| Abstract: | This study examined the stability of comparative referent choice and feelings of inequity, and the effects of changes in feelings of inequity on employee reactions. At two points in time, 24 months apart, employees' choices of comparative referents and feelings of inequity with regard to four job facets (compensation, security, job complexity, and supervisory behavior) were assessed. Results indicated that many employees used the same comparative referents at both times, especially for the compensation facet. For three of the facets (security, job complexity, and supervisory behavior), employees tended to either change from a disadvantaged status at T1 to an advantaged or equitable status at T2 or to maintain at T2 the advantaged/equitable status they experienced at T1. However, for the compensation facet a different picture emerged: employees who felt disadvantaged at T1 also felt disadvantaged at T2. Finally, employees who changed to or maintained an equitable or an advantaged status with regard to the job complexity and supervisory behavior facets generally reacted more positively (i.e. were more satisfied and productive and attended more frequently) than employees who changed to or maintained a disadvantaged status. Implications of these results for future research on equity theory were discussed. |
