Suvokto atlygio už darbą teisingumo prielaidos viešajame ir privačiajame sektoriuje

LTStraipsnyje nagrinėjama atlygio už darbą suvokto teisingumo problematika. Pristatomas tyrimas, nagrinėjantis darbo užmokesčio ir papildomo atlygio suvokto teisingumo ir pasitenkinimo jais prielaidas viešojo ir privačiojo sektoriaus organizacijose. Aptariami tyrimo ribotumai ir praktinės rezultatų pritaikymo galimybės. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Skirstymo teisingumas; Procedūros teisingumas; Darbo užmokestis; Viešasis sektorius; Privatusis sektorius; Distributive justice; Procedural justice; Pay; Private sector; Public sector.

ENThe study is aimed at exploring the antecedents of compensation fairness and its relationship with compensation satisfaction in public and private sector organizations. 219 employees (103 from public sector and 115 from private sector) from 57 Lithuanian organizations were surveyed. The results of path analysis revealed that perceived justice of pay and benefits depends upon different distributive justice rules: pay justice depends upon equity (β = 0.57, p <0.01) and needs (β = 0.24, p <0.01) rule, and benefits justice – upon needs rule (β = 0.74, p <0.01). Moreover, the more pay and benefits are perceived as fair, the greater the satisfaction with pay and benefits respectively (β = 0.39, p <0.01 in both cases). The results also revealed that in public and private sector the perceived distributive justice of pay and benefits is predicted by different rules. In private sector pay is perceived as fair when based on equity rule (β = 0.75, p <0.01), and in public sector pay is perceived as fair when based on equity (β = 0.44, p <0.01) and needs (β = 0.36, p <0.01) rules. In both sectors fair pay promotes pay satisfaction: in public sector β = 0.38 (p <0.01), in private sector β = 0.34, p <0.01). Moreover, benefits are perceived as fair when based on equity (β = 0.41, p <0.01) and needs (β = 0.42, p <0.01) in public sector organizations, and when based on needs (β = 0.88, p <0.01) in private sector. Finally, in private sector organizations perceived justice of benefits predicts benefit satisfaction (β = 0.53, p <0.01), while in public sector such relationship was not found (β = 0.12, p >0.01).The results of the study also revealed that procedural justice of pay and benefits depends upon the same rules: accuracy (β = 0.61, p <0.01, and β = 0.57, p <0.01 respectively) and voice (β = 0.37, p <0.01, and β = 0.27, p <0.01 respectively). Moreover, perceived procedural justice predicts satisfaction with pay (β = 0.29, p <0.01) and benefits (β = 0.45, p <.01). In addition, in public sector organizations procedural pay justice is predicted by rules of accuracy (β = 0.70, p <0.01) and voice (β = 0.27, p <0.01) as well as in private sector (β = 0.54, p <0.01 for accuracy, and β = 0.44, p <0.01 for voice). It was also determined that pay satisfaction depends upon procedural justice of pay in both private (β = 0.21, p <0.05) and public (β = 0.41, p <0.01) sectors. When comparing procedural justice of benefits in different sectors, it was found that in private sector perceived procedural justice depends on accuracy (β = 0.60, p <0.01) and voice (β = 0.39, p <0.01) rules, and in public sector – solely on rule of accuracy (β = 0.64, p <0.01). Finally, the more benefit distribution procedures are perceived as fair, the more employees are satisfied with benefits in both public (β = 0.31, p <0.05) and private (β = 0.53, p <0.05) sectors. The results of the study implicate that managers should pay heed to how compensation should be distributed and how distribution process should be managed, depending on type of the compensation and on the type of organization itself. [From the publication]