Is Military Employment Fair? Application of Social Comparison Theory in a Cross-National Military Sample
Author | Manon Andres,Irina Goldenberg,Delphine Resteigne |
Date | 01 July 2016 |
Published date | 01 July 2016 |
DOI | 10.1177/0095327X16640764 |
Subject Matter | A Continuum of Employment Related Issues: Active Duty, Family, and Veterans |
Armed Forces & Society
2016, Vol. 42(3) 518-541
Is Military Employment
ª The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Fair? Application of Social
DOI: 10.1177/0095327X16640764
afs.sagepub.com
Comparison Theory
in a Cross-National
Military Sample
Irina Goldenberg1, Manon Andres2,
and Delphine Resteigne3
Abstract
Although military and civilian personnel work closely together in defense organi-
zations, they are subject to different human resources practices and conditions of
service. Assessments of military personnel along a range of job characteristics are
examined to identify areas in which they assess themselves as ‘‘better or worse off’’
than their civilian counterparts, and how these comparisons relate to perceptions of
fairness using data from Belgium, Canada, and the Netherlands. Military personnel
reported meaningfulness/support aspects (e.g., meaningful work) as similar for
military and civilian personnel, indicated that negative impacts (e.g., risk of injury)
were greater for military, and perceived variability in instrumental benefits (e.g., pay,
advancement). Upward social comparison (i.e., seeing oneself as worse off) was
related to lower perceived fairness, whereas downward social comparison was
related to higher perceived fairness. This research informs mechanisms for pro-
moting perceptions of fairness and enhancing military–civilian personnel relations in
defense establishments.
1 Defence Research and Development Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
2 Netherlands Defence Academy, Breda, Netherlands
3 Royal Military Academy, Brussels, Belgium
Corresponding Author:
Irina Goldenberg, Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis, Defence Research and
Development Canada, 101 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2, Canada.
Email: irina.goldenberg@forces.gc.ca
Goldenberg et al.
519
Keywords
military personnel, military employment, social comparison theory, organizational
fairness
Defense organizations in most Western nations generally comprise not only military
personnel but also civilian employees (i.e., civil servants), together representing an
integrated workforce that works collaboratively toward national defense objectives.
Although military and civilian personnel often work closely together in varied con-
texts, including at headquarters, on bases, in military educational institutions, and on
operations, there are important distinctions between these groups of personnel. Most
notably, military personnel and their civilian colleagues are subject to very distinct
human resources management practices and conditions of service. Unlike civilians,
for example, military personnel are generally recruited in their youth and trained by
the organization to acquire their military and occupational skills (i.e., they are
‘‘grown from within’’). Their promotion through the ranks is based on unique
requirements and military performance appraisal systems. Perhaps most salient,
military personnel’s conditions of employment include unlimited liability and in
extreme cases even death. In addition to these differences in human resources or
personnel management systems, military and civilian personnel have very unique
cultures. These unique cultures reflect the different histories, values, roles, and
policies of defense civil servants and military members.
In light of these differences, and according to social comparison theory, military
personnel may be inclined to compare themselves to their civilian counterparts along
a variety of dimensions. In particular, the salient aspects of their jobs (e.g., pay,
autonomy, risk of injury or death, impact on one’s family, and professional devel-
opment opportunities) are likely to become the focus of social comparison. As such,
this study, based on social comparison theory, examines the social comparison
assessments of military personnel along a range of relevant job characteristics to
identify areas in which military personnel subjectively assess themselves as ‘‘better
off’’ or ‘‘worse off’’ than their civilian counterparts. Further, this study examines the
relations between social comparison assessments and perceptions of organizational
fairness, a key predictor of employee well-being and organizational effectiveness.
Data from three nations, Belgium, Canada, and the Netherlands, are compared to
inform the extent to which such comparisons, and their relations to organizational
fairness, are generalizable across nations.
Social Comparison Theory
Social comparison theory, originally developed by Festinger (1954), proposes that
human beings are innately driven to evaluate themselves, their abilities, and their
overall self-worth. In the absence of available objective standards, they will evaluate
themselves against others. Comparing oneself to others helps individuals reduce
520
Armed Forces & Society 42(3)
uncertainty and create meaning (Suls & Wheeler, 2000). Thus, social comparison is
a central feature of social life and our social comparison with others plays an
important role in constructing our social reality (A. P. Buunk & Gibbons, 2007).
Although social comparison has received increasing attention in social psychology
over the past two decades, relatively little is known about the antecedents and
consequences of social comparison processes in an employment or organizational
context (Brown, Ferris, Heller, & Keeping, 2007; B. P. Buunk, Zurriaga, Peiro,
Nauta, & Gosalvez, 2005).
Social comparison theory is part of a large family of concepts and theories that
address relative comparisons in the fields of sociology and social psychology (Petti-
grew, 1967). For example, Stouffer introduced relative deprivation theory in his
study The American Soldier, which was defined as a judgment that one or one’s
in-group is disadvantaged relative to a relevant comparison group and, further, that
this judgment invokes feelings of anger, resentment, or entitlement (Pettigrew, 2015;
Stouffer, Suchman, DeVinney, Starr, & Williams, 1949). Similarly, social compar-
ison theory can be distinguished from equity theory (Adams, 1963, 1965), which
evolved, in part, out of social comparison theory, but also drew on exchange and
dissonance theories. In particular, equity theory focuses on aspects of exchange and
on a comparison of what is contributed in relation to what is received. Thus, accord-
ing to equity theory, the outcome -input ratio is a key aspect, disparity in which can
lead to perceptions of inequality, which in turn can result in distress, as well as
follow-on actions that individuals may adopt to restore equity and to reduce distress
(Huserman, Hatfield, & Miles, 1987).
A distinction is generally made between upward comparison, which occurs when
an individual compares himself or herself to someone who is better off, and down-
ward comparison, which occurs when an individual compares himself or herself to
someone who is worse off (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008; Wills, 1981). Research
indicates that downward social comparison generally makes one feel better about
oneself, whereas upward social comparison has the opposite effect (Wheeler &
Miyake, 1992; Wills, 1981). In organizational settings, research indicates that social
comparison affects outcomes such as well-being, job satisfaction, affective commit-
ment, and positive citizenship behavior, with upward comparison having generally
negative effects and downward comparison generally having positive effects on
these outcomes (Brown et al., 2007; A. P. Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Spence, Ferris,
Brown, & Heller, 2011; Suls & Wheeler, 2000).
Social referents play an integral role in social comparison processes in organi-
zations because employees rely on others to help them evaluate their performance,
compensation, career paths, and work duties. Social referents are usually individuals
with whom the employee has interpersonal ties or individuals who share a related
role or similar pattern of relationships with others (Shah, 1998). Given the proximity
and extent of integration of military and civilian workforces in defense organiza-
tions, defense civil servants are likely social referents in military personnel’s social
comparison processes.
Goldenberg et al.
521
Organizational Fairness Theory
Perceptions of organizational fairness (also referred to as organizational justice)
have been defined as the degree to which individuals believe they are treated fairly
within their organizations and the degree to which the outcomes they receive are
allocated fairly (Cropanzano, Bowan, & Gilliland, 2007). Although the structure of
the organizational fairness construct has been debated (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobo-
cel, & Rupp, 2001), three elements of fairness are generally distinguished in the
literature: distributive fairness (perceived fairness of the distribution of outcomes
and resources, such as pay, benefits, and professional development opportunities),
procedural fairness (perceived fairness of the processes and procedures used to
allocate outcomes and resources), and interactional fairness (perceived degree with
which employees are treated with respect and dignity, and fairness of how informa-
tion is communicated).
Research indicates that organizational fairness is an important factor affecting
employee well-being and behavior (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor,
2000). In particular, it has been shown that higher perceptions of fairness are
related to higher organizational citizenship behavior, task performance, job
satisfaction,...
To continue reading
Request your trial