Rational selective exploitation and distress: employee reactions to performance-based and mobility-based reward allocations

Prior research has demonstrated that allocators frequently distribute greater rewards to persons with high professional and geographic mobility than to persons with constrained mobility, especially among the very competent. This phenomenon has been termed rational selective exploitation. Do the recipients of such allocations actually experience this distribution rule as unjust and distressing, or is it a misnomer to refer to this phenomenon as exploitation? Two studies were conducted to explore this question. Study 1 was a laboratory experiment in which we manipulated relative performance level, relative mobility level, and allocation standard: performance based versus mobility based. Study 2 was a cross-sectional survey of actual employees in which subjects reported the degree to which performance and mobility were the basis for pay decisions at their places of employment, as well as the degree to which they perceived each standard to be fair. Both studies demonstrated that people regard mobility-based allocations as less fair and more distressing than performance-based allocations. Furthermore, the degree of distress resulting from mobility-based allocations is greater among persons who are disadvantaged by that standard: among people with constrained mobility, especially those who perform at high levels. These findings provide good support for the assertion that so-called rational selective exploitation is indeed distressing to employees. Reactions to this form of distress are also explored, and the implications of these findings for the allocation process are discussed.