The perceived inequity of systems

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

It is argued that formal, man-made systems tend to be perceived as inequitable by individuals transacting with them. More specifically, (a) as special purpose tools, systems often deal poorly wit/i complexity and dynamism; (b) as interacting subsystems, systems frequently relegate clients' needs to poorly mapped interfaces between subsystems; (c) as arbiters of meaning, systems tend to stereotype quantities; (d) as regulators of behavior, systems often put internal needs above clients' needs; (e) as mass producers, systems tend to reify procedures; (n as symbols, systems frequently neglect substance; and (g) as amoral entities, systems often neglect common moral and ethical principles. Further, cognitive and motivational biases predispose system clients to view systems as much less equitable than do system administrators. Perceived inequities lead to unmet expectations, reduced system legitimacy, reactance, increased resentment and cynicism, and decreased initiative and trust. This analysis suggests that the very attempt to organize an activity may lead to structures and processes that undermine the activity. General means and a process for reducing perceived inequities are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)375-408
Number of pages34
JournalAdministration and Society
Volume24
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 1992
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

subsystem
Inequity
neglect
reactance
dynamism
stereotype
symbol
producer
legitimacy
trend
Subsystem
Neglect
Dynamism
Symbol
Ethical principles
Cynicism
Stereotypes
Legitimacy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Marketing
  • Public Administration

Cite this

The perceived inequity of systems. / Ashforth, Blake.

In: Administration and Society, Vol. 24, No. 3, 1992, p. 375-408.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{41fbb6788d9441b9b32790997ca3bd9c,
title = "The perceived inequity of systems",
abstract = "It is argued that formal, man-made systems tend to be perceived as inequitable by individuals transacting with them. More specifically, (a) as special purpose tools, systems often deal poorly wit/i complexity and dynamism; (b) as interacting subsystems, systems frequently relegate clients' needs to poorly mapped interfaces between subsystems; (c) as arbiters of meaning, systems tend to stereotype quantities; (d) as regulators of behavior, systems often put internal needs above clients' needs; (e) as mass producers, systems tend to reify procedures; (n as symbols, systems frequently neglect substance; and (g) as amoral entities, systems often neglect common moral and ethical principles. Further, cognitive and motivational biases predispose system clients to view systems as much less equitable than do system administrators. Perceived inequities lead to unmet expectations, reduced system legitimacy, reactance, increased resentment and cynicism, and decreased initiative and trust. This analysis suggests that the very attempt to organize an activity may lead to structures and processes that undermine the activity. General means and a process for reducing perceived inequities are discussed.",
author = "Blake Ashforth",
year = "1992",
doi = "10.1177/009539979202400305",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "375--408",
journal = "Administration and Society",
issn = "0095-3997",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The perceived inequity of systems

AU - Ashforth, Blake

PY - 1992

Y1 - 1992

N2 - It is argued that formal, man-made systems tend to be perceived as inequitable by individuals transacting with them. More specifically, (a) as special purpose tools, systems often deal poorly wit/i complexity and dynamism; (b) as interacting subsystems, systems frequently relegate clients' needs to poorly mapped interfaces between subsystems; (c) as arbiters of meaning, systems tend to stereotype quantities; (d) as regulators of behavior, systems often put internal needs above clients' needs; (e) as mass producers, systems tend to reify procedures; (n as symbols, systems frequently neglect substance; and (g) as amoral entities, systems often neglect common moral and ethical principles. Further, cognitive and motivational biases predispose system clients to view systems as much less equitable than do system administrators. Perceived inequities lead to unmet expectations, reduced system legitimacy, reactance, increased resentment and cynicism, and decreased initiative and trust. This analysis suggests that the very attempt to organize an activity may lead to structures and processes that undermine the activity. General means and a process for reducing perceived inequities are discussed.

AB - It is argued that formal, man-made systems tend to be perceived as inequitable by individuals transacting with them. More specifically, (a) as special purpose tools, systems often deal poorly wit/i complexity and dynamism; (b) as interacting subsystems, systems frequently relegate clients' needs to poorly mapped interfaces between subsystems; (c) as arbiters of meaning, systems tend to stereotype quantities; (d) as regulators of behavior, systems often put internal needs above clients' needs; (e) as mass producers, systems tend to reify procedures; (n as symbols, systems frequently neglect substance; and (g) as amoral entities, systems often neglect common moral and ethical principles. Further, cognitive and motivational biases predispose system clients to view systems as much less equitable than do system administrators. Perceived inequities lead to unmet expectations, reduced system legitimacy, reactance, increased resentment and cynicism, and decreased initiative and trust. This analysis suggests that the very attempt to organize an activity may lead to structures and processes that undermine the activity. General means and a process for reducing perceived inequities are discussed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84976985532&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84976985532&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/009539979202400305

DO - 10.1177/009539979202400305

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84976985532

VL - 24

SP - 375

EP - 408

JO - Administration and Society

JF - Administration and Society

SN - 0095-3997

IS - 3

ER -