On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility ...€¦ · Social mobility types There are...
Transcript of On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility ...€¦ · Social mobility types There are...
EXPOSE MASTER THESIS
On leader-subordinate
relationships and social mobility
perception: A comparison between domestic
and foreign-based organizations in India
Jean Figarol
13/10/2014
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 1
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
ABSTRACT
Title: “On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception:
A comparison between domestic and foreign-based organizations in India”
Keywords: Social mobility, subjective social class, fairness, organizational justice,
Leader-member exchanges (LMX), career
Background: Although the concept of social mobility appears to be already well
studied in the literature about western countries, the questions it raises are still very
relevant and up-to-date. Indeed, the causes and consequences of social mobility have
been extensively discussed and there are also numerous theories on the subject trying
to understand the tenants of perceived mobility, subjective social class and the link
between mobility and economic development. Nevertheless, the perception of people
about mobility remains good indicator of their vision over the societal “fluidity” and
fairness. Hence it would also be a good indicator in the organizational context to
observe employee’s perception on organizational justice, career possibilities and on
the overall idea that companies are a social mobility facilitator. Undeniably,
companies are, by principle, the place of social mobility. Indeed, it is a place where
anyone can, thanks to his proactivity and success (“rules of access” from Bourdieu),
access to better positions, increase his salary and therefore access to a higher “social
room”.
Purpose: Following this thinking process, the idea in this study is to show in two
different context (domestic vs. foreign based company in India) to which extent the
perception about the idea of mobility depends on the organizational culture and the
ties shared with the superiors in the organization.
Method: Using an exploratory approach from different disciplines (sociology and
human resources management), the study will be conducted through a quantitative
questionnaire circulated online to diverse Indian companies.
Conclusion: At the end of this study, it is expected to highlight the potential
divergences between the leader-member exchanges in domestic and foreign-based
companies, the influences of these relationships on the career mobility mechanisms
and the effects of these both concepts over the social mobility perception.
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 2
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
Table of content
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 3
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 5
a) A review of social mobility concepts ......................................................................... 5
i. Social mobility types ............................................................................................ 6
ii. Subjective social mobility and subjective social class .......................................... 6
iii. Social mobility factors .......................................................................................... 7
iv. On the link between economic development and mobility ................................... 7
v. Sociological perspective on perceived fairness and mobility ............................... 8
b) Organizational justice: theories on career mobility and leader-member
exchanges ........................................................................................................................... 10
i. Organizational justice ......................................................................................... 10
ii. Leader-member exchange theory ........................................................................ 12
iii. Findings on organizational relationships in India ............................................... 12
c) An interdisciplinary approach on career and its new literature .......................... 14
i. Sociological conceptualization of career ............................................................ 15
ii. New career new theories ..................................................................................... 15
3. STUDY FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................. 17
a) Problem statement .............................................................................................. 17
a) Literature review ................................................................................................. 18
b) Research hypothesis ............................................................................................ 21
c) Methodology ....................................................................................................... 24
i. Setting ................................................................................................................. 24
ii. Participants ......................................................................................................... 25
iii. Plan of work ........................................................................................................ 25
iv. Overview of chapters .......................................................................................... 26
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 3
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
1. INTRODUCTION
Lounsbury and Ventresca, (2003) declared “the time is ripe for organizational theorists
to renew their attention to broader social structures and to bring ‘society’ back to center
stage”. On the basis of this statement, the development of this exposé is grounded on
an interdisciplinary approach, associating sociological with organizational theories.
Social mobility is a concept firstly introduced in the beginning of the 20th century, and
later discussed by sociologists such as Sorokin, Boudon Bourdieu. It designates the
possibility to climb the social ladder more or less easily according to the culture and
society’s structure.
This notion was extensively studied by economists and sociologists in the last century,
who therefore observed the social trends and evolutions thanks to this concept.
Nevertheless, many authors (Goldthorpe, 1985; Tyree, Semyonov, & Hodge, 1979; or
Kingsley, 1962) demonstrated a strong link between social mobility and economic
development, arguing for the causality of one over the other or the contrary.
Since mobility appears to come with development, it is naturally that most of the
literature until the 2000’s focused on western and developed countries. However, an
interesting wave of literature dealing with the reasons and consequences of social
mobility in developing countries has emerged since few decades. This study and the
following reasoning were inspired by the interdisciplinary approach developed by
Efendiev and Sorokin (2013): “Sociological perspective for studying career in
developing society”
What will interest us in this thesis is not precisely the social mobility concept itself but
to which extent the perception about the idea of mobility depends on the organizational
culture and the ties shared with the superiors in the organization.
Indeed, sociological theories about perceived social mobility provide with a great
approach on the perception of fairness and welfare. This coupled with organizational
theories based on the leader-member exchange (LMX), which argues that despite the
supposed standardization of relationships between managers and subordinates, it is
impossible to avoid creating different relationships with each of the members, the
study will show the differences between LMX in foreign based companies and the type
of superior-subordinate relationships in domestic Indian companies.
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 4
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
Then, supported with existing literature, it will be shown to which degree the relative
distance to employees and the developed relationships affect the career evolution and
mobility of employees inside the company.
Finally, thanks to a prior study of the Indian social mobility background which will
give us real insights on the mobility in India, this study intends to see whether a
supposedly meritocratic organization (foreign-based) enable a different perception of
social mobility than a “traditional” domestic organization.
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 5
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
In this chapter, the concepts used in the study will be defined and contextualized.
Firstly, it will present a western theoretical background on social mobility which will
help us to fully understand the stakes of the following parts. Secondly, it will define
and analyse the interesting organizational theories for our investigated topic and the
related theories and academic findings in developing countries and India. Finally, it
will provide some interesting interdisciplinary concepts previously developing career
theories under a sociological perspective.
a) A review of social mobility concepts
Social mobility, also called social movement, have started to intensify in the post-war
time and has become a sociological “mainstreamed” concept. Before defining the
concept, it is interesting to quote Touraine (1985) who wisely wrote about social
movement: “The notion of social movement, like most notions in the social sciences,
does not describe parts of “reality” but is an element of a specific mode of constructing
social reality”.
Nonetheless, the sociologist Barber (cited by Miller, 1960) provided us with a
comprehensive definition of social mobility:
“Movement, either upward or downward, between higher and lower social classes; or
more precisely, movement between one relatively fulltime, functionally significant
social role and another that is evaluated as either higher or lower. This movement is
to be conceived as a process occurring over time, with individuals (and their family
units) moving from one role and social class position to another because of what they
have done or what has happened to them in various kinds of social interaction, such
as in their family or in their work organization, or during war or socio-economic
expansion in their society.”
It is important to understand the width of the concept of social mobility. Indeed, its
sociological perspective makes it extremely complex to apprehend and what seems to
appear as contradictory findings may be explained by other endogenous factors or by
different approaches. There is a rather good illustration in the study of Heath and Graaf
(2008): when the economists Blanden and Machin (2007) stated that intergenerational
earning mobility has decreased in the past decades, the sociologists Goldthorpe and
Mills (2008) declared that intergenerational occupational mobility has been rather
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 6
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
stable over the last 3 decades. Nevertheless, these observations are not necessarily
contradictory since for instance there could have been changes of salary structures
within occupational classes.
i. Social mobility types
There are two types of social mobility. The first one, inter-generational mobility,
designates the relative movement of one person compared to the previous generation
(e.g. one’s occupation vs his parents’ occupation). The second one, intra-generational
mobility, defines the mobility within one generation, that is to say the evolution of one
person from one social class to another in the course of his life time.
ii. Subjective social mobility and subjective social class
Subjective social mobility defines the one’s self-assessment of his social position
compared to his parent’s position. Whereas subjective social class is only one’s self-
assessment of his current position in the society. Those two notions are highly relevant
for our topic since it involves people’s perception on their situation, on the relative
fluidity of the society and on overall fairness and well-being. Thus, subjective social
mobility and subjective social class are indirectly influencing people professional
performance and involvement. This argument is supported by S. Kelley and C. Kelley
(2009) whose work proved that people thinking themselves mobile will more easily
consider to live in a fair society (“think their pay is just, and believe they ought to earn
high salaries”). Indeed, in the Western countries where these observations were made,
there would be a strong correlation between people’s perception over social mobility
and their consideration toward the overall societal fairness. As observed again by S.
Kelley and C. Kelley (2009), there is a strong effect of subjective social mobility over
subjective social class. Indeed, they demonstrate that people thinking they have
benefited from inter-generational mobility are more likely to think they are in a high
social class.
Besides, there are interesting observations on the correlation between subjective social
class and actual occupational status. Kluegel, Singleton, & Starnes (1977) suggested
that subjective social class is as correlated with education and salary as with objective
occupational status. Whereas others academics were surprised by the low correlation
between occupational status and subjective correlation (between 0.2 and 0.3) as going
so far as to proclaim the “death of class” (Clark, Terry, Seymour, & Lipset, 1991; and
Pakulski & Malcolm, 1996).
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 7
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
Anyhow, the extensive study of S. Kelley and C. Kelley (2009) on 30 countries (which
was conducted mostly developed countries) showed a rather homogenous result with
a frequency of 29 out of 30 countries considering they are either of similar or higher
status than their parents.
iii. Social mobility factors
There are various factors from each individual micro-environment influencing the
potential social mobility. Among those, one of the most significant factor is obviously
the family (Becker & Tomes, 1979, 1986; Loury, 1981). Indeed, as discussed by
several authors (Mazumder, 2001; Barone & Schizzerotto, 2011; Bjornskov, Dreher,
Justina, Schnellenbach, & Gehring, 2013) the parental education/occupation/income
have substantial direct and indirect effects on the next generation’s educational
attainment level, occupational achievements and well-being. Another important
mobility factor is obviously education. Barone & Schizzerotto (2011) conducted a
study on career mobility which suggested that access to education influences widely
the first occupation but anyway only moderates slightly social origins effects.
Moreover, they stated that less educated people know a slower career evolution which
is partially lessened by the “glass ceiling” effect that touches the more educated people.
Many macro-economic factors such as economic development or government
orientations for instance, influence social mobility. These factors are not obviously of
the highest interest for us since our study will deal with the perceived mobility in
companies. However, it will be discussed below the relation between economic
development and social mobility to establish the context of our later comparison.
iv. On the link between economic development and mobility
In this part, different theories covering the connection between economic mobility and
social mobility are discussed. It was common knowledge that economic development
and mobility are positively correlated, enabling greater social equality (Tyree et al.,
1979), but the division remained among theorists about the causality link. On the one
hand are the ones who proclaim, as Kingsley (1962) for instance, that social mobility
and more precisely intergenerational or occupational mobility, is a “precondition” for
the development of a society from a pre-industrial level to an industrial level.
According to him, an ideological “breakdown” is necessary to enable changes in
economy, hence creating new motivations and opportunities. Furthermore, Davis
suggested that society should reach a certain level of mobility to enable the economic
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 8
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
shift, he called this the “threshold effect”. On the other hand, the other school of
thought claims that high rates of mobility are a consequence of industrialization. Lipset
and Zetterberg (1956) supported this idea by suggesting that intergenerational
occupational mobility increase is a consequence of economic development. However,
they do not assert that industrial society are more fluid but that the occupational
mobility is greater thanks to a more dynamic economic structure. Finally, standing
back from this opposition, literature provides more comprehensive opinions
recognizing the correlation between economic development and social mobility, but
denying the causality link: there is indeed a shift “from traditionalism to rationality, in
Weberian terms” (Goldthorpe, 1985) enabling a structural change of society, giving
thus more importance to achievement than to ascription. Previous studies (Kerr,
Dunlop, Harbison, and Myers, 1960; Blau and Duncan, 1967; and Treiman, 1970)
showed that economic development and mobility are the manifestation of the same
reorientation in modern society supporting new values and normative standards. Still,
there are authors such as Hazelrigg and Garnier (1978) who failed proving the previous
idea and found similarities on relative mobility rates among 17 countries with different
level of development. Going further on our topic and making the transition between
social mobility and career, Breen and Whelan (1993) submitted diverging thoughts,
rejecting modernization theory and liberal industrialization according to which
meritocracy and personal achievements are overcoming social origins and ascriptions
factors in developed societies.
v. Sociological perspective on perceived fairness and mobility
This section is prominent in our theoretical background as for the potential parallel
between societal fairness and organizational fairness. Indeed, it deals with well-being
and perception of inequalities according to meritocracy and income inequality which
are indicators influencing motivation and involvement, therefore possibly usable in an
organizational context as well.
First, as an introduction to the concept of meritocracy stands its rather famous
definition, though not completely scientific, by Young (1958) declaring that it is a
situation when the occupational mobility and the allocation of positions occur on the
basis of “IQ plus effort”. Arguments were brought proving as per as a meritocracy,
that “inequality becomes more acceptable as people are better rewarded for their
efforts” (Mitchell, Tetlock, Mellers, & Ordóñez, 1993). As per this current of thought,
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 9
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
societies based on meritocracy can allow inequalities since the allocation of resources
befalls proportionally to the level of efforts provided.
A wave of theories supported the idea that more equality and mobility in a country
reinforce people’s welfare and satisfaction. From the early 20th century, Lerner’s
classic contribution (1944) established that in an unequal society, the income
redistribution would increase the general well-being since the utility function’s
concavity implies that most of the population would be positively affected by an
increase of their revenues. In more contemporary studies, this notion is nuanced by
additional insights taking into account the shift to liberal values developed by western
societies in the second half of the 20th century. So Alesina, DiTella, & MacCulloch
(2004) established that inequality would negatively affect only individuals with
specific values and perception on social mobility, even if the general trend do not show
contradictory results. Following this argument, Clark and D’Angelo (2008) conducted
a survey in the UK and identified a profile of people, which could hypothetically fit
the previous theory, who experienced an upward mobility and were in favour of
“having capped incomes, or state ownership, and being left-wing”. Nevertheless, it
appears that welfare is not only originated from the actual outcomes (incomes, social
status), but is also relative to comparison of others’ situation, and is as well derived
from “procedural utility” (Veblen, 1899; Fehr & Schmidt, 1999; and Frey & Stutzer,
2005) which is similar concept to the procedural justice subsequently defined in the
next section. Finally, as per to the one of the latest study on the subject (Bjornskov et
al., 2013): “According to our model, perceived social mobility should have a positive
impact on individual human capital investments, expected life-time earnings and
occupational status in equilibrium, with perceived social mobility affecting subjective
well-being through these transmission channels". This last evidence matches perfectly
the investigated topic, bridging the gap between two contexts (organizational and
societal) and supporting our predictions on the link between social mobility,
occupational commitment and welfare.
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 10
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
b) Organizational justice: theories on career mobility and leader-member
exchanges
This part contrarily to the previous one examines theories from the organizational
milieu. It details first the settings of organizational justice and continues with the
supervisor subordinates relationships and its effects on career mobility. Finally it
proposes results of studies from the same theoretical background applied to developing
countries.
i. Organizational justice
This parts aims at evaluating the weight of the different forms of organizational justice
and the different influences stimulated in employees’ satisfaction. Here, there is a
distinction between three different forms of justice among which two where defined
by Greenberg (1986): the first one, distributive justice, concerns the perceived fairness
of employees on the content and the outcomes of a decision; whereas procedural
justice deals with the perceived fairness of the context, i.e. the methods used to achieve
the goals. Another form of justice which interests us in this part is the so-called
interactional justice somehow encompassing the two previous. It is particularly
relevant in our topic since it directly involves the leader-subordinate relationships. The
interactional justice according to Tyler and Bies (1990) is determined by the content
(what is said), and the context (how it is said) available to the employees along the
decision process. Since the study’s scope of investigation includes mainly the
influence of relationships on satisfaction, it won’t take the distributive justice into
account. Now that the various concept of organizational justice are clearly defined, it
would be relevant to have a look into the effects of these different forms of justice.
Procedural
There is an extensive literature focusing specially on procedural justice, its effects, its
components and the optimized ways to apply it. Here, it will be content to define and
quote relevant analysis on its benefits. Stutzer and Frey (2003) put forward the
prominence of procedural justice over distributive justice asserting that two-third of
the advantageous effects in the process of decision arise from the procedural justice
(i.e. the context and participation, exchanges). Adams (1965) also proved, thanks to
the social exchange theory, that the people care more about procedural than
distributive justice. Moreover, it was discussed that the power of procedural justice is
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 11
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
such that it is not only restricted to create trust but it can also substitute trust in
relationships (Konovsky, 2000). This can be explained by the recent neuro-scientific
discovery (Hopkins, 2008) stating that procedural justice stimulates a part of the
human brain located in its reward center.
Interactional
Since interactional justice covers both forms of justice distinguish by Greenberg
(1986), it would be interesting here to understand its possible leverages to develop
trust and satisfaction among the subordinates. As per Brockner & Wiesenfeld's (1996)
framework integrating various authors, interactional justice depends on two main
criteria based on superiors’ behaviour: (a) the good interpersonal treatment of
individuals (Bies & Moag, 1986) and (b) the clarity and transparency of the
information communicated along the process (Sitkin & Bies, 1993). Additionally,
Masterson and Taylor (1996) suggested that interactional justice is influencing
individuals’ commitment towards their leader. Indeed, still related to interactional
justice, Folger and Lewis (1993) found that direct communication (“voice-based
systems”) from managers stimulates more the impression of justice. As per Srikanth
and Gurunathan's findings (2013), there is a correlation between interactional justice
and job mobility preparedness (i.e. “‘the degree to which an individual prepares
himself or herself to be ready to act on internal and external career opportunities” as
per Kossek, Rober, Fisher, & Denmarr's definition, p.939, 1998). Besides,
interactional justice was proved to be a crucial source of trust towards supervisors in
organisational structure of the companies (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002) and its
reflection on a successful business strategy on marketing aspects (Wagner, 2013). In
other words, people’s perception on organizational justice depends much on decision
makers’ behaviour along the process (how individuals felt integrated without personal
biases in the decision making process; how procedures were explained and formal).
To conclude, fairness is as important for employees as for managers since it involves
fundamental values such as trust and since binds conflicting parties into “stable social
structures” (Konovsky, 2000). Lately, the perception of fairness matters more in an
uncertain environment as it will help employees to evaluate their leader’s legitimacy
and lead irremediably to an interpretation in the future [Lind, Kulik, Ambrose, & De
Vera Park, 1993; Van den Bos, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1997].
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 12
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
ii. Leader-member exchange theory
The link between the previous section and this one might appear obvious when
considering the explanations, though it should be precised that this study does not
intend to cross this two notions since it represents a whole other topic (Masterson,
Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000). As a transition, Blau's (1964) suggested that social
exchanges are based on “relationships and unspecified obligations” and is highly
related to trust building. The leader-member theory (LMX), also called “Dyad linkage
theory”, is the theory according to which leaders, despite their leadership style of
predilection encouraging a supposedly standardized behaviour, will develop
differentiated relationships with each of their subordinates according to the level of
personal affinity. Using Dansereau, Graen, & Haga's (1975) eloquent words, it can be
defined as a “reciprocal process of mutually defined exchange relationship between
the leader and the follower”. These relationships, or dyads, depend on several criteria
which are the levels of mutual trust, respect and obligation. Logically, when those are
high, individuals belong to the “in-group”, on the contrary when they are low,
individuals fall into the “out-group” category (Liden & Graen, 1980; Graen & Uhl-
Bien, 1995). Although, it is important to complete this description saying that members
of the “in-group” can be chosen on the basis of totally formal and rational criteria such
as performance and skills (Liden & Graen, 1980). To conclude with this definition and
to enable the comparison with subsequently discussed forms of leader-subordinate
relationships, the psychological distinction applied to organizations between cognition
and affect-based trust (McAllister, 1995) should be considered. The first type,
cognition-based trust, relies on a rational and objective assessment of one’s
trustworthiness and skills, whereas affect-based trust translates an emotional bindings
implying mutual care. Although, we understand by its nature that the LMX model falls
under people’s affinity and subjectivity, it was said to be strictly work-related (Law,
Wong, Wang, & Wang, 2000). Therefore, LMX would be a relationship model
grounded mostly on cognition-based trust.
iii. Findings on organizational relationships in India
This section aims at highlighting the cultural differences possibly influencing the
relationships between supervisors and subordinates. Findings which were supposedly
applicable for all developing countries are developed. For example, in 1986 Pandey
posited that due to the specific context proper to developing countries (poverty,
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 13
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
inequality, socio-political instability), it would be more common to observe there
managers having manipulating behaviours influencing hence organizational justice
and supervisor-subordinate exchanges. Furthermore, an interesting theoretical
contribution was brought by contemporary authors (Pearce, 2001; and Pearce,
Branyiczki, & Bigley, 2000) which enables to identify business environment
according to the following distinction: “facilitative” and “non-facilitative contexts”
(based on the political and social environment: institutions, red tape, government’s
intervention, businesses’ respect of the rules).
As per India, it was agreed by Wade (1981) and later Pearce (2000) that its
organizational context is rather non-facilitative. This was supported by theoretical
evidences such as the particularistic orientation of India (in Trompernaarian terms)
which implies individual-oriented treatment of employees. In the same line of
thinking, it was postulated by Pearce and al. (2001) that in “[...] particularistic settings,
those with power to hire, reward and fire would be expected to do so based on certain
employee’s characteristics.” Furthermore, it was advanced by Aryee, Chen and
Budhwar (2004) in their study about fairness in India, that despite the
bureaucratization and formalization of organizations, those were used to achieve
particularistic ends, thus negatively influencing the fairness perception in the
organization. When having a more precise look at the factors explaining the
particularistic orientation of India, it was found that the power distance is highly
predisposed by the castes-based societal structure, the political pressures and the
bureaucracy, thus creating unequal treatment within organizations and reinforcing the
verticality of the hierarchy (Budhwar, 2000, 2003; Dehejia & Dehejia, 1993). Indeed,
a study conducted in 2005 over 25 Indian manufacturing companies showed that the
power structure is such that it often involves and requires loyalty and liability from the
subordinates (Afza, 2005). Going further, Amba-Rao, Petrick, Gupta, and Von der
Embse, (2000) proposed incomprehensive common features which would apply to
describe India’s organizational exchanges: “submissiveness”, “fatalism”, “clan
orientation” and “power consciousness”. These organizational characteristics
obviously influence the career management and HRM methods as well. To illustrate
this, Baruch and Budhwar's (2006) study on call-centers is relevant. It points out that
supervisors would inflate the results of low performers being therefore poorly affected
by organizational norms in their performance appraisal process. In 2003, the same
authors (Budhwar & Baruch, 2003) were already discussing the career management
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 14
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
practices in India and described the country as being a “cultural island” excluded from
all the other countries clusters.
Nevertheless, despite the interest and relevance of all these studies, other authors
advanced contradictory arguments proving that Indian diversity is such that it is
complicated to generalize about the Indian organizational culture. Indeed, the human
and knowledge exchange flows since India’s liberalization in the 1990s tended to
flatten the differences (joint-ventures’ effect on local partner, Indians receiving
western education etc.) and to activate a shift towards a more “strategic approach” in
organizations (Patra, Khatik, & Kodwani, 2002). Indeed, it was established by studies
from Singh (1990) and Sahay & Walsham (1997) that Indian organizational values
differ from national cultural values. So, managers as per their study would tend to
underemphasize their conferred power (potentially greater due to social
considerations). Moreover, it was proved that the most competitive firms (domestic
and foreign) in the country use egalitarian and non-hierarchic practices (Amba-Rao et
al., 2000; Rao, & Yadav, 2001; Som, 2006). Besides, studies showed how in India as
well, commitment to the organization were positively correlated with friendly work
environment, career development, training access or power-sharing (Paul &
Anantharaman, 2004; and Rasmaswamy & Schiphorst, 2000) which are all practices
more related to meritocratic values than traditional ones.
Closing this part about organizational theories, we can conclude that the fairness from
a societal or an organizational point of view are two close concepts although not from
the same literature. Subsequently, we understood the stakes of cultures at its two levels
(national and organizational) and its influence on individuals’ exchanges and on career
mobility.
c) An interdisciplinary approach on career and its new literature
This part is a crucial phase of our theoretical background. Indeed, it enables us to
associate our first part on mobility from a sociological perspective and our second part
dealing with organizational relationships and justice. Efendiev & Sorokin (2013)stated
that “Sociological research in career has been limited in contemporary social science.
However sociological career analysis may have crucial importance for understanding
social structure and mobility processes in modern society”. As mentioned by Khapova,
Arthur, & Wilderom (2007), it is no more possible, due to the new international
dynamics, to study career under a mono-disciplinary approaches without biases.
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 15
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
However, this part will first present here the main concepts of career under sociology
theories and then it will provide the main findings on career “new literature”.
i. Sociological conceptualization of career
The most comprehensive sociological approach on career was provided by Bourdieu’s
theory of practice and later discussed by a multitude of authors (Chudzikowski &
Mayrhofer, 2010; Dobbin, 2008; or Cuzzocrea & Lyon, 2011). First on a micro-level,
organizations can be considered, as postulated by Bourdieu himself, as a “field”. The
“social field” is the “arena” within which people evolve in a quest of assets (material
or immaterial) which will provide them with a better dotation in capital (being
economic, cultural or social). In this line of thinking, career promotion is seen as one
“desirable resource” (all above ideas are extracted from Bourdieu, 2000). Then, thanks
to Iellatchitch, Mayrhofer, and Meyer (2003), it can be advanced that Bourdieu’s
theory is also applicable on career on a macro-level: “career field can be considered as
a 'super-field', which may be divided into sub-fields, following the interest and the
special focus of the research”. To conclude with Bourdieu’s theory of practice, it
provides with an extensive framework to study career in sociology thanks to: (a) its
multilevel characteristic (field, habitus and capital) which fits career studies under
sociological or organizational approaches (Peiperl & Gunz, 2007); (b) its
interdisciplinary view which can be extended to the structure (provided by
organizations and institutions: “fields”) and agency theory (provided by individual
freedom of choice ruled by “habitus”) (Barley & Kunda, 2004); (c) its comprehension
on career’s boundaries, internal or external to individuals (provided by the “rules of
access” as well as by the personal and group behaviour as per the “habitus” and
“capital”) (Dobbin, 2008); and finally (d) its integration of dynamics which are crucial
in career studies (Schein, 1978) since the habitus is adaptive and generates new
practices and since fields are also dynamics (Bourdieu & Sayad, 1984).
ii. New career new theories
“New career theories” have been developed since the late 90’s and posit that the
traditional organizational career “is dead” (Hall, 1996) due to the entrance into a new
“boundaryless” (M. M. B. Arthur & Rousseau, 2001) and “post-corporate” (Baruch &
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 16
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
Peiperl, 2000) era. As stated by Arthur, Kerr, Inkson, & Pringle (1999) careers are no
longer on a basis of vertical mobility but rather transversal. Indeed, individuals should
develop a “portofolio of skills” to be quickly adaptable, flexible to the changing
environment (Handy & Charles, 1994).
The evolution of society has indeed pushed theorists to modify their approach on
career. This evolution of the career environment could be summarized under the
following concepts: (a) liquidity (Bauman & Zygmunt, 2000), i.e. the rapidity with
which exchanges are done; (b) risk and uncertainty (Beck & Ulrich, 2000) which
characterize the job market today; and (c) the mobility (Urry & John, 2000) over the
world and between occupations. Following these ideas and to conclude this part,
Jacoby (1999) postulated that in the 20th century, people have seen their freedom of
profession increased (due to a greater mobility) while the organizational environment
decreased in stability, leading to an extinction of traditional vertical career evolution.
Now that detailed theoretical background was provided, including the definitions of
social mobility theories, the organizational and relational theories influencing
perception of fairness and occupational mobility and finally a presentation of
interdisciplinary framework to study mobility, we can present our problem statement
and the research questions arising from it.
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 17
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
3. STUDY FRAMEWORK
a) Problem statement
What will interest us in this thesis is not precisely the social mobility concept itself but
to which extent the perception about the idea of mobility depends on the organizational
culture and the ties shared with the superiors in the organization.
There is a need to contextualize the issue. Indeed, India is the developing country
which has the lowest level of occupational and spatial mobility (Munshi &
Rosenzweig, 2009). This can find explanations in different grounds. First, many
centuries ago, the caste system was established and allocated occupations to
individuals according to a specific social stratification which remained the traditional
social structure. Being anchored in society, this structure is obviously an important
break to mobility and it is strengthened by the Hindu tradition which does not allow
marriage outside castes. Moreover, India went through “Green Revolution” which
reinforced low rural-to-urban mobility from the 70’s to the 80’s, and Singh, prime
minister of India, talked about a second Green Revolution with 60% of the labour force
working in the agricultural sector. Finally, the last main reason for the low mobility in
India would be the high gender discrimination which results in very low rates of
literacy for women.
This low mobility coupled with an organizational structure sometimes based on
traditional forms of relationships or career opportunity based on affinity, leads us to
wonder whether there would be a real difference in the perception of employees on
mobility and equality of chances between domestic and foreign-based firms in India.
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 18
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
a) Literature review
This section presents the articles and studies which provided me with the main
inspirations, concepts and theories. It does not have the ambition to comprehend the
main literature on the subjects but rather to expose the studies and publications which
supported my working process and were the pillars of my reasoning.
Authors Title Year Key words
Christian
Bjornskov, Axel
Dreher, Justina
A.V. Fischer, Jan
Schnellenbach and
Kai Gehring
Inequality and happiness: When
perceived social mobility and
economic reality do not match
2013 Happiness, life
satisfaction, subjective
well-being, inequality,
income distribution,
redistribution, political
ideology, justice,
fairness, World Values
Survey
Raymond Boudon Education, Opportunity, and
Social Inequality: Changing
prospects in western Society
1976
Sarah Kelley and
Claire Kelley Subjective social mobility: Data
from 30 nations
2009 subjective social
mobility, social mobility,
education, parents'
education, occupation,
GDP, subjective social
class, earnings, legitimate
earnings
John H.
Goldthorpe On Economic development and
social mobility
1985
PB Srikanth and L
Gurunathan Interactional justice and job
mobility
2013
Anthony Heath,
Nan Dirk de Graaf
and Yaojun Li*
How fair is the route to the top ?
Perception of social mobility
2008
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 19
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
Azer Efendiev &
Pavel Sorokin Sociological perspective for
studying career in developing
society
2013 Career, Career mobility,
Meritocracy, Career
fields, Career capitals
Valentina
Cuzzocrea and
Dawn Lyon
Sociological Conceptualisations
of ‘Career’: A Review and
Reorientation
2011
Katharina
Chudzikowski &
Wolfgang
Mayrhofer
In search of the blue flower?
Grand social theories and career
research: The case of Bourdieu’s
theory of practice
2010 Bourdieu, career theory,
contextuality, grand
social theories,
interdisciplinarity, theory
building
Kenneth S. Law,
Chi-Sum Wong,
Duanxu
Wang & Lihua
Wang
Effect of supervisor–subordinate
guanxi on supervisory decisions
in China: an
empirical investigation
2011 Guanxi; supervisor–
subordinate relationship;
supervisory decisions;
Chinese management
Carlo Barone and
Antonio
Schizzerotto
Career mobility, education, and
intergenerational reproduction
in five European societies
2011 Study of career mobility
in five European
countries (Sweden, Great
Britain, The Netherlands,
Germany, and Italy) and
to its implications for the
dynamics of
intergenerational
reproduction.
Kaivan Munshi
Mark Rosenzweig Why is social mobility so low in
India? Social insurance,
inequality and growth
2009 social mobility, out-
marriage, in-jati-
marriage, rural migration
Majumder Intergenerational mobility in
educational & occupational
attainment: a comparative study
of social classes in India
2010
Samuel Aryee,
Pawan S. Budhwar
and Zhen Xiong
Chen
Trust as a mediator of the
relationship between
organizational justice and work
outcomes: test of social exchange
model
2002
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 20
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
Samuel Aryee,
Zhen Xiong Chen,
and Pawan S.
Budhwar
Exchange fairness and employee
performance: An examination of
the relationship between
organizational politics and
procedural justice
2004
Edwina Pio HRM and Indian epistemologies:
A review and avenues for future
research
2007 Human resource
management; India;
Indian epistemologies
Mainuddin Afza Superior-Subordinate
Relationships and Satisfaction in
Indian Small
Business Enterprises
2005 Leader Power
Job Satisfaction
Organizational
Commitment
Performance Contingent
Reward
Expert/Referent Power
Efficiency Bases
Social Mobility &
Child Poverty
Commission of
UK
Business and Social Mobility: A
Manifesto for change
2013 Benefits for businesses
Current situation in UK
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 21
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
b) Research hypothesis
To which extend the Leader-member exchanges (LMX) differ in a domestic and
foreign company in India?
H1a: LMX theory is limited to define leader-subordinate relationships in domestic
companies.
Indeed, in an empirical study on Chinese organizations about supervisor-subordinate
relationships (called “Guanxi”), Law, Wong, D. Wang and L. Wang (2000) showed
that the relationships developed in Chinese organizational culture were different from
the LMX which is described here as a “Western concept”. Given this, it can be assumed
that there could also be a differences in the domestic companies’ leader-member
relationships. Today’s lack of precise information on the subject pushes to establish
the basis for a deeper research on the Indian equivalent of LMX which would bring
insights operational for professionals in the Indian organizations. Thus, the first
hypothesis aims at testing the limits of LMX concept in domestic companies.
H1b: The concept of fairness matters more in leader-member relationships of foreign
based companies.
The hypothesis is based on the findings of Pandey (1986) who advanced that managers
from developing countries tend to behave in such ways that manipulates organizational
justice and supervisor-subordinate exchanges. Furthermore, it was posited that the
Indian society verticality fosters unequal treatments within organizations (Budhwar,
2000, 2003; Dehejia & Dehejia, 1993). Moreover, quoting Aryee, Chen and Budhwar,
(2004): “Emphasis on particularism suggests that although bureaucratic means of
formalism and hierarchy are present, they have been harnessed to particularistic ends
leading to perceptions of lack of fairness in employee–organization exchanges.”
Despite the obvious cultural embedding of fairness’ concept which is not to be
discussed here, this point remains interesting to highlight the differences in
organizational justice perception in both groups (domestic and foreign-based
companies).
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 22
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
H1c: Good superior-subordinate relationships influence positively the perception of
organizational justice.
This point highlight the causality link between manager behaviours and relationships
with the perception of justice. It was proven that the perception of fairness is more
important in an uncertain environment since it helps employees to assess their leader’s
legitimacy and lead obviously to a biased and subjective interpretation in the future
(Lind, Kulik, Ambrose, & De Vera Park, 1993; Van den Bos, Vermunt, & Wilke,
1997). Hence, it is important to verify that correlation between good relationships and
justice perception and maybe to compare the effects according to the type of
relationships observed beforehand (H1a). This would contribute to the existing
theories cited here and enable a new approach of the matter through the comparison.
How do the organizational settings influence the career mobility in domestic and
foreign companies?
H2a: Mobility in foreign-based companies is more based on meritocratic mechanism
and professional, rational relationships than in domestic companies.
This hypothesis is supported by the idea that in “[...] particularistic settings, those with
power to hire, reward and fire would be expected to do so based on certain employee’s
characteristics” (Pearce and al., 2001). Indeed, it would be interesting to verify this
idea so as to see whether India’s organizational values differ really from national
cultural values (Singh, 1990; and Sahay & Walsham, 1997).
H2b: Egalitarian and meritocratic practices enabling mobility increases
proportionally with the size of the companies (in terms of number of staff).
Independently from the home country of companies, this hypothesis aims at observing
whether the tendency to use fair advancement practices is also influenced by
companies’ size. Indeed, it was proved that the most competitive firms (domestic and
foreign) in India use egalitarian and non-hierarchic practices (Amba-Rao et al., 2000;
Rao, & Yadav, 2001; Som, 2006).
H2c: Good interactional justice influences positively the perceived social mobility.
This hypothesis relies on the correlation between interactional justice and job mobility
preparedness (Srikanth and Gurunathan, 2013). Indeed, if employees tend to be more
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 23
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
ready to evolve in the company when they perceive more justice, there should be a
correlation between fairness perception and the perception over social mobility.
How do these differences in vertical relationships affect perceived mobility and
subjective social class and perception of fairness?
H3a: Subjective of social mobility and social class are higher in foreign companies.
Provided that fairness perception is higher in foreign-based companies (H1b), this idea
would be supported by the fact that domestic companies convey more national cultural
values as the foreign companies. Hence, since people perceiving a higher mobility
consider to live in a fair society (S. Kelley & C. Kelley, 2009), it is expected to find a
correlation between the type of company and the perception of social mobility. It
would also be expected to find a positive correlation between egalitarian practices and
high social mobility perception.
H3b: The more fluid (enabling mobility) a company is perceived, the greater is the
impact on employee’s commitment.
It is of the greatest significance to assess one of the outcome of social mobility
perception on the organization. This hypothesis aims at evaluating the results through
employees’ commitment. Indeed, Bjornskov et al. (2013) developed a model that
forecasts a positive impact of perceived social mobility on “individual human capital
investments, [...] occupational status in equilibrium, with perceived social mobility
affecting subjective well-being through these transmission channels".
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 24
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
c) Methodology
Using an exploratory approach from different disciplines (Sociology and human
resources management), the study will be conducted through a quantitative
questionnaire circulated online to diverse Indian companies.
We will first spread the questionnaire to a reduced sample of respondents (±20) to
detect potential problems of formulation, methodology and biases. Then we will
spread the questionnaire to the representative sample.
The questionnaire will be based on various sources such as pre-existing questionnaires
on subjective social class (crossed with the World Value Survey), on perceived
mobility as well as on leader-subordinate relationships and on satisfaction towards the
working environment.
i. Setting
The questionnaire will be composed of 4 main parts (developed below). It will be
conceived on Sphinx Declic (online version of the Sphinx software). Filling the
questionnaire should last about 5 minutes per participants.
Part 1: Leader-subordinate relationships
Definition of the relationship
Influence on the perceived justice
Importance of fairness
Part 2: Organizations fluidity and practices
Fairness and meritocracy
Career practices
Part 3: Mobility and its effect
Subjective social class and mobility
Commitment & loyalty
Part 4: Personal data
Demographic (age, sex, marital status, nationality)
Position (job, position, number of direct superiors/subordinates)
Company information (size, foreign/domestic)
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 25
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
ii. Participants
Respondents of the questionnaire will be employees of Indian domestic and foreign-
based companies.
iii. Plan of work
Period of time Phase Objectives September 2014 Research phase Final decision on topic
Find suitable literature
from different
prospective (sociology
and organizational)
October 2014 Theoretical phase
13.10.14: Exposé deadline
Literature review
Designing hypothesis
November 2014 Theoretical phase
&
Methodology phase
Refining of the exposé
Design of the
methodology
Design of online
questionnaire
December 2014 Methodology phase
&
Analysis phase
15.12.14:
Handing draft
presentation
Questionnaire test
Refining of the
questionnaire
Presentation for
intermediate report
January 2015 Analysis phase
28 to 31.01.15:
Intermediate presentation
Spread of the
questionnaire
Analysis of the results
February 2015 Analysis phase Spread of the
questionnaire
Analysis of the results
March 2015 Finalization phase Analysis of results
Finalization of the
master thesis
Final presentation
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 26
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
iv. Overview of chapters
Abstract
List of content
List of tables
List of abbreviations
1. Introduction
1.1 Research problem
1.2 Topic importance
1.3 Contributions
1.4 Thesis structure
2. Research question and hypotheses
2.1 Problem statement
2.2 Research questions
2.3 Hypotheses
3. Literature review and theoretical background
3.1 A review of social mobility concepts
3.2 Organizational justice: theories on career mobility
and leader-member exchanges
3.3 An interdisciplinary approach on career
4. Research methodology
4.1 Method: Questionnaire
4.1. a) Setup
4.1.b) Execution
4.1.c) Results
4.2 Summary of results
4.3 Concerns for validity
5. Conclusion
5.1 Implications for management
5.2 Limitations of the study
5.3 Suggestions for further researchers
6. Bibliography
7. Appendix
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 27
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
Bibliographie
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 2, 267–299.
Afza, M. (2005). Superior-subordinate relationships and satisfaction in Indian small
business enterprises, 30(3), 11–19.
Alesina, A., R., DiTella, & MacCulloch, R. (2004). Inequality and happiness: Are
Europeans and Americans different? Journal of Public Economics, 88, 2009–
2042.
Amba-Rao, S. C., Petrick, J. A., Gupta, J. N. D., & Von der Embse, T. J. (2000).
Comparative performance appraisal practices and management values among
foreign and domestic firms in India. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 11(1), 60–89.
Arthur, M. M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (2001). The boundaryless career. A new
employment principle for a new organizational era (Oxford Uni., pp. 3–13).
Arthur, Michael, B., Kerr, Inkson, & Pringle, J. K. (1999). The new careers (Sage.,
pp. 163–176). London.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the
relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes : test of a social
exchange model, 285(March), 267–285.
Barley, S., & Kunda, G. (2004). Gurus, hired guns and warm bodies: Itinerant
experts in knowledge economy. In M. Arthur & D. Rousseau (Eds.), Enactment
and the boundaryless career: Organizing as we work. (Oxford Uni., pp. 40–57).
Barone, C., & Schizzerotto, A. (2011). Career mobility, education, and
intergenerational reproduction in five European societies, 13(3), 331–345.
doi:10.1080/14616696.2011.568248
Baruch, & Peiperl. (2000). Career management practices: an empirical survey and
implications. Human Resource Management, 39, 347.
Baruch, Y., & Budhwar, P. S. (2006). A comparative study of career practices for
management staff in Britain and India. International Business Review, 15(1),
84–101. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2005.11.001
Bauman, & Zygmunt. (2000). Liquid modernity (Polity.). Cambridge.
Beck, & Ulrich. (2000). The brave new world of work (Polity.). Cambridge.
Becker, G. S., & Tomes, N. (1979). An equilibrium theory of the distribution of
income and intergenerational mobility. Journal of Political Economy, 87(6),
1153–1189.
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 28
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
Becker, G. S., & Tomes, N. (1986). Human capital and the rise and fall of families.
Journal of Labor Economics, 4, 1–39.
Bjornskov, C., Dreher, A., Justina, A. V, Schnellenbach, J., & Gehring, K. (2013).
Inequality and happiness: When perceived social mobility and economic reality
do not match. Munich Personal RePEc Archive.
Blanden, J., & Machin, S. (2007). Recent changes in intergenerational mobility.
Report for the Sutton Trust.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life (Wiley.). New York.
Blau, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New
York.
Bourdieu, P., & Sayad, A. (1984). Le déracinement. La crise de l’agriculture
traditionnelle en Algérie (Editions d.). Paris.
Breen, R., & Whelan, C. T. (1993). From ascription to achievement? Origins,
education and entry to the labour force in the republic of Ireland during the
twentieth century. Acta Sociologica, 31(1), 3–17.
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining
reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures.
Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), 189–208.
Budhwar, P. (2000). Indian and British personnel specialists’ understanding of the
dynamics of their function: An empirical study. International Business Review,
9, 727–753.
Budhwar, P. S. (2003). Employment relations in India. Employee Relations, 25(2),
132–148.
Budhwar, P. S., & Baruch, Y. (2003). Career management practices in India: An
empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 24(6), 699–719.
Chudzikowski, K., & Mayrhofer, W. (2010). In search of the blue flower? Grand
social theories and career research: The case of Bourdieu’s theory of practice.
Human Relations, 64(1), 19–36. doi:10.1177/0018726710384291
Clark, A., & D’Angelo, E. (2008). Upward social mobility, wellbeing and political
preferences: Evidence from the BHPS. In Working paper, Paris School of
Economics (Vol. 17).
Clark, Terry, N., Seymour, M., & Lipset. (1991). Are social classes dying?
International Sociology, 6, 397–410.
Cuzzocrea, V., & Lyon, D. (2011). Sociological conceptualisations of “career”: A
review and reorientation, 12, 1029–1043.
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 29
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to
leadership with formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 13(1), 46–78.
Dehejia, R., & Dehejia, V. (1993). Religion and economic activity in India: A
historical perspective. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 52(2),
145–153.
Dobbin, F. (2008). The poverty of organizational theory: Comment on: “Bourdieu
and organizational analysis.” Theory and Society, 37(1), 53–63.
Efendiev, A., & Sorokin, P. (2013). Sociological perspective for studying career in
developing society.
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and
cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.
Folger, R., & Lewis, D. (1993). Self-appraisal and fairness in evaluations. In Justice
in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management
(Lawrence E., pp. 107–131). New Jersey.
Frey, B., & Stutzer, A. (2005). Beyond outcomes: measuring procedural utility.
Oxford Economic Papers, 57, 90–111.
Goldthorpe, J. H. (1985). On economic development and social mobility.
Goldthorpe, J. H., & Mills, C. (2008). Trends in intergenerational class mobility in
modern Britain: evidence from national surveys. National Institute Economic
Review, 205, 83–100.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development of leader-member exchange
(LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain
perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 219–247.
Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 340–342.
Hall, D. (1996). The career is dead-long live the career. A relational approach to
careers (Jossey-Bas.). The Jossey-Bass Business & Management.
Handy, & Charles. (1994). The empty raincoat: Making sense of the future
(Hutchinson.). London.
Hazelrigg, L. M., & Garnier, M. (1978). Occupational mobility in industrial
societies. American Sociological Review, 41(1).
Heath, A., & Graaf, N. D. De. (2008). Perceptions of social mobility.
Hopkins, E. (2008). Inequality, happiness and relative concerns: What actually is
their relationship? Journal of Economic Inequality, (6), 351–372.
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 30
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
Iellatchitch, A., Mayrhofer, W., & Meyer, M. (2003). Career fields: A small step
towards a grand career theory? International Journal of Human Resources
Management, 14(5), 728–750.
Jacoby, S. . (1999). Are career jobs headed for extinction? California Management
Review, 42(1), 123–145.
Kelley, S., & Kelley, C. (2009). Subjective social mobility: Data from 30 nations, 1–
16.
Kerr, C., Dunlop, J. T., Harbison, F. H., & Myers, C. A. (1960). Industrialism and
industrial man. Harvard University Press.
Khapova, S., Arthur, M., & Wilderom, C. (2007). The subjective career in the
knowledge economy. In H. Gunz & M. Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of Career
Studies (Sage., pp. 114–130). Thousand Oaks.
Kingsley, D. (1962). The role of class mobility in economic development.
Population Review, 6.
Kluegel, J., Royce Singleton, J., & Starnes, C. E. (1977). Subjective class
identification: A multiple indicator approach. American Sociological Review,
42, 599–611.
Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on
business organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 489–511.
Kossek, E. E., Rober, K., Fisher, S., & Denmarr, B. (1998). Career self management:
A quasi-experimental assessment of the effects of a training intervention.
Personnel Psychology, 51(4), 935–962.
Law, K. S., Wong, C.-S., Wang, D., & Wang, L. (2000). Effect of supervisor–
subordinate guanxi on supervisory decisions in China: an empirical
investigation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
11(4), 751–765. doi:10.1080/09585190050075105
Lerner, A. (1944). The economics of control: principles of welfare economics
(MacMillan.). New York.
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model
of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 451–465.
Lind, E. A., Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M., & De Vera Park, M. V. (1993). Individual
and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision
heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(2), 224–251.
Lipset, S., & Zetterberg, H. L. (1956). A theory of social mobility. Transactions of
the Third World Congress of Sociology, 3.
Lounsbury, M., & Ventresca, M. (2003). The new structuralism in organizational
theory. Organization 10., Vol 3, 457–480.
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 31
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
Loury, G. C. (1981). Intergenerational transfers and the distribution of earnings.
Econometrica, 49(4), 843–867.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating
justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and
treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 738–
748.
Masterson, S. S., & Taylor, M. S. (1996). The broadening of procedural justice:
Should interactional and procedural components be separate theories? In Paper
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. Cincinnati.
Mazumder, B. (2001). Earnings mobility in the US: A new look at intergenerational
inequality.
McAllister, D. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for
interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal,
38, 24–59.
Miller, S. M. (1960). Comparative social mobility. Current Sociology, 9(1), 1–61.
doi:10.1177/001139216000900101
Mitchell, G., Tetlock, P. E., Mellers, B. A., & Ordóñez, L. D. (1993). Judgments of
social justice: compromises between equality and efficiency. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 629–639.
Munshi, K., & Rosenzweig, M. (2009). Why is social mobility so low in India?
Social insurance, inequality and growth.
Pakulski, J., & Malcolm, W. (1996). The reshaping and dissolution of social class in
advanced society. Theory and Society, 25, 667–691.
Pandey, J. (1986). Sociocultural perspectives on ingratiation. Progress in
Experimental Personality Research, 14, 205–229.
Patra, R. K., Khatik, S. K., & Kodwani, A. D. (2002). Human resources professionals
at the crossroads. International Journal of Human Resources Development and
Management, 2(3-4), 436–444.
Paul, A. K., & Anantharaman, R. N. (2004). Influence of HRM practices on
organisational commitment: A study among software professionals In India.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(1), 77–88.
Pearce, J. (2001). Organization and management in the embrace of government.
(Mahwah, Ed.) (Erlbaum.). New Jersey.
Pearce, J. L., Branyiczki, I., & Bigley, G. A. (2000). Insufficient bureaucracy: Trust
and commitment in particularistic organizations. Organization Science, 11,
148–162.
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 32
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
Peiperl, M., & Gunz, H. (2007). Taxonomy of career studies. In H. Gunz & M.
Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of Career Studies (Sage., pp. 39–54). Thousand Oaks.
Rao, T. V., Rao, R., & Yadav, T. (2001). A study of HRD concepts, structure of
HRD departments, and HRD practices in India. Vikalpa, 26(1), 49–63.
Rasmaswamy, E. A., & Schiphorst, F. B. (2000). Human resource management,
trade unions and empowerment: two cases from India. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 11(4), 664–680.
Sahay, S., & Walsham, G. (1997). Social structure and managerial agency in India.
Organization Studies1, 18(3), 415–444.
Schein, E. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs
(Addison-We.).
Singh, J. P. (1990). Managerial culture and work-related values in India.
Organization Studies, 11(1), 75–101.
Som, A. (2006). Bracing for MNC competition through innovative HRM practices:
The way ahead for Indian firms. Thunderbird International Business Review,
48(2), 207–237.
Srikanth, P. B., & Gurunathan, L. (2013). Interactional justice and job mobility
preparedness : Mediating role of leader-member exchange ( LMX ), (Lmx).
Stutzer, A., & Frey, B. S. (2003). Institutions matter for procedural utility: An
economic study of the impact of political participation possibilities. In R. M. et
Al. (Ed.), Economic Welfare, International Business and Global Institutional
Change (Edward Elg., pp. 81–99). Cheltenham.
Touraine, A. (1985). An introduction to the study of social movements. Social
Research, 52, 748–787.
Treiman, D. J. (1970). Industrialisation and social stratification. In Laumann (Ed.),
Social Stratlfcation: Research and Theory for the 1970s (Social Str.).
Indianapolis.
Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal
context of procedural justice. In Applied Social Psychology and Organizational
Settings (J.S. Carol., pp. 77–98). New Jersey.
Tyree, A., Semyonov, M., & Hodge, R. W. (1979). Gaps and glissandos: Inequality,
economic development, and social mobility in 24 countries. American
Sociological Review, 44.
Urry, & John. (2000). Mobilities (Polity.). Cambridge.
Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). Procedural and
distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what
comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 95–104.
On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 33
Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol
Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class (MacMillan.). New York.
Wade, R. (1981). The system of administrative and political corruption: Canal
irrigation in southern India. Journal of Development Studies, 18, 287–328.
Young, M. (1958). The rise of the meritocracy: An essay on education and equality
(Thames & H., pp. 1870–2023). London.