Reactions to Perceived Inequity in U.S. and Dutch Interorganizational Relationships

By L. Scheer, Nirmalya Kumar, Jan-Benedict E M Steenkamp. 2003

230 citations recorded by the source corpus.

In an empirical examination of inequity in interorganizational relationships, we found similarities and differences in Dutch and U.S. automobile dealers' reactions to inequity in their relationships with their automobile suppliers. As predicted by equity theory, both positive and negative inequity have detrimental effects on the reactions of Dutch firms. In contrast, U.S. firms do not react negatively to positive inequity; only negative inequity has deleterious effects.

Subfields: Political Science and International Relations, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ff517415352c6d721818d6bd0291f8b323c75d6c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Political Science and International Relations

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Drivers and Performance Outcomes of Trust in International Strategic Alliances: The Role of Organizational Complexity (2008, background): “A firm facing undercompensation may conclude that the partner is not endeavoring properly to accommodate its best interests—a conclusion that undermines trust (Scheer et al. 2003).”
Interfirm Monitoring, Social Contracts, and Relationship Outcomes (2007, background): “…social contract reflects a supplier’s perceptions about what the parties have agreed to and not necessarily an agreement per se, and (2) the supplier’s perceptions of the situation at hand drives the decision to pursue (or refrain from) opportunistic actions (see Scheer, Kumar, and Steenkamp 2003).”
Newsvendor model for a dyadic supply chain with Nash bargaining fairness concerns (2014, background): “Furthermore, there are some cases where both manufacturers and retailers sacrifice their own margins for fairness concerns (Olmstead and Rhode 1985; Kumar 1996; Scheer, Kumar, and Steenkamp 2003).”
Fairness in supply chain contracts: A laboratory study (2013, background): “Fairness has been long recognized as one of the most important factors guiding human interactions in everyday life (Adams, 1965 as well as in business Kahneman et al., 1986; Griffith et al., 2006; Kumar et al., 1998; Scheer et al., 2003).”
Social comparison processes in an organizational context: New directions (2007, background): “The distinction between automatic and controlled processes was first proposed by Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) and has received growing attention in numerous fields of psychology, such as stereotype judgments (e.”
At What Level (and in Whom) We Trust (2012, background): “…(Dyer & Chu, 2000), task competence and quality assurance (Gullett et al., 2009), equity and fairness (Das & Teng, 1998; Robson et al., 2008; Scheer et al., 2003), business ethics (Kasper-Fuehrer & Ashkanasy, 2001), and cultural diversity values (Stahl, Larsson, Kremershof, & Sitkin, 2011)…”
The relationship between perceived compensation, organizational commitment and job satisfaction: the case of Mexican workers in the Korean Maquiladoras (2007, background): “…basis for our proposition – it has received widespread support in both domestic and international contexts as an intellectual foundation for perceived unfairness and consequences for organizations as well as individuals (e.g. Chen et al., 1998, 2002; Miles et al., 1994; Scheer et al., 2003).”
Fairness and Channel Coordination (2007, unknown): “Subsequent research has also documented many cases where both manufacturers and retailers sacri¯ce their own margins for the bene¯t of their counterpart because of fairness concerns (Olmstead and Rhode 1985; Kumar 1996; Scheer, Kumar, and Steenkamp 2003).”
Wholesale Pricing under Mild and Privately Known Concerns for Fairness (2014, background): “Scheer et al. (2003) ﬁnd that aversion to advantageous inequity, which is necessary for wholesale pricing to coordinate the channel, is much stronger among Dutch auto dealers than among US auto dealers, but inequity in the channels they studied was commonplace.”