) 103296. | DOI

[20] V. H. Vroom, Workand Motivation. Wiley, New York (1964).

[21] G. C. Homans, Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. Harcourt, Brace, New York, (1961).

[22] E. Walster, E. Berscheid and G. W. Walster, New directions in equity research. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 9 (1976) 1–42. | DOI

[23] G. S. Leventhal, What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships, in Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, edited by K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg and R. H. Willis. Plenum, New York (1980) 27–55. | DOI

[24] G. S. Leventhal, J. Karuza and W. R. Fry, Beyond fairness: a theory of allocation preferences. Justice Soc. Interact. 3 (1980) 167–218.

[25] J. Greenberg, A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Acad. Manage. Rev. 12 (1987) 9–22. | DOI

[26] J. Thibaut, An experimental study of the cohesiveness of underprivileged groups. Human Relat. 3 (1950) 251–278. | DOI

[27] G. C. Homans, Status among clerical workers. Human Org. 12 (1953) 5–10. | DOI

[28] M. Ross, J. Thibaut and S. Evenbeck, Some determinants of the intensity of social protest. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 7 (1971) 401–418. | DOI

[29] E. Jaques, Measurement of Responsibility. Tavistock Publications, London (1956).

[30] E. Jaques, Equitable Payment: A General Theory of Work, Differential Payment, and Individual Progress. Wiley, New York (1961).

[31] J. S. Adams and W. B. Rosenbaum, The relationship of worker productivity to cognitive dissonance about wage inequities. J. Appl. Psychol. 46 (1962) 161–164. | DOI

[32] J. S. Adams and P. R. Jacobsen, Effects of wage inequities on work quality. J. Abnormal Soc. Psychol. 69 (1964) 19–25. | DOI

[33] J. S. Greenberg and D. R. Westcott, Indebtedness as a mediator of reactions to aid, in New Directions in Helping, edited by J. D. Fisher, A. Nadler and B. M. De Paulo. Vol. 1. Academic Press, New York (1983) 85–112.

[34] K. E. Weick, The concept of equity in the perception of pay. Administrative Sci. Q. 11 (1966) 414–439. | DOI

[35] M. R. Carrell and J. E. Dittrich, Equity theory: the recent literature, methodological considerations and new directions. Acad. Manage. Rev. 3 (1978) 202–210. | DOI

[36] M. Deutsch, Equity equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis for distributive justice? J. Soc. Issues 31 (1975) 137–149. | DOI

[37] S. S. Komorita and J. M. A. Chertkoff, Bargaining theory of coalition formation. Psychol. Rev. 30 (1973) 149–162. | DOI

[38] M. Lerner, Social psychology of justice and interpersonal attraction, in Foundations of Interpersonal Attraction, edited by T. L. Huston. Academic Press, New York (1974) 331–351. | DOI

[39] G. S. Leventhal, The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, edited by L. Berkowitz and E. Walster. Vol. 9. Academic Press, New York (1976) 91–131. | DOI

[40] D. G. Pruitt, Methods for resolving differences of interest: a theoretical analysis. J. Soc. Issues 28 (1972) 133–154. | DOI

[41] E. E. Sampson, Studies of status congruence, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, edited by L. Berkowitz. Vol. 4, Academic Press, New York (1969) 225–270. | DOI

[42] A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper and E. Rhodes, Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2 (1978) 429–444. | MR | Zbl | DOI

[43] T. Entani, Y. Maeda and H. Tanaka, Dual models of interval DEA and its extension to interval data. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 136 (2002) 32–45. | MR | Zbl | DOI

[44] H. Arman and A. Hadi-Vencheh, Restricting the relative weights in data envelopment analysis. Int. J. Finance Econ. 26 (2021) 4127–4136. | DOI

[45] Y. H. B. Wong and J. E. Beasley, Restricting weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 41 (1990) 829–835. | Zbl | DOI

[46] R. Allen, A. Athanassopoulos, R. G. Dyson and E. Thanassoulis, Weights restrictions and value judgments in DEA: evolution, development and future directions. Ann. Oper. Res. 73 (1997) 13–34. | Zbl | DOI

[47] Y. Roll and B. Golany, Alternate methods of treating factor weights in DEA. Omega 21 (1993) 99–109. | DOI

[48] R. G. Dyson and E. Thanassoulis, Reducing weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 39 (1988) 563–576. | DOI

[49] J. Puig-Junoy, Partitioning input cost efficiency into its allocative and technical components: an empirical DEA application to hospitals. Soc.-Econ. Planning Sci. 34 (2000) 199–218. | DOI

[50] Y. M. Wang and K. S. Chin, A new approach for the selection of advanced manufacturing technologies: DEA with double frontiers. Int. J. Prod. Res. 47 (2009) 6663–6679. | DOI

[51] Y. M. Wang and Y. Luo, DEA efficiency assessment using ideal and anti-ideal decision making units. Appl. Math. Comput. 173 (2006) 902–915. | MR

[52] Y. M. Wang and J. B. Yang, Measuring the performance of decision making units using interval efficiencies. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 198 (2007) 253–267. | MR | DOI

[53] H. Azizi, The interval efficiency based on the optimistic and pessimistic points of view. Appl. Math. Modell. 35 (2011) 2384–2393. | MR | DOI

[54] P. Andersen and N. C. Peterson, A procedure for ranking efficient unit in DEA. Manage. Sci. 39 (1993) 1261–1294. | DOI

[55] R. H. Finn and S. M. Lee, Salary equity: its determination, analysis, and correlates. J. Appl. Psychol. 56 (1972) 283–292. | DOI

[56] T. L. Radinsky, Equity and inequity as a source of reward and punishment. Psychonomic Sci. 15 (1969) 293–295. | DOI

[57] A. A. Wicker and G. Bushweiler, Perceived fairness and pleasantness of social exchange situations: two factorial studies of inequity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 15 (1970) 63–75. | DOI

[58] L. A. Messe, J. E. Dawson and I. M. Lane, Equity as a mediator of the effect of reward level on behavior in the prisoner’s dilemma game. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 26 (1973) 60–65. | DOI

[59] W. Austin and E. Walster, Reactions to confirmations and disconfirmations of expectancies of equity and inequity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 30 (1974) 208–216. | DOI

[60] M. Zelditch, J. Berger, B. Anderson and B. J. Cohen, Equitable comparisons. Pac. Soc. Rev. 13 (1970) 19–26.

[61] W. W. Tornow, The development and application of an input-outcome moderator test on the perception and reduction of inequity. Organiz. Behav. Human Perform. 6 (1971) 614–638. | DOI

[62] J. P. Campbell and R. D. Pritchard, Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology, in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, edited by M. D. Dunnette. Rand McNally, Chicago (1976) 63–130.

[63] W. D. Cook and J. Zhu, Classifying inputs and outputs in DEA. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 180 (2007) 692–699. | DOI

[64] A. Amirteimoori and A. Emrouznejad, Flexible measures in production process: a DEA-based approach. RAIRO: Oper. Res. 45 (2011) 63–74. | MR | Numdam | Zbl | DOI

[65] G. Tohidi and F. Matroud, A new non-oriented model for classifying flexible measures in DEA. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 68 (2017) 1019–1029. | DOI

[66] B. Ebrahimi and E. Hajizadeh, A novel DEA model for solving performance measurement problems with flexible measures: an application to Tehran Stock Exchange. Measurement 179 (2021) 109444. | DOI

[67] B. Major and K. Deaux, Individual differences in justice behavior, in Equity and Justice in Social Behavior, edited by J. Greenberg and R. L. Cohen. Academic Press, New York (1982) 43–76. | DOI

[68] R. Heslin and B. Blake, Performance as a function of payment, commitment, and task interest. Psychonomic Sci. 15 (1969) 323–324. | DOI

[69] J. Taynor and K. Deaux, When women are more deserving than men: equity, attribution, and perceived sex differences. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 28 (1973) 360–367. | DOI

[70] J. Taynor and K. Deaux, Equity and perceived sex differences: role behavior as defined by the task, the mode, and the actor. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 32 (1975) 381–390. | DOI

[71] Y. Wiener, The effects of “task-” and “ego-oriented” performance on 2 kinds of overcompensation inequity. Organiz. Behav. Human Perform. 5 (1970) 191–208. | DOI

[72] E. Yuchtman, Reward distribution and work-role attractiveness in the Kibbutz – reflections on equity theory. Am. Soc. Rev. 37 (1972) 581–595. | DOI

[73] B. Bass, Abilities, values, and concepts of equitable salary increases in exercise compensation. J. Appl. Psychol. 52 (1968) 299–303. | DOI

[74] J. R. Hinrichs, Correlates of employee evaluations of pay increases. J. Appl. Psychol. 53 (1969) 481–489. | DOI

[75] A. Zaleznik, C. R. Christensen and F. J. Roethlisberger, The Motivation, Productivity, and Satisfaction of Workers: A Prediction Study. Harvard University, Grad. Sch. Business Admin. (1958).

[76] H. Halkos and K. N. Petrou, Treating undesirable outputs in DEA: a critical review. Econ. Anal. Policy 62 (2019) 97–104. | DOI

[77] S. Pathomsiri, A. Haghani, M. Dresner and R. J. Windle, Impact of undesirable outputs on the productivity of US airports. Transp. Res. Part E: Logistics Transp. Rev. 44 (2008) 235–259. | DOI

[78] F. He, Q. Zhang, J. Lei, W. Fu and X. Xu, Energy efficiency and productivity change of China’s iron and steel industry: accounting for undesirable outputs. Energy Policy 54 (2013) 204–213. | DOI

[79] P. J. Korhonen and M. Luptacik, Eco-efficiency analysis of power plants: an extension of data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 154 (2003) 437–446. | DOI

[80] E. G. Gomes and M. P. E. Lins, Modelling undesirable outputs with zero sum gains data envelopment analysis models. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 59 (2008) 616–623. | DOI

[81] G. Cheng and P. D. Zervopoulos, Estimating the technical efficiency of health care systems: a cross country comparison using the directional distance function. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 238 (2014) 899–910. | MR | DOI

[82] P.-C. Chen, M.-M. Yu, C.-C. Chang, S.-H. Hsu and S. Managi, The enhanced Russell-based directional distance measure with undesirable outputs: numerical example considering CO2 emissions. Omega 53 (2015) 30–40. | DOI

[83] E. Alfredsson, J. Månsson and P. Vikström, Internalising external environmental effects in efficiency analysis: the Swedish pulp and paper industry 2000–2007. Econ. Anal. Policy 51 (2016) 22–31. | DOI

[84] B. Golany and Y. Roll, An application procedure for DEA. Omega 17 (1989) 237–250. | DOI

[85] C. A. K. Lovell, J. T. Pastor and J. A. Turner, Measuring macroeconomic performance in the OECD: a comparison of European and non-European countries. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 87 (1995) 507–518. | DOI

[86] H. Scheel, Undesirable outputs in efficiency valuations. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 132 (2001) 400–410. | DOI

[87] L. M. Seiford and J. Zhu, Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 142 (2001) 16–20. | DOI

Cité par Sources :