In search of decent work:Human resource managers as custodians of fair reward in international NGOs

As the world faces increasing environmental, social and financial crises, as a result of climate change, deepening unrest about inequality, and the cost of living crisis, there are growing calls for organisations to play a role in responding to them. Scholars in the field of sustainable human resource management (HRM) have elaborated various avenues through which the field of HRM can contribute to this response. One such contribution HRM can make to global grand challenges is through contributing to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Of particular relevance for HRM is SDG8, which calls for decent work. In this study we empirically explore why, how and what influences HR managers in international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) to seek to enact fair reward, a key component of decent work. Based on our analysis, we find evidence that HR managers can be strategic actors in enacting fair pay, and we identify a complex interplay between HR managers and their context in the behaviours underpinning this enactment. HR managers adopt one of at least three identified roles to proactively enact fair reward (visionary, gatekeeper or technical consultant). Each role adopts differing strategic and fairness enactment behaviours to navigate the constraints posed by the context in which they work, including focussing on influencing different justice dimensions, and leveraging disruption in the external environment. By drawing out the key role HR managers can play in enacting fairness, we offer support for the importance of HRM in contributing to decent work and global grand challenges. Ultimately our study offers support for a common good HRM, in which HR manager actions are influenced and driven by challenges beyond the scope of their organisation. We offer empirical support and theoretical development related to how context shapes HR manager roles at work.</p

Expatriate compensation in contemporary organizations

This chapter summarizes major insights and theoretical considerations underpinning existing research and practice related to expatriate compensation, as well as common challenges. We situate existing research and practice within the current global influences of COVID-19 and the movement around racial inequality. In doing so we seek to draw out the taken-for-granted assumptions and limitations in the existing literature and present ideas on how the field should be developed in the future to respond to these. In taking a critical approach to expatriate compensation and the assumptions and dominant approaches which underpin it, we consider where and for whom compensation models are developed and decisions are made, and how social and racial hierarchies are reflected and perpetuated through these traditional approaches. We show how COVID-19 and the global movement around racial inequality are requiring and demanding new approaches to global mobility, and how expatriate compensation is a key part of this

Multiple salary comparisons, distributive justice and employee withdrawal

Salary comparison has well-established implications for employees’ attitudes and behaviors at work. Yet how employees process information about simultaneous comparisons, particularly when internal and external comparison information is incongruent, remains controversial. In this article, we draw from the model of dispositional attribution and equity theory to predict how the incongruence of internal and external salary comparisons affects perceptions of distributive justice and subsequent employee withdrawal behavior. We hypothesized that the effect of salary comparisons on perceived distributive justice follows a hierarchically restrictive schema in which a lower salary in comparison to a referent has a greater effect than a higher salary. This further affects employee withdrawal (neglect, turnover intention, and voluntary turnover). We also propose that the effects of salary comparisons are bounded by employees’ zero-sum construal of success. Three studies were conducted to test our hypotheses: a quasi-experimental study and two time-lagged field studies. Consistent with our hypotheses, we observed that, when comparison information was incongruent, underpayment compared with others more strongly affected perceived distributive justice than overpayment did. The subsequent impact on perceived distributive justice was negatively related to employee withdrawal. As expected, the effect of incongruent salary comparison information was stronger for employees with lower zero-sum construal of success. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.</p