When given the choice, people prefer to collaborate on work projects with higher-paid colleagues, but they want to hire subordinates with a lower pay history than theirs, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.
The research, published in the journal American Psychologist, aimed to explore how a trend toward increasing pay transparency in the business world may affect workers' behavior.
"I've long been interested in the ways in which slight -- and not-so-slight -- differences in salaries can generate strong reactions from people," said Kevin Kniffin, PhD, an assistant professor at Cornell University and co-author of the study. "When combined with the trend toward more pay transparency in organizations, whether required by law or crowdsourced by employees, and the trend toward more teamwork and collaboration in work, it's increasingly valuable to understand more about how people think about pay differences in relation to co-workers and potential collaborators."
Some researchers have hypothesized that pay transparency could cause workers to resent -- and avoid working with -- higher-paid colleagues. But Kniffin and his colleague Angus Hildreth, PhD, suspected that might not be the case, and that instead people might use pay as a signal to decide which co-workers were most competent.
To explore that question, they conducted three experiments in which they gave participants hypothetical information about colleagues' salaries and asked them whom they would prefer to work with on a project. In the first experiment, they gave 171 economics PhD students a hypothetical situation in which the students could bid to work on a project and could choose a partner to work with, knowing their potential partners' bids as well. Nearly two-thirds (65%) requested to work with the person who asked for the higher salary.
In the second experiment, 171 online participants faced a similar scenario in which they could choose to work with a higher-paid or lower-paid colleague. At first, nearly three-quarters (73%) of participants chose to work with the higher-paid colleague. However, the researchers then gave the participants additional information that both colleagues had the same knowledge, skills, abilities and experience as the participant. After that, the percentage of participants who preferred to work with the higher-paid colleague was significantly smaller, dropping to 60%.
In a third experiment, 375 online participants were asked to name four real-life colleagues, two of whom they had worked with before and two of whom they had not. Then the participants were asked to imagine that one of each pair had a higher salary than their own, and one of each pair had a lower salary. Again, when asked to choose a project partner, the majority of participants chose the colleague with the higher salary. However, the difference was less than in the purely hypothetical experiments – in this case, when participants were choosing between two colleagues they'd worked with before, 58% chose the higher-paid colleague.
"People seem to assume that higher pay is merited and reflects greater competence. And they seem to assume that collaborating with someone with higher pay will be beneficial -- in other words, that the higher-paid coworker will share some of their greater knowledge and skills with them," Hildreth said.
Finally, in a fourth experiment, the researchers looked at how pay history affected people's hiring decisions. They asked 138 online participants, all with hiring experience, to choose between two job candidates with the same knowledge, skills and experience. All else being equal, 71% of participants preferred to hire a candidate with a salary history lower than their own. This may reflect a belief that salary differences should correspond to organizational rank, according to the researchers.
Overall, the research has implications for workplaces as pay transparency increases, according to Kniffin.
"While companies may anticipate pay transparency would impede employees' willingness to work with higher-paid colleagues, we find evidence that salary disparities can actually function as a magnet for collaboration," he said.
Future research could examine how these teaming decisions play out in the real world, according to Hildreth. "I'm intrigued by whether people actually benefit from collaborating with their higher paid peers and whether higher-paid workers do share their assumed greater skills," he said.
ARTICLE: "Partnering Up (and Down): Examining When and Why People Prefer Collaborating with Higher-Paid Peers (and Lower-Paid Subordinates)," by Kevin M. Kniffin, PhD, and John Angus D. Hildreth, PhD, Cornell University. American Psychologist, published online Sept. 23.
