A Study of the Determinants and of the Impact of Flexibility on Employee Benefit Satisfaction

A Study of the Determinants and of the

Impact of Flexibility on Employee Benefit

Satisfaction

Michel Tremblay,1,3 Bruno Sire,2 and Annie Pelchat1

The purpose of this study was to e xam ine the influe nce of individual

characte ristics and organizational justice on employee benefit satisfaction, and

to explore the role of flexible benefit plans. Employees from three Canadian

organizations were surve ye d. A total of 285 usuable questionnaires were

returned, for a response rate of 42% . The variables in the model accounte d for

more than 40% of the variance in benefit satisfaction. The findings showed that

while distributive and proce dural justice were use ful in predicting benefit

satisfaction, the concept of process justice had the greatest e ffect on satisfaction.

Among the variables, communication had the gre atest impact. The effect of

flexibility, although significant, was ambiguous. Sociodemographic factors had a

ve ry limited effect when perceptual variables were introduced into the equation.

The paper also sets out the limitations of the study and its practical implications,

and makes some suggestions for future research.

KEY WORDS: benefits; satisfaction; flexibility; communication; organizational

justice.

INTRODUCTION

The cost of benefits has increased conside rably in recent years. In the

U.S., it represents nearly 40% of salary (Kroll & Dolan, 1985¯1986; McCaf-

fery, 1988) , and in Canada between 30¯35% (Theriault, 1991) , although it

may be as high as 39.6% in some sectors (IRIR, 1994) . At least part of

the obse rved increase may be due to societal pressure , favorable tax treat-

Hum an Relations, Vol. 51, No. 5, 1998

667

0018-7267/98/0500-0667 $15.00/1 Ó 1998 The Tavistock Institute

1École des Hautes É tudes Commerciale s de Montréal, Service de l’Enseignement de la Ge s-tion des Ressource s Humaines, 3000, chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montréal, Québec,

H3T 2A7, Canada.2ESUG, Unive rsité de Toulouse 1, 2, rue Albert-Lautman, 31000 Toulouse, France.3Requests for reprints should be addressed to Michel Tremblay, É cole des Hautes É tudesCommerciale s de Montréal, Service de l’Enseigne ment de la Gestion des Ressource s Hu-

maines, 3000, chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montréal, Québec, H3T 2A7, Canada.

ment, paternalism on the part of employers, a desire on the part of em-

ployees to have more leisure time, the provision of economic protection

for employe es, and union pressure (Bergmann et al., 1994) . To control the

escalation of costs in today’s competitive environm ent, some employe rs

have decided to re duce the ir own contribution to certain benefits while

increasing the direct contribution of their employe es and monitoring the

use of benefits more agressively (McCaffery, 1988; Balkin & Griffeth, 1993;

Bergmann et al., 1994). Others have chosen a different path, offering the ir

employees flexible benefits plans. Their aim is to maintain satisfaction lev-

els and at the same time control costs (Cavagnac & Sire , 1994) .

The essential feature of flexible benefit plans is that they allow employ-

ees, within certain limits, to make their own choice s or to construct the ir own

benefits package . In this type of program, the employe r determines both the

budget allocate d for indirect compensation and the choices offered, but it is

the employee who decides which of the benefits offered he or she wishes to

receive . Generally speaking, the choices made are effective for 1 or 2 years,

and can be modifie d at the employe e’s request (Kroll & Dolan, 1985¯1986;

Besser & Franck, 1989). In North America, this type of benefit system was

first deve loped in the late 1960s, but did not become popular until the early

1980s (McCaffery, 1988). In the last 15 years, we have witnessed a steady

growth in the number of flexible benefit plans. In 1990, according to a study

by Hewitt Associate s, more than 50 employers in Canada and more than 1200

in the U.S. had introduce d flexible benefit systems. A recent study conducte d

in Canada by the same firm revealed that nearly 16% of employe rs had in-

troduce d this type of plan (Hewitt Associate s, 1995).

The three most popular flexible benefits plans are modular plans, core-

plus-options plans, and flexible spending accounts (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin,

& Cardy, 1995) . Modular plans consist of a series of different benefit bun-

dles or diffe rent leve ls of coverage designed for different subgroups of the

employee population. Employe es can select only one bundle , and coverage

leve l substitutions are not usually allowe d. Core-plus-options plans consist

of a core group of essential benefits together with a wide array of other

benefit options that employe es can add to the core . The core is designed

to provide a minimum level of economic security. Under plans such as this,

employees receive benefit credits that entitle them to purchase additional

benefits of value to them.

The flexible spending account is the most simple type of flexible bene-

fit plan. Here, employers allow their employe es to pay for certain categories

of eligible benefits that are not include d in the plan, using untaxe d dollars.

This type of plan is in fact a bank account used to pay claims and managed

by the employer.

668 Tremblay, Sire, and Pelchat

The growing inte rest in flexible benefit plans can be explaine d by their

many pote ntial advantage s. These plans allow employe es to choose the bene-

fits that best satisfy their personal needs (Beam & McFadden, 1988; McCaf-

fery, 1988; Milkovich & Newman, 1990), to unde rstand and appre ciate the

benefits offered and the relate d costs (Beam & McFadde n, 1988; Rose, 1988;

Milkovich & Newman, 1990; Hornsby et al., 1991), and to avoid pointle ss

duplication of benefits for couple s with two income s (Baker, 1988) . For em-

ploye rs, the flexible programs provide a better way of satisfying the changing

needs of salaried employe es (Beam & McFadden, 1988; Milkovich & New-

man, 1990), facilitate the recruitment and retention of employe es (Cable &

Judge , 1994; Rylan & Rosen, 1988; Rose , 1988), permit the introduction of

new, less costly benefits (Milkovich & Newman, 1990; Theriault, 1991), and

help increase employee satisfaction (Barbe r et al., 1992).

Despite the cost of benefits and the growing popularity of flexible plans,

employe e benefits have received little attention by personne l/human resource

researchers (Gerhart & Milkovich, 1992; Lengnick-Hall & Bereman, 1994).

Other than the theoretical work by Miceli and Lane (1991) , Danehower and

Lust (1992) , Lengnick-Hall and Bereman (1994) , and Cavagnac and Sire

(1994) , and the empirical studie s by Barber et al. (1992), Rabin (1994), Davis

and Ward (1995) , Poilpot-Rocaboy (1995) , and Williams (1995), very little

empirical research has been carried out to assess the validity of any or all of

these models and to test the influence of flexible benefit policie s. The goal

of the research described here is to test the validity of specific propositions

related to the determinants of benefit satisfaction and to explore the influ-

ence of flexible benefit plans on employee satisfaction.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES

Past studies of the determinants of benefit satisfaction have focused mainly

on the relationships between sociodemographic characteristics and level of sat-

isfaction, considered jointly as benefit satisfaction in a piecemeal fashion, and

have analyze d the variable s determining satisfaction with specific benefits. To

our knowledge, only Williams (1995) has tested a theoretical model of the an-

tecedents of benefit satisfaction. The results of all this work reveal that two

groups of variable s may have a direct or indirect effect on benefit satisfaction:

factors related to the individual and factors related to organizational justice .

Influence of Factors Related to the Individual

Studie s of benefit satisfaction have focused mainly on two individual

factors: sociodemographic variable s, in particular, sex, age , level of educa-

tion, size of family, seniority, salary and organizational leve l, and attitudinal

Flexibility and Em ployee Benefit Satisfaction 669

variable s related to value s, needs, desirability, and preferences regarding

benefits.

Past empirical studies of sociodemographic characteristics have produced

mitigated results. The results regarding sex, for example , are inconsiste nt. Lust

(1987), Scarpello et al. (1988), Hemmasi et al. (1992), and Rabin (1994) did

not observe any significant relationship between sex and overall benefit satis-

faction, whereas Balkin and Griffeth (1993) found that, generally speaking,

women were more satisfied than men with their benefits. The results concern-

ing the relationship between age and benefit satisfaction seem to be equally

inconsiste nt. Lust (1987), Dreher et al. (1988), Hemmasi et al. (1992), and Wil-

liams (1995) found no significant relationship between these two variable s. On

the other hand, Scarpello et al. (1988) observed a positive relationship, and

Balkin and Griffeth (1993), Rabin (1994), Poilpot-Rocaboy (1995), and Judge

(1993) all observed a negative relationship. Evidence of a link between level of

education and benefit satisfaction is equally ambiguous. For example , Lust

(1987) and Scarpe llo et al. (1988) found a positive relationship, Lust (1990) and

Balkin and Griffeth (1993) found a negative relationship, and Hemmasi et al.

(1992) found no significant relationship. Although very little work has been

done on the impact of family size, the findings are still inconsistent. Lust (1987)

and Poilpot-Rocaboy (1995) found no significant relationship, while Dreher et

al. (1988) observed a negative one. Evidence of the influence of seniority is

equally inconclusive . Lust (1987, 1990) found a positive relationship between

seniority and overall benefit satisfaction, Scarpello et al. (1988) and Rabin

(1994) found a negative one, while Dreher et al. (1988), Balkin and Griffeth

(1993), Hemmasi et al. (1992), and Williams (1995) observed no significant re-

lationship. The impact of level of salary on benefit satisfaction has been found

to be fairly constant and positive (Lust, 1987; Dreher et al., 1988; Balkin and

Griffeth, 1993). However, this same impact was limited when perceptual vari-

ables such as perception of justice were introduce d into the model (Hemmasi

et al., 1992; Williams, 1995; Poilpot-Rocaboy, 1995). The results regarding the

relationship between organization level and benefit satisfaction have also been

inconsiste nt. Scarpello et al. (1988) found a positive relationship, Lust (1987)

a negative one, and Williams (1995) observed no significant relationship.

In fact, the empirical results re garding the impact of socio-de mo-

graphic factors have been so inconclusive that it is difficult, at the present

time, to draw any conclusions on the existence and meaning of the vari-

ations in the relationships. In addition, the direct effect of personal factors

on benefit satisfaction seems to be limited when perceptual variable s are

include d in the mode ls. Despite their presumed relevance , we will therefore

not propose any specific hypothe ses regarding these factors, but will pursue

our inve stigations in this field.


The weakne ss of the demographic approach in explaining employe e

attitude s has led some authors to examine employe e preference or need

(Milkovich and Newman, 1990) . Employee values are propose d as deter-

minants of benefit satisfaction in the mode ls of both Mice li & Lane (1991)

and Danehower and Lust (1992) . However, the ir role is uncle ar, and has

received little attention in empirical studie s of satisfaction (Danehower et

al., 1994). According to Locke (1976), the more importan ce individuals at-

tach to a give n aspect, the greater their satisfaction with that aspect. In

empirical work, Lust and Danehower (1992) found a positive relationship

between the importance attache d to benefits and the satisfaction with re-

spect to leave and retirement, and Williams (1995) obse rved a positive , but

not significant, relationship between benefit desirability and benefit satis-

faction. These results suggest that there may be a positive relationship be-

tween the importance attache d to benefits and employee satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1. The more importance individuals attach to benefits, the

more satisfied they will be with those benefits.

In the same way that value s are acquired through individual expe rience,

a benefit will be valued more highly if the individuals concerned have a

knowledge of the benefits that are offered to them. The study of Dreher et

al. (1988) showed that employe es who had an accurate view of the ir coverage

were more satisfie d with their benefits package s than employees who had an

inaccurate view. Such awareness may be a function of benefit history. Miceli

and Lane (1991) defined benefit history as an individual’s cumulative expe-

rience with benefits across organizations and over time. An individual who

has experienced several organizations during his or her career will probably

have acquire d a greater understanding of the benefits issue than someone

who has had only one employer. Moreove r, every move between employers

constitute s an opportunity to become better informe d and more aware of the

benefits package , and greater mobility provide s concre te points for compari-

son of compensation (Mice li & Lane , 1991). Research on the question of pay

satisfaction supports the importance of an historic standard (Hill, 1980) .

Thus, we can formulate the following hypothe sis:

Hypothesis 2. There is a positive relationship between interorganiza-

tional mobility and benefit satisfaction.

Benefits are aimed, among othe r things, at prote cting employe es and

the ir dependents from risks that could jeopardize their health and financial

security (Gomez-Mejia et al., 1995; Milkovich & Newman, 1990) , and pro-

viding continuity of income in a varie ty of circumstances and situations


(e.g., sickne ss, injury, une mployment, disability, retirement, death) . A bene-

fits plan perceived as providing a high leve l of security is more like ly to

increase employe e satisfaction. However, although the notion of protection

forms the core of all benefits plans, to our knowledge no research has yet

been done on the relationship between perception of security and attitude s

toward benefits. We therefore propose the following hypothe sis:

Hypothesis 3. There is a positive relationship between perception of

security and satisfaction with benefits.

Influence of Factors Related to Organ izational Justice

Distributive Justice

Researchers working on justice have identifie d two principal forms of

justice : distributive justice and procedural justice . The theoretical models

of benefit satisfaction (e.g., Miceli & Lane , 1991; Danehower & Lust, 1992)

suggest that these two components of justice may affect satisfaction.

The term “distributive fairne ss” means the perception of whether the

rewards received by individuals are fair. The explanatory model most often

cited in the literature for explaining the effects of distributive fairness is

that of Adams (1965) , which has been described as one of the most valid

frameworks for inte rpreting human motivations (Summers & DeNisi, 1990) .

According to this theory, individuals assess the fairne ss of their contribu-

tions and benefits by comparing with those of othe r people , known as “ref-

erents.” The referents may be the individuals themselve s or people with

the same or different jobs in the same company or elsewhere. Research

has shown that employees look to a varie ty of referents when assessing the

fairness of their salary, and that a give n referent will not necessarily have

the same significance in the eyes of all individuals (Summers & Hendrix,

1991; Summers & DeNisi, 1990; Tremblay et al., 1997) .

Several studies have shown that the perception of distributive justice

has a positive impact on pay satisfaction (Dyer & Theriault, 1976; Weiner,

1980; Berkowitz et al., 1987; Konovsky et al., 1987; Folger & Konovsky,

1989; Sweeney, 1990; Summers & Hendrix, 1991) and that satisfaction lev-

els vary according to the type of referent (Ronen, 1986; Scholl et al., 1987;

Summers & DeNisi, 1990; Tremblay & Roussell, 1996) . For example , Ronen

(1986) obse rved a stronger link between pay satisfaction and inte rnal equity

than between pay satisfaction and external equity. Similarly, Scholl et al.

(1987) and Tremblay and Roussel (1996) found that perceptions of internal,

external, and employe e equity had a significant influe nce on pay satisfac-


tion, and that the strength of the relationship varie d according to the nature

of the referent.

Nevertheless, the link between distributive justice and benefit satisfac-

tion has received little attention. To our knowle dge , only two studies have

tested the impact of individual comparisons with other referents on benefit

satisfaction. Williams (1995) found a positive relationship between benefit

standard comparisons (e xternal, education, responsibility, and age ) and

benefit leve l satisfaction. Individuals who rated their current level of benefit

coverage as be ing better than the coverage of othe rs were more satisfied.

Davis and Ward (1995) found evide nce that employe e perceptions of dis-

tributive justice are important predictors of benefit satisfaction. Thus, we

propose the following hypothe sis:

Hypothesis 4. There is a positive relationship between the perception

of distributive justice and benefit satisfaction.

Research has shown that individuals attach diffe rent leve ls of impor-

tance to the diffe rent salary referents (Hill, 1980; Tremblay et al., 1997) ,

and Blau (1994) recently found that the effect of distributive justice per-

ception on satisfaction varies according to the importance attache d by the

employees to the salary referents. Thus, it is reasonable to think that if

individuals conside r benefits to be very important and have a positive per-

ception of benefit justice , the n the y should be more satisfied with the ir

benefits. If, on the othe r hand, they have a positive perception of the bene-

fits package but conside r benefits to be less important, they will be less

satisfied. This sugge sts that the perceived importance of benefits may affect

the relationship between distributive justice and benefit satisfaction. In this

respect, Harris and Fink (1994) pointe d out the need to include a mod-

erator variable in order to improve our understanding of benefit satisfac-

tion. We therefore propose the following hypothe sis:

Hypothesis 5. The perceived importance of benefits plays a moderator

role in the relationship between distributive justice and benefit satisfaction.

Procedural Justice

To unde rstand why individuals react in one way or anothe r to unfair

treatment, we must look at a second form of fairne ss in organizational mat-

ters: procedural justice . Procedural justice is concerned with individual re-

actions to the process used to establish the reward (Greenbe rg, 1990)—in

other words, the means rather than the ends (Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993) .

Research on this que stion has shown that employees are able to make a


clear distinction between “the ends” and “the means” (Thibault & Walker,

1975; Sheppard & Lewicki, 1987; Daile y & Kirk, 1992) and that these two

notions have independent effects (Alexande r & Ruderman, 1987; Folger

& Konovsky, 1989; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993; Scarpe llo & Jones, 1996) .

Two procedural elements seem to be relevant from the compensation

standpoint, i.e ., degree of control over the process leading to pay-re lated

decisions, and degree of control over compensation decisions. Some authors

have shown that control ove r the process, for example , by giving employe es

the opportunity to choose a desired compensation form, to participate in

the design of a compensation system, to voice the results of compensation

decisions, or to receive accurate information, can produce a strong sense

of process justice and more positive attitude s to the results and the organi-

zation (Leventhal, 1980; Lind & Tyler, 1988; She ppard et al., 1992; Green-

berg, 1996) .

Early studies testing the e ffect of administrative components in the

field of compe nsation showed that perceptions of procedural justice ex-

plaine d a large portion of the variance in pay satisfaction (Dyer & Theri-

ault, 1976; Weiner, 1980) . Similarly, Jenkins and Lawler (1981) found a

link between involve ment in compensation decisions and pay satisfaction.

Folger and Konovsky (1989) also found a positive link between satisfaction

and the existence of an appe al proce ss in the de termination of pay in-

creases. However, the effect of procedural justice on benefit satisfaction

has not yet been clearly demonstrate d. Mulvey (1992) found that the power

to appe al against pay decisions and consistency in the application of pay

policie s—both criteria of procedural fairness—were positive ly and signifi-

cantly linked to benefit satisfaction. While Williams (1995) did not specifi-

cally test the effect of the employe e input variable , her results neverthe less

suggested that inclusion of that variable in the determination of the benefits

package may increase benefit satisfaction. It is therefore possible to con-

clude that giving employe es the chance to participate in decisions related

to benefits (e.g., choice) and taking account of the ir benefit preferences

(e.g., voice) will have a positive effect on satisfaction.


of involve ment in decisions related to benefits and benefit satisfaction.


that employe e preferences are conside red and benefit satisfaction.

The literature suggests that an elaborate communications program is re-

quire d if the compensation program is to be fully appre ciated (Gomez-Me-

jia & Balkin, 1992; Barocas 1993; Sire, 1993; Danehower et al., 1994) . The

theoretical mode ls of Mice li and Lane (1991) and Danehower and Lust


(1992) highlighte d the pote ntial effect of informational justice on benefit

satisfaction. Folge r and Greenberg (1985) sugge st that communication of

this type of information creates a sense that procedures have been followe d

correctly, and generates confidence in the people making the decisions. The

provision of more information on benefits can also reduce the gap between

employee expectations and perceptions (Danehower et al., 1994) . The work

of Mulve y (1992) , Rabin (1994) , Poilpot-Rocaboy (1995) , Williams (1995) ,

and Davis and Ward (1995) has shown that the more information employ-

ees have , the more satisfie d they are with the ir benefits. Indire ctly, Dreher

et al. (1988) also highlighte d the predominant role of communication. They

found that employe es who receive precise , accurate information on the ir

coverage are more satisfie d than those who receive no relevant information.

It would therefore seem, as sugge sted by Barbe r et al. (1992) and Rabin

(1994) , that communication is more important in organizations that have

introduce d flexible benefits policie s. If an employe r offers a flexible benefit

plan, it must disseminate extensive information on the various options avail-

able , to enable its employe es to make informe d choice s. Although very little

comparative empirical data is available on the leve l of communications ef-

fort required for traditional plans and flexible plans, we neverthe less think

it is justified to take this variable into account. We therefore propose the

following hypothe sis:

Hypothesis 8. There is a positive relationship between communication

received and benefit satisfaction.

A flexible benefits policy provide s a rare opportunity for employees to ex-

ercise choice in the area of compensation. Farh et al. (1991) suggested that

allowing employe es to choose their compensation increases both their con-

trol and the ir chances of satisfying the ir needs, and thus the ir satisfaction

leve ls.

One argument often invoke d when such programs are establishe d is

they will he lp obtain a higher corresponde nce between individual prefer-

ences and the benefits offered. Inde ed, from a theoretical point of view,

if employe es perceive the system of compensation to be well matched to

the ir preferences, they are bound to be more satisfie d than if no such cor-

relation existed (Dyer & Theriault, 1976; Mulve y, 1992) .

To our knowledge , only two studie s have conside red the effect of the

introduction of flexible benefits plans. Barber et al. (1992), in a study of

110 employe es in a large service sector company, observed a significant

increase in benefit satisfaction following the introduction of a new flexible

benefit program. Anothe r study (Rabin, 1994) , conducted in a large private

company after the introduction of a flexible benefit program, revealed that


the employe es were more satisfie d with the ir benefits under the flexible

plan than under the former fixed benefit plan.

Folge r and Greenberg (1985) suggested that the act of choosing may

be a strong determinant of satisfaction. Thus, it is important to know

whether individuals are more satisfie d when they are able to choose the ir

benefits, or when benefits are imposed upon them. We should also consider

whether the act of choosing benefits has an effect on satisfaction after con-

trolling for the fact that benefits plans take preferences into account. To

our knowle dge, no study involving more than one plan has ever tested the

influence of benefit flexibility in a multivariable mode l. The above argu-

ments enable us to postulate that the power to choose benefits would have

a positive effect on employe e satisfaction.

Hypoth esis 9. There is a positive relationship between flexibility of

benefits and benefits satisfaction.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Sample

The data in this study were collected from three Canadian organizations:

an insurance company (A), a university institution (B), and a drinks manu-

facturing company (C). The insurance company had a traditional (fixed) sys-

tem of benefits, the educational institution a modular flexible plan, and the

drinks manufacturing company a benefits system resembling a “core-plus-op-

tion” plan, or basic protection plus options. A questionnaire was distribute d

to 672 employees. A total of 285 completed copies were returned, for an

overall response rate of 42.4% . In terms of a sociodemographic profile , 63%

of the responde nts were women, 30% had a unive rsity degree, the average

age was 37, and the average length of service was 6 years. Some differences

in respondent profile s emerged from the data. Organization C had a highe r

percentage of men, a higher level of education and more reporting leve ls,

and ave rage salarie s were higher than in organizations A and B. In organi-

zation B, responde nts were olde r and had more seniority than in organiza-

tions A and C. These differences will be discusse d in more detail later, in the

section on the limits of the research.

Measures

Individual Variables. Individual characteristics were assessed from meas-

ure ments recorded by the surve y participant s. Gender was treated as a

“dummy” variable (male = 0, female = 1). Age, seniority, and number of


dependents were coded directly. Level of education was classifie d into three

categories (secondary level = 1 to unive rsity leve l = 3) and salary into 11

categories, from less than $30,000 (1) to $60,000 or more (11). Organizational

level was treated as a dummy variable and coded 0 for production and office

staff and 1 for professional and managererial staff. The ratio of benefits to

salary was coded into five categorie s, from 5% (1) to 25% or more (5). Im-

portance of benefits was measured on a 5-point scale (1 = not very important

to 5 = very important), using the following item: “To what extent is your

system of benefits important to you? ” Interorganizational mobility was meas-

ured by the number of employers for whom the responde nt had worked in

the course of his or her career. Perception of security was measured by two

items using a 5-point scale from “completely disagre e” (1) to “comple tely

agree” (5) (e.g., the benefits I receive from my employe r give me and my

family a sense of security, Cronbach alpha: 0.70).

Organizational Justice. The perception of distributive justice was meas-

ured using the scales develope d by Goodman (1974) and Tremblay et al.

(1997) . For the purpose s of this study, distributive justice linked to benefits

was broke n down into justice base d on needs, internal equity (related to

the responde nt’s immediate superior and colleague s) and external equity

(relate d to other companie s). For each of these referents, responde nts were

asked to locate their benefits on a 7-point scale (¯3 = conside rably less, 0

= more or less the same, + 3 = conside rably more). Here 0 represented

equity, ¯3 extreme negative inequity and + 3 extreme positive inequity. We

carried out a factorial analysis to see whether the different referents rep-

resented distinct constructs. The analyse s showed that the four aspe cts of

equity measured the same concept, with a Cronbach alpha of 0.79.

Level of involve ment was measured by one item. Responde nts were

asked to indicate the extent to which they were involve d in these decisions,

using a 5-point scale (1 = others make the decision, 3 = equal contribution

to the decision-making process, 5 = the decision is entirely up to me). The

variable representing conside ration of preferences was measure d by the fol-

lowing item: “To what extent doe s your organization take account of your

preferences in determining the different aspects of your benefits package ? ”This item was measure d using a 5-point scale from “takes no account what-

soever” (1) to “takes full account” (5). Communication effort was measured

by means of one item that sought to evaluate the degree of satisfaction

with the information received (“In your view, the information provide d by

your employe r on your benefits is:”). This item was measured on a 5-point

scale from “highly unsatisfactory” (1) to “highly satisfactory” (5).

Two indicators were used to measure the operationalization of flexi-

bility. For the first measurement, we distinguishe d between the company

that did not have a flexible plan (coded 0) and the two that had flexible


plans (coded 1). For the second, we distinguishe d the two companie s that

had flexible plans by a function of the degree of fle xibility of each; we

oppose d the modular plan (the less flexible of the two = 0) against the

“core-plus-options” plan (the more flexible = 1).

Dependent Variable. To measure benefit satisfaction, we drew on the

work of Lust and Danehower (1992). Using the ir model and inve stigative

instrument as a basis, we separated the creation of satisfaction into two

components: satisfaction with the cost and satisfaction with the quality of

benefits. The cost dimension was measured by four items (e.g., the amount

I pay for my benefits program) , and the quality dimension by three items

(e.g., the form of the benefits available to me). These items were adapte d

for French speakers and measure d using a 5-point scale. Here again, we

carried out factorial analysis to validate Lust and Danehower’s (1992) two

components of benefit satisfaction. The analyse s did not allow us to dif-

ferentiate the compone nts of cost and quality, since each item was placed

unde r the same factor. The degree of inte rnal consiste ncy for the aggregate

of the items, cost and quality, was found to be very satisfactory, with a

Cronbach alpha of .87.

Statistical Analyses

The research hypothe ses were tested using bivariate and multivariate

statistical technique s. We used a Pearson-type corre lation to test for a line ar

association between the variable s. Table I presents the mean, standard de-

viation, and correlation matrix of the variable s studied. The correlations

between the variable s range from .00 to .55, showing that there are no

serious multicolline arity proble ms. Nevertheless, give n the strong correla-

tion between the salary and organizational level variable s, we decided to

remove the latter from the mode l. We began by running a simple regres-

sion, entering all the variable s at once. To test the moderating effects of a

give n variable , we followe d the recommendations of Jame s and Brett

(1984) , introducing the interaction of distributive justice and importance

of benefits into the equation. We used usefulness analysis to asse ss the

incremental variations in satisfaction measured by predictors (Darlington,

1968) . Se veral combinations of variable inputs were tested to assess the

contribution of individual and organizational justice predictors.

RESULTS

The results of the simple regression, containe d in Table II, show that

all sets of variable s explaine d between 37% and 40% of the variance in

benefit satisfaction (F = 6.3 and 5.7; p < .001) . Sociode mographic variable s


Ta

ble

I.D

esc

rip

tive

Sta

tist

ics

an

dC

orr

ela

tio

ns

Be

twe

en

Va

ria

ble

s

Me

an

SD

12

34

56

78

91

01

11

21

31

41

5

1.

Be

ne

fits

sati

sfa

ctio

n

20

.55

.1

2.

Se

x0

.60

.5.2

6*

**

3.

Ag

e3

7.2

9.1

.04

¯.05

4.

De

pe

nd

en

ts0

.80

.8.0

6¯.0

7.1

2*

5.

Ed

uca

tio

n2

.10

.9¯.1

1¯.2

6*

**

¯.25

**

*¯.1

7*

6.

Se

nio

rity

7.8

6.9

.05

¯.12

.55

**

*.0

3¯.2

6*

**

7.

Sa

lary

6.6

2.5

.21

**

*¯.5

7*

**

.28

**

*.1

1.3

9*

**

.32

**

*8

.B

en

efi

t

pro

po

rtio

n

3.1

1.3

.03

¯.09

.11

.01

.03

.18

**

.28

**

*

9.

Inte

rorg

an

-

iza

tio

na

lm

ove

s

3.1

1.6

.03

¯.07

.38

**

*.1

8*

*¯.1

4*

¯.11

.11

.01

10

.B

en

efi

tim

po

rta

nce

2.1

0.7

¯.15

.17

**

.09

.05

¯.28

**

*.1

8*

*¯.1

1.1

0.0

4

11

.S

ecu

rity

6.5

1.6

.51

**

*.0

1.0

8.0

7.0

5.0

7.0

4.1

6*

*.1

6*

*¯.0

51

2.

Dis

trib

uti

ve

just

ice

15

.72

.3.3

4*

**

.09

¯.03

.12

*.0

2.0

3.0

4.1

8*

*.0

5.0

5.3

9*

**

13

.P

art

icip

ati

on

2.1

1.3

.06

.08

.08

.05

.04

.01

.02

.07

.04

.19

**

.16

**

.15

*

14

.P

refe

ren

ces

2.6

1.0

.18

**

¯.05

.17

**

.11

¯.15

*.2

1*

**

.02

.05

.07

.11

.29

**

*.2

0*

**

.20

**

*1

5.

Co

mm

un

ica

-

tio

n

3.3

1.1

.58

**

*.0

9.0

7¯.0

2¯.0

1.0

3¯.0

5.1

5*

.05

.05

.52

**

*.2

3*

**

.11

*.2

4*

**

16

.F

lexi

bil

ity

0.8

0.4

¯.20

**

¯.22

**

*.0

9¯.1

0.3

4*

**

.03

.35

**

*¯.0

9.0

7¯.0

9¯.0

6.0

1.1

9*

*.1

1.1

0

*p

<.0

5.

**

p<

.01

.

**

*p

<.0

01

.


were found to play an unimportant role in explaining our dependent vari-

able : none (sex, age, dependents, education, salary, leve l, seniority, propor-

tion of benefits) had a significant independe nt effect beyond .10 on benefit

satisfaction. However, contrary to our hypothe sis 1, we observe a negative

relationship between the importance ascribe d to benefits and the leve l of

satisfaction (Beta = ¯.15 and ¯0.18; p < .05) . Contrary to our hypothe sis

2, we found an insignificant negative relationship between interorganiza-

tional mobility and satisfaction (Beta = ¯.15, p < .10) . Hypothesis 3, the

influence of security, was not confirmed. The results show a positive but

non-significant relationship between the perception of security and benefit

satisfaction (Beta = .15 and .17, p < .10) .

Table II. Results of the Regression Analysis Betwee n the De terminants and Benefit Satis-

faction (N = 285)

Variables Beta T Beta T

Individual variables

Sex .10a 1.18 .15 1.64Age .07 .67 .11 .83

Dependents ¯.02 ¯.23 ¯.03 ¯.36Education ¯.12 ¯1.26 ¯.10 ¯.88

Seniority ¯.07 ¯.68 ¯.09 ¯.69Level of salary .05 .52 .01 .03

Benefit proportion ¯.05 .76 ¯.08 ¯.93Interorganizational moves ¯.15" ¯1.63 ¯.14 ¯1.27

Benefit importance ¯.15* ¯2.03 ¯.18* ¯2.15Security .15" 1.93 .17" 1.63

Organizational justiceDistributive justice .14" 1.82 .20* 2.11

Distri ´ Importance .29 .61 .38 .69Participation in decision ¯.07 ¯.92 .11 1.24

Prefere nces .14" 1.83 .19* 2.20Communication .43*** 5.26 .46*** 4.80

Flex1 ¯.17* ¯1.94Flex2 .21* 2.05

R2 .46 .46

R2 adjusted .40 .37

F-value 6.7*** 5.27***Usefulness analysisb

Individual variable s beyond organizationaljustice variables

.05

Distributive justice beyond procedural justice .03**Proce dural justice beyond distributive justice .25***

aStandardized regression coefficients.bWhere the entry indicates x beyond y it means the increment in the square of the multiple

corre lation coefficient when x is added following y. Otherwise, the entry is the multiple cor-

re lation coefficient (Folger & Konovsky, 1989) .

“p < .10.

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001.


Hypothe sis 4, concerning the effect of distributive justice , was partly

confirme d by our results (Beta = .14, p < .10 and .20, p < .05) . The fairer

responde nts perceived the ir benefits to be, and the better the benefits com-

pare d with those of the referents, the more satisfie d responde nts were. Hy-

pothe sis 5, suggesting that the importance ascribe d to benefits may have a

moderating effect between distributive justice and satisfaction, was not con-

firmed. Hypothesis 6, concerning procedural justice , was not confirmed,

since participation in benefit decisions was found to have a nonsignificant

effect on benefit satisfaction. However, hypothe sis 7 was supporte d. The

perception that the company took account of employe e preferences was

found to be positive ly linke d to benefit satisfaction (Beta = .19, p < .05) .

Hypothesis 8, concerning the effect of communication , was fully confirmed

(Beta = .43 and .46, p < .001) . Communication was found to be the main

predictor of benefit satisfaction. This suggests that the more information

employees have , the more satisfie d they are with the ir benefits.

Our results gave mitigate d support to our hypothe sis 8. In the first

mode l, it would appear (flex 1) that the fact of having a flexible plan has

a negative effect on benefit satisfaction (Beta = ¯.17; p < .05) . In the

second mode l, however, when the two flexible plans are examine d (flex 2),

flexibility is positive ly relate d to satisfaction (Beta = .21, p < .05) .

DISCUSSION

The analyse s provide evide nce on two major isssues: (a) the influe nce

of individual factors on benefit satisfaction, and (b) the role of organiza-

tional justice in the prediction of benefit satisfaction.

Although previous research has shown that individual factors have an

effect on benefit satisfaction, our research revealed the ir influence to be

very limited. In fact, the sociodemographic variable s explaine d less than

1% of the variance . These results seem to confirm the models of Dane-

hower and Lust (1992) and Miceli and Lane (1991) , in that these variable s

have an indire ct effect on satisfaction. Similarly, they confirme d the studies

of He mmasi e t al. (1992) , and William s (1995) , in that the sociode -

mographic factors had a very limite d effect when perceptual variable s were

introduce d into the mode l. It is possible , however, that these variable s may

have a direct effect when specific benefit elements are studied. Furthe r-

more , we observed a negative relationship between the importance of bene-

fits and satisfaction. Dane howe r and Lust (1992) found a positive

relationship between these two variable s for individual benefits. Our results

did not support the hypothe sis of a significant inte raction between the im-

portance of benefits and distributive justice . It may be , as sugge sted by

Milkovich and Newman (1990) , that need and preference arise out of a


sense of perceived equity or ine quity. These authors justifie d this inde-

pendence by the fact that employe rs grant benefits for reasons other than

to satisfy the needs of the ir employees—for example , to avoid unionization

or to copy competitors. Further research is require d to clarify the influe nce

of needs, values, and desirability on both the general and specific compo-

nents of benefit satisfaction.

Our results indicate that, as in the case of satisfaction with regard to salary,

the perception of equity in the benefits policy is positive ly linked to benefit

satisfaction. This finding is consistent with the results of Williams (1995) and

Davis and Ward (1995), suggesting that employees are able to assess the fair-

ness of their benefits and that any perceived unfairne ss will affect satisfaction

levels. Our results also suggest that employees base their perception of fairness

on their referents. However, we are not able to draw conclusions on the sig-

nificance of any particular referent. It would be relevant in subsequent research

to assess the impact of internal and external referents, to see whether some, as

suggested by Danehower and Lust (1992), are more significant than others.

With respect to procedural justice , our results did not demonstrate that

participation in benefits-related decisions significantly improved benefit sat-

isfaction. This aspect of procedural fairne ss had a significant effect on satis-

faction only when communication was removed from the mode l. However, it

is somewhat surprising that perceived consideration of preferences was not

linked more strongly to benefit satisfaction. In this respect, additional analy-

ses showed that there was no significant difference between the three type s

of plans studied. This suggests that employe es covered by a fixed plan may

feel that their employers are taking account of the ir preferences even when

they cannot select the ir benefits. This finding is consistent with the results of

Williams (1995) , who found a positive relationship between employe e input

and benefit satisfaction in a numbe r of traditional and fixed benefit plans.

O ur research confirms the importance of communication in bene fit

manage ment, and is consiste nt in this respect with the findings of Mulvey

(1992) , Rabin (1994), Poilpot-Rocaboy (1995), and Williams (1995). Commu-

nication was found to be by far the most important predictor of benefit sat-

isfaction. This reinforces the idea of adopting a marketing orientation for

employe e benefits (Danehower et al., 1994), and justifie s the relevance of

research, such as that of Driver (1980), Haar and Kossack (1990) , and Milk-

ovich et al. (1994) on the effectiveness of communication methods for bene-

fits. Interestingly, we found a strong correlation between communication and

security (r = .52, p < .001). This suggests that employees may have a better

understanding of benefit package s where an effective communications pro-

gram exists, and thus an increased sense of security or protection.

Our findings partly contradict the results obtaine d by Barbe r et al.

(1992) and Rabin (1994) . In fact, we observed that the existence of a flex-


ible plan was not sufficie nt, alone , to improve satisfaction. The relationship

appe ared to be negative . This can undoubte dly be explaine d by the fact

that information on remuneration is not adapte d to the complexity of flex-

ible schemes.

Although the theoretical mode ls highlight the positive effect of benefit

plan flexibility on satisfaction, it is also true that these plans increase the

complexity of the choice s, and thus the risks and the fear of making a mis-

take in the selection process. This negative effect must, however, be quali-

fied since we also found that, where flexible plans exist, the most flexible

plans generate the highest leve ls of satisfaction. It would be instructive to

study a greater varie ty of flexible benefit plans and to establish whether

there is a positive or negative relationship between the degree of flexibility

and the degree of satisfaction. Beside s the feature s of flexible plans, it

would also be interesting, as Rabin (1994) did, to examine the impact of

the choice s made , and the effect of the maturity of flexible plans. Another

interesting line of research would be to study the conseque nces of benefit

dissatisfaction to see whether, as sugge sted by Harris & Fink (1992, 1994) ,

dissatisfaction actually increases the desire to join a union or change jobs,

or reduces organizational commitment.

Studie s in the fie ld of organizational justice have consiste ntly shown that

distributive fairne ss has a higher explanatory power than process fairness in

salary satisfaction (e.g., Folger & Konovsky, 1989). In contrast, our usefulness

analysis and the results obtained by Williams (1995) suggest that, in the benefit

context, procedural compone nts play a more important role than distributive

components in generating satisfaction. The results of the usefulness analysis

showed that, in our study, the contribution of procedural justice was nearly

eight times that of distributive justice (0.25 and 0.03). One possible explana-

tion for this would be that employees are require d to judge benefit manage -

ment more often than salary manage ment. As benefit manage ment involve s

a numbe r of complex tasks and procedures (e.g., claims processing for indi-

vidual and dependent insurance s), and improve ments in benefit package s are

few in numbe r and infrequent, the administrative compone nts become more

important to employe es. Further research is required to see why the roles of

these two dimensions of organizational justice differ for pay and benefits.

Limitation s and Conclusion

A numbe r of limitations in this research, caused by the subje cts, the

measure s, and the analytical technique s, require comment. First, the ele-

ment of conve nience in selecting the sample should be note d. The scarcity

of flexible benefit plans restricted the size and representative ness of the

sample , and prevented us from using random selection, although the weak-


ness of the demographic variable s in the multivariate models attenuated

the conseque nces of the imperfectly-matche d populations. The sample ,

drawn from only three companie s, is too small to enable us to generalize

our conclusions on the effects of flexibility. Furthe r research is require d to

examine benefit satisfaction among homogeneous populations subject to

diffe rent flexible plans.

Second, we used single items to measure several of the variable s. This

may have affected reliability. On the other hand, the pattern of results ob-

tained from these single -item measure s across the three samples was gen-

erally consistent.

Third, the methods used to gather and analyze the data should be

conside red. The research design was cross-sectional, and it is thus not pos-

sible to infe r causal relationships. Because fairness judgme nts are a dynamic

phe nomenon and the effect of fle xibility may change ove r time (Hewitt

Associate s, 1995) , there may be a need to use a longitudinal design.

A further limitation is that all the variable s, both independent and

depende nt, derive from the same que stionnaire . This raises concerns about

share d variance due to a common measure ment method. No statistical

technique provide s proof of causation. A structural equation under LIS-

REL could be used to ove rcome this problem, as it would take account of

measure ment errors in variable estimate s (Brannick, 1995) .

In conclusion, the study provides some evidence that organizational jus-

tice is a relevant conceptual framework for explaining employee attitudes to

benefits. For practitione rs and managers in organizations, it has shown the

relevance of benefit comparisons when designing benefits package s: the fairer

employees perceive the ir benefit package to be, in comparison to others, the

more satisfied they will be with their benefits. Most importantly, the results

sugge st that managers should pay careful attention to benefit management. A

better communications strategy seems to be essential in order to improve at-

titudes toward benefits. Companie s that want to increase employee satisfac-

tion levels should invest in information on their benefits before broadening

the range of bene fits offered (Williams, 1995) or introducing completely dif-

ferent policie s (e.g., flexible plans). Despite ambiguous conclusions on the ef-

fect of fle xible plans, process justice and attitude s can be reinforce d in

organizations that take account of employee preferences and needs by offering

diffe rent methods of participation, such as survey and focus groups.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to acknowle dge the helpful comments and suggestions

of David Balkin, and two anonymous reviewers. The research was funded

by le Fond pour la Formation de Chercheurs et l’Aide à la Recherche


(FCAR) du Québec and a Social Sciences and Humanitie s Research Coun-

cil (SSHRC) of Canada.

REFERENCES

ADAMS, J. S. Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental

and social psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press, 1965, pp. 267-299.

ALEXANDER, S., & RUDERMAN, M. The role of procedural and distributive justice in

organizational behavior, Social Justice Research, 1987, 1, 1401-1420.

BAKER, C. Flex your benefits. Personnel Journal, 1988, 67(5) , 54-61.

BALKIN, D., & GRIFFETH, R. The déterminants of employee benefit satisfaction. Journalof Business and Psychology, 1993, 7(3), 323-339.

BARBER, A., DUNHAM, R., & FORMISANO , R. The impact of flexible benefits on em-

ployee satisfaction: A field study. Personnel Psychology, 1992, 45, 55-75.

BAROCAS, V. Benefit Communications: Enhacing the Employe r’s Inve stment. The Confer-

ence Board, Report Numbe r 1035, 1993, 52 pp.

BEAM, B., & McFADDEN, J. Employee benefits (2nd ed.). Irwin Home wood, 1988, 539 pp.

BERGMANN, T., BERGMANN, M., & GRAHN, J. How important are employee benefitsto public sector employees. Public Personnel Managem en t, 1994, 23(3) , 397-406.

BERKOWITZ, L., FRASER, C., TREASURE, P., & COCHRAN, S. Pay, equity, job gratifi-

cations, and comparaisons in pay satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1987, 72(4) ,544-551.

BESSER, L., & FRANCK, G. Artificial intelligence and flexible benefits decision: Can expert

systems help employees make rational choice? Advance Managem ent Journal, 1989, 54(2) ,4-9, 13.

BLAU, G. Testing the effect of leve l and importance of pay referents on pay level satisfaction,Hum an Relations, 1994, 47(10) , 1251-1268.

BRANNICK, M. Critical comments on applying covariance structure modeling. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 1995, 27(1), 56-72.

CABLE, D., & JUDGE , T. Pay prefere nce and job search decisions: A person¯organization

fit perspective. Personnel Psychology, 1994, 47, 317-348.

CAVAGNAC, M., & SIRE, B. Rémunération cafétéria et engagemen t de l’employeur. Revue

de G estion des Ressources Hum aines, 1994, 12, 17-25.

DAILEY, R. C, & KIRK, D. J. Distributive and procedural justice as antecede nt of job dis-

satisfaction and intent to turnover. Hum an Relations, 1992, 45(3) , 305-317.

DANEHO WER, C., & LUST, J. A conceptual model of the determinants of employee benefit

satisfaction. Hum an Ressource Managem ent Review, 1992, 3(3) , 221-238.

DANEHO WER, C., CELUCH, K., & LUST, J. Benefits managemen t and communication: Amarke ting orientation. Hum an Resource Managem ent Review , 1994, 4(2), 177-195.

DAVIS, E., & WARD, E. Health benefit satisfaction in the public and private sectors: The

role of distributive and procedurale justice. Public Personnel Managem ent, 1995, 24(3) ,255-270.

DARLINGTO N, R. Multiple regre ssion in psychological rese arch and practice . Psychological

Bulletin, 1968, 69, 161-182.

DRE HER, G., ASH, R., & BRETZ, R. Benefit coverage and employee cost: Critical factors

in explaining compe nsation satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 1988, 41, 237-254.

DRIV ER, R. W. A determination of the relative efficacy of different techniques for employee

benefit communication. Journal of Business Communications , 1980, 17, 23-37.

DYER, L., & THERIAULT, R. The déterminants of pay satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, 1976, 61(5), 596-604.

FARH, J., GRIFFIN, R., & BALKIN, D. Effect of choice of pay plans on satisfaction, goals

setting, and performance . Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1991, 12, 55-62.

FOLGER, R., & GREENBER G, J. Procedural Justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel

systems. Research in Personnel and Hum an Resources Managem ent, 1985, 13, 141-183.


FOLGER, R., & KONOVSKY, M. A. Effect of procedural and distributive justice on reactions

to pay raise decisions. Academ y of Managem ent Journal, 1989, 32(1) , 1989, 115-130.

GERHART, B., & MILKOVICH, G. Employee compe nsation: Research and pratice. In M.

D. Dunette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and organizational psychology(Vol. 3) . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press, 1992, pp. 481-569.

GOMEZ-MEJIA, L., BALKIN, D., & CARDY, R. Managing hum an resources . Prentice Hall,1995, 690 pp.

GOMEZ-MEJIA, L., & BALKIN, D. Compensation, organizational strategy, and firm perform -

ance. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing, 1992.

GOODMAN, P. S. An examination of referents used in the evaluation of pay. OrganizationalBehavior and Hum an Performance, 1974, 12, 170-195.

GREENBE RG, J. The quest for justice on the job. Sage Publications, 1996, 428 pp.

GREENBE RG, J. Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Man-agem ent, 1990, 16(2), 399-432.

HAAR, J., & KOSSACK, S. Employe e benefit packages: How understandable are they? Jour-

nal of Business Comm unications, 1990, 27, 185-200.

HARRIS, M., & FINK, K. Employee Benefits: Future Directions for Research. Pape r pre-

sented at the 52nd Annu al Meeting of Academ y of Man agem ent, Las Vegas, 1992.

HARRIS, M. M., & FINK, K. Employe e benefit programs and attitudinal and behavioraloutcomes: A pre liminary model. Hum an Resource Managem ent Review, 1994, 4(2), 117-

129.

HEMMASI, M., GRAF, L., & LUST, J. Correlates of pay and benefit satisfaction: The uniquecase of university faculty. Public Personnel Managem ent, 1992, 21(4) , 429-442.

HEWITT ASSOCIATES. Canadian flexible benefit programs and practices. He witt AssociatesLLC, 1995, 31.

HILL, F. The relevant other in pay comparisons. Industrial Relations, 1980, 19(3), 345-351.

HORNSBY, J., KURATKO, D., & WALLINGFO RD, C. Flexible benefit plans in smaller

firms. Compensation & Benefits Managem ent, 1991, 7(2) , 14-20.

JAMES, L., & BRETT, J. Mediators, moderators, and tests of a theory. Journ al of AppliedPsychology, 1984, 69, 307-321.

JENKINS, D., & LAWLER, E. Impact of employe e participation in pay plan deve lopment.

Organizational Behavior and Hum an Perform ance, 1981, 28, 111-128.

INSTITU T DE RECHERCHE ET D ’INFO RMATIO N SUR LA RÉ MUNÉ RATIO N

(I.R.I.R.). La com paraison de la rémunération globale des salaires de l’adm inistrationquébécoise et des autres salariés québécois. Dixième rapport dur les constatations de

L’I.R.I.R. Partie 1, Mai 1994.

JUDGE, T. A. Validity of the dimensions of pay satisfaction questionnaire: Evidence of dif-ferential prediction. Personnel Psychology, 1993, 46, 331-355.

KONOV SKY, M., FOLGER, R., & CROPANZ ANO, R. Relative effects of procedural and

distributive justice on employee attitudes. Representative Research in Social Psychology,1987, 17(1), 15-23.

KROLL, M., & DOLAN, J. Cafeteria benefit plans: A conce pt that fits the changing face ofwork. Sam Advanced Managem ent Journal, 1985¯1986, 50¯51, 4-9.

LENGNICK-HALL, M. L., & BEREMAN, N. A. A conce ptual framework for the study of

employee benefits. Hum an Resource Managem en t Review, 1994, 4(2) , 101-115.

LEVENTHAL, G. What should be done with equity theory. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Gre enberg,& R. H Willis (Eds.), Social exchan ge: Advances in theory and research . New York: Plenum,

1980, pp. 27-55.

LIND, E., & TYLE R, T. The social psychology of procedural justice. Ne w York, Plenum Press,

1988, 267 pp.

LOCKE, E. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunette (Ed.), Handbook ofindustrial and organizational psychology, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976.

LUST, J. Correlates of employee benefit satisfaction. Proceedings of the Sou thern Managem ent

Association 1987 Annual Meeting, 112-114.

LUST, J. The determinants of employee fringe benefit satisfaction: A replication and revision.

Benefits Quarterly, 1990, 6, 89-95.


LUST, J., & DANEHO WER, C. The Dimensionality of Employee Benefit Satisfaction. Paper

presented at the 1992 Annual Meeting of the Academ y of Managem en t, 1992, 25 pp.

McCAFFERY, R. Employee benefit program s: A total com pensation perspective . Boston: PWS-

Kent, 1988, 250 pp.

MICELI, M., & LANE, M. Antecedents of pay satisfaction: a review and extension. Research

in Personnel and Hum an Resou rces Managem ent, 1991, 9, 235-309.

MILKOVICH, G., & NEWMAN, J. Compen sation (3rd ed.). Boston: BPI Irwin Home wood,

Boston, 1990, 627 pp.

MILKOVICH, G., STURNAN, M., & HANNO N, J. Using expert systems to aid employee s’flexible benefits decisions. ACA Journal, 1994, 3(1), 18-29.

MULVEY, P. Predicting Pay and Benefit Satisfaction: Can One Model Fit All Dimensions?Paper presented at the 52nd Annual Meeting of Academ y of Managem ent, Las Vegas, Au-

gust 1992.

POILPOT-ROCABOY, G. La satisfaction des individus à l’égard de la protection sociale com-pléme ntaire d’entreprise. Revue de G estion des Ressources Hum aines, 1995, 16, 25-35.

RABIN, B. Assessing employee benefit satisfaction under flexible benefit. Compensation andBenefits Managem ent, 1994, 10(3) , 33-44.

RONEN, S. Equity perception in multiple comparaisons: A field study. Hum an Relations, 1986,

39(4) , 333-346.

ROSE, R. Taking control of benefits. Across the Board , 1988, 7 and 8, 49-52.

RYLAN, E., & ROSEN, D. Attracting job applicant with flexible benefits. Personnel, 1988,65(3) , 71-73.

SCARPELLO, V., & JONES, F. Why justice matters in compe nsation decision making. Journalof Organizational Behavior, 1996, 17, 285-299.

SCARPELLO, V., VANDENBERG, R., & HUBER, V., Compensation satisfaction: Its me as-ureme nt and dimensionality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1988, 73(2), 163-171.

SCHOLL, R., COOPER, E., & McKENNA, J. Referent selection determining equity percep-

tions: Differential e ffects on behavioral and attitudinal outcomes. Personnel Psychology,1987, 40, 113-124.

SHEPPARD, B., & LEWICKI, R. Toward ge neral principles of managerial fairness. Social

Justice Research , 1987, 1(2) , 161-176.

SIRE, B. G estion stratégique des rémunérations, France: É ditions liaisons, 1993.

SHEPPARD, B., LEWICKI, R., & MINTO N, J. Organizational Justice. Ne w York: Lexington

Books, 1992, 227 pp.

SUMMERS, T., & HENDRIX, W. Modelling the role of pay equity perceptions: A fieldstudy. Journal of Occupation al Psychology, 1991, 64, 145-157.

SUMMERS, T., & DENISI, A. In search of Adams’ other: Reexamination of referents usedin the evaluation of pay. Hum an Relations, 1990, 43(6) , 497-511.

SWEENEY, P. Distributive justice and pay satisfaction: A field test of an equity theory pre-

diction, Journ al of Business and Psychology, 1990, 4(3) , 329-341.

SWEENEY, P., & McFARLIN, D. Workers evaluation and the end and the means: An evalu-

ation of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior andHum an Decision Processes, 1993, 55, 23-40.

THERIAULT, R. G uide Mercer sur la gestion de la rém unération: Théorie et pratique. Chicou-timi: G. Morin, 1991, 589 pp.

THIBAULT, J., & WALKER, L. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum, 1975, 145 pp.

TREMBLAY, M., & ROUSSEL, P. Modelling the Role of Organizational Justice: Satisfactionand Attitudes to Collectice Action. Working paper, Hautes É tudes Commerciales, Mont-

real, 1996, 27 p.

TREMBLAY, M., St.-ONGE, S., & TOULO USE, J. M. Determinants of salary referents rele-vance: A field Study of Managers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1997, 11(4) , 463-484.

WILLIAMS, M. C. Antecedents of employee benefit leve l satisfaction: A test of a model.

Journal of Man agem ent, 1995, 21(6), 1097-1128.

WEINE R, N. Determinants and behavioral conseque nces of pay satisfaction: A comparison

of two models. Personnel Psychology, 1980, 33, 741-757.


BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

MICHEL TREMBLAY is Associate Professor of Human Resource Management at the HEC

Business School of Montreal and researcher at CIRANO. He graduated from the manage mentdoctoral program at the University of Aix-Marseille. Professor Tremblay’s rese arch interests

include organizational justice, skill pay, care er manage ment, and workplace innovations. Hismost recent work has been published in Hum an Relations, G roup & Organizational Manage-

ment, and Journal of Business and Psychology.

BRUNO SIRE is Full Professor of Human Resource Management at the French Unive rsity

of Toulouse I. He is currently associated with the L.I.R.H.E., a rese arch unit affiliated to theNational Center for Scientific Research. His research interests include compensation manage-

me nt and competence developme nt. He is also President of the French Human ResourceManageme nt Association (AGRH) .

ANNIE PELCHAT received her MSc in Human Resource Manage ment from the HEC Busi-

ness School in Montreal.


Documents

A Study of the Determinants and of the Impact of Flexibility on Employee Benefit Satisfaction