Human resource differentiation: A theoretical paper integrating co‐workers' perspective and context

• Author: P. Matthijs Bal,Elise Marescaux,Mine Afacan Findikli,Yasin Rofcanin,Farooq Mughal,Aykut Berber
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12224
• Published date: 01 April 2019
• Date: 01 April 2019

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Human resource differentiation: A theoretical

paper integrating co‐workers' perspective and

context

Yasin Rofcanin

1

*|Aykut Berber

2

*|Elise Marescaux

3

*|

P. Matthijs Bal

4

|Farooq Mughal

1

|Mine Afacan Findikli

5

1

School of Management, University of Bath,

Bath, UK

2

School of Business, University of Istanbul,

Istanbul, Turkey

3

Department of Management, IESEG School

of Management (LEM‐CNRS 9221), Lille,

France

4

Lincoln International Business School,

University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK

5

Department of Business, Beykent University,

Istanbul, Turkey

Correspondence

Yasin Rofcanin, Reader of Organisational

Behavior and Human Resource Management,

School of Management, University of Bath,

Bath, UK.

Email: y.rofcanin@bath.ac.uk

Abstract

This paper conceptualises “human resource (HR) differenti-

ation”as a set of deliberate and differentiating HR prac-

tices across individuals within the organisation to address

employees' unique work needs and preferences as well

as reward them for their input. Despite the importance

of HR differentiation, research has mainly focused on the

recipients of such practices, overlooking the consequences

of HR differentiation from co‐workers' perspective. This is

a significant omission because a growing concern suggests

that HR differentiation might be a double‐edged sword,as

the presumed positive effects might only be confined to

employees benefiting from it. Taking a first step, this

paper offers a conceptual model that explains how co‐

workers of a focal employee, who is entitled to an

advantageous outcome through HR differentiation, are

likely to react, either positively by showing contentment

or negatively by showing anger, with behavioural

consequences towards the focal employee and

organisation. In so doing, we rely on deontic justice theory

and explore contextual conditions at the individual and

team level under which co‐workers react. As a result, our

model can inspire future research by adopting a broader

and more inclusive approach to HR differentiation,

underlining the need for caution when implementing HR

differentiation in a team setting.

*

The first three authors contributed equally to the manuscript.

Received: 6 June 2017 Revised: 26 September 2018 Accepted: 11 November 2018

DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12224

270 © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Hum Resour Manag J. 2019;29:270–286.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj

KEYWORDS

approach behaviours, avoidance behaviours, emotions, HR

differentiation,justice

1|INTRODUCTION

Organisations are steadily increasing the room to individualise working conditions as a result of different trends, such

as globalisation, the information economy, the democratisation of workplaces, and a decline in collective bargaining

(Bal & Dorenbosch, 2015). Employees welcome such opportunities for individual treatment as the workforce is

becoming more diverse in terms of age, gender, and ethnicity, resulting in differing workplace needs (Liao, Wayne,

& Rousseau, 2016) and is increasingly seeking to be treated as individuals, given their changing needs and prefer-

ences (Las Heras, Van der Heijden, De Jong, & Rofcanin, 2017; Marescaux, De Winne, & Sels, 2013). This, in fact,

has implications for human resource management (HRM) such that organisations are moving away from standardised

HR practices, which apply to the entire organisation or a large group of employees, towards a more differentiated

approach (e.g., Deloitte HR Trends, 2018). This trend is referred to as “HR differentiation,”that is, deliberately differ-

entiating HR practices across individuals to address their work needs, preferences whereas acknowledging and

rewarding them for their input (e.g., flexible schedules, telecommuting, i‐deals; Marescaux et al., 2013). This concep-

tualisation underscores an inclusive approach to HR practices, as it recognises the unique values, proclivities, and

potential of each employee (Malik & Singh, 2014; McDonnell, Collings, Mellahi, & Schuler, 2017), thus, departing

from an exclusive mindset where investments into employees are purely made to develop future managers and cater

to the needs of a select group of employees, such as A players or star employees (Ehrnrooth et al., 2018).

By nature, HR differentiation creates outcome differences between employees (Krausert, 2017; Marescaux et al.,

2013). Employees are likely to react to such discrepancies, as social comparisons will raise questions concerning justice,

triggering emotions, attitudes, and behaviours (Cohen‐Charash & Spector, 2001; Gelens, Dries, Hofmans, & Pepermans,

2013; Marescaux et al., 2013). Yet, surprisingly, this justice lens to HR differentiation has been overlooked in research so

far. Although Marescaux et al. (2013) hint to the importance of justice, they failed to consider the impact of outcome

differences on affective organisational dimensions. Conceptualising HR differentiation as a holistic and inclusive pro-

cess, the aim of this paper is to develop a conceptual model explaining how and when employees may react either neg-

atively or positively to a focal employee's advantageous outcome, obtained through HR differentiation.

First, we draw on deontic justice theory (i.e., DJT) to develop a conceptual model in which a focal employee's

entitlement to an advantageous outcome acts as a justice event that elicits reactions among co‐workers who are

not entitled to the same outcome. DJT has been underexplored in HRM research, yet it is of particular relevance

in advancing contemporary views of HRM theory and practise. Justice theories, to date, have mainly focused on per-

sonal interests and desires (Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2003), ignoring moral obligations to react to injustice.

This is a significant omission because people may have other motives when reacting to injustice, above and beyond

the pursuit of self‐interests or social esteem (Tyler & Blader, 2000). To provide a complete picture from co‐workers'

perspective, we ground our basic framework on DJT. The central tenet of this theory is that third parties can be moti-

vated to respond to the perceived (mis) treatment of others out of moral obligations, above and beyond self‐gains or

interests (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998, 2001), through a set of key deontic emotional reactions (i.e., anger and con-

tentment; Folger, Ganegoda, Rice, Taylor, & Wo, 2013). This subsequently results in deontic behaviours (i.e.,

approach and avoidance‐oriented behaviours) influencing the relational work dynamics. Moreover, we integrate

equity theory (Adams, 1965) as a fundamental concept in explaining when co‐workers are particularly inclined to

react if an employee is entitled to an advantageous outcome. Specifically, co‐workers are likely to react negatively

(vs. positively) when their own outcomes are particularly unfavourable (vs. favourable) as opposed to the focal

employee. In other words, the social comparison of outcomes (i.e., outcome favourability) triggered in the dyadic rela-

tionship between co‐worker and focal employee will influence how co‐workers react.

ROFCANIN ET AL.271