Pay inequity sensitivity at the University of Maine at Fort Kent

Pay Inequity Sensitivity 1

Running head: PAY INEQUITY SENSITIVITY AT UMFK

Pay inequity sensitivity at the University of Maine at Fort Kent

Anthony Gauvin


Abstract

Constructing equitable compensation systems in higher education

is a great concern for administrators and financial managers

wishing to retain quality employees. The paper examines the

applicability of Equity Theory (Adams & Rosenbaum, 1962) in

developing compensation systems for institutes of higher

education and the extent to which Equity Theory predicts job

satisfaction across certain age demographics in a small public

university. A survey of the employees at The University of Maine

at Fort Kent, a small public university in a rural setting, was

conducted and evaluated to determine the impact of pay inequity

on job satisfaction and individual productivity both in

aggregate and within certain demographic boundaries. Results are

supportive of Equity Theory predictions with some exceptions.

The paper also presents some plausible historical explanations

for the deviations from expected outcomes and develops

directions for further research in this area.


Pay inequity sensitivity at the University of Maine at Fort Kent

Statement of Problem and Hypotheses

It has generally been accepted in management theory that

employee compensation affects job satisfaction and individual

productivity. The ability to predict employee job satisfaction

and productivity as a consequence of pay equity structures

allows senior administrators to construct pay systems that are

both cost efficient and effective. While there are several

existing theories that predict employee sensitivity and

subsequent behavioral and attitudinal responses to pay inequity,

the theory explored and utilized for this research study is

Equity Theory (Adams & Rosenbaum, 1962).

This research study attempts to determine if Equity Theory

applies in the domain of university employees in a small public

university and to what extent are the results predicted by

Equity Theory affected by the age of the employees. The ability

to apply the principles of Equity Theory in this domain will

allow financial managers to construct equitable pay systems that

are cost efficient yet produce desired results in terms of

employee satisfaction and productivity. The goal is provide pay

systems that have minimal perceived negative inequity conditions

(increased satisfaction) with little to no perceived positive

inequity (cost efficient). In layman’s terms, the goal is pay

employees enough to keep them happy but do not pay them too

much. It is also important to know what, if any, variations in

pay level sensitivity exist across demographics boundaries. If


there is a demographic group that is more sensitivity to pay

inequity than other groups, more careful deliberations are

warranted in establishing pay schedules for that group.

For the purpose of this research study, two hypotheses will

be tested. The first hypothesis, H1, is Equity Theory does apply

to this research domain and that employee satisfaction and

individual productivity measures will compare to existing

published empirical research on Equity Theory. The second

hypothesis, H2, is that equity sensitivity is higher when the

employee is younger than 30 years old than when the employee is

over 50.

Related literature

There are many theories for how to use pay as a

motivational tool. In a recent publication, Patricia M. Buhler

(2003) describes four classic motivational theories; (a)

Thorndike’s law of Effect, (b)Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, (c)

Herzberg’s Motivators and Hygienes, and (d) Equity Theory. Also

of value, is an article written by Ambrose and Kulik (1999) that

is a summation of over 200 empirical research articles on

employee work motivation published in the 1990’s. In their

paper, Ambrose & Kulik create a taxonomy of over twenty

motivational theories into two principal categories, (a)

traditional and (b) modern. Of the all the possibilities, Equity

Theory, a traditional motivational theory, is more analogous to

current situation at the University of Maine at Fort Kent.


Equity Theory, also known as Justice Theory, was first

developed by J. S. Adams in the early 1960’s and states that

perceived inequities create employee dissonance or tension which

the employee will seek to relieve through changes in attitude

(job satisfaction) or changes in behavior (modification of work

effort) (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). Perceived underpayment

(negative inequity) causes tensions that tend to reduce

productivity. To a somewhat lesser degree, perceived overpayment

(positive inequity) will also cause tensions that tend to reduce

productivity (Perry, 1993).

Several researchers in the area of Equity Theory have

produces results that are important to this study. Jerald

Greenburg was one of the first researchers to begin quantifying

tension created by inequity both in experimentation (Greenberg,

1989) and in a plea for further research in this area

(Greenberg, 1990). Michelle Brown, another researcher, is trying

to determine the reactions to pay inequity (both positive and

negative) on employee pay satisfaction as a function of how the

employee compares his pay against a known reference. The

researcher lists five possible pay referents: (a) market, (b)

organizational, (c) financial, (d) social and (e) historical.

The author theorizes that reactions will vary depending on which

referent is used and whether or not the employee is a union

member. Michelle Brown also established the negative correlation

between negative inequities and pay level satisfaction and

positive correlations between positive pay inequities and pay

level satisfaction. These results will be important for


establishing applicatory of Equity Theory to this study’s

research domain (Brown, 2001).

Linda S. Perry introduced research that has a direct

correspondence to this study since she used similar

methodologies and produced results that can be used a population

normal for comparisons to the results generated by this study.

Her research measured results of both positive and negative pay

inequity in a national survey of African-Americans (Perry,

1993). Additional material is derived from Sutton and Bergerson

(2001) that allows translations from Perry’s research domain

into the domain under study in this paper.

Equity theory is not without its detractors, using some

very solid empirical research; Fossum and Moore (1975) were able

to conclude:

As equity experiments have used decreasingly overt

inductions, the hypothesized inequity effects have declined

or failed to materialize. The preponderance of evidence at

this point indicates that equity, (as hypothesized by Adams,

(Adams & Rosenbaum, 1962)), is not a powerful motivating

influence or highly valent outcomes unless what is assumed

to constitute fairness is explicitly defined to experimental

subjects. Further, the proposed plethora of modes for the

reduction of inequity and the requirement that all inequity

is perceptually-based diminish the practical usefulness of

the theory for the specific predication of behavior even if

the situational contingencies are specified. (p. 145)


Key to the discussion in their paper is that most equity

experiments do not have control measures and as such, results

are speculative. The results in Fossum and Moore (1975) do not

extend to non-experimentation measures such as the survey that

is conducted in Perry (1993), Brown (2001) and this particular

study.

Data and Research Methodology

An anonymous survey was constructed (see Appendix A) and

distributed to all 109 full time employees of the University of

Maine at Fort Kent via campus mail. The employees were asked to

answer seven questions and return the survey to the researcher

via campus mail. The sample group consists of 33 faculty

members, 35 professional staff and 41 classified staff

employees. There were 60 surveys returned from 19 professionals

(54.3%), 17 faculty (51.5%) and 24 classified staff (58.5%) for

55% return rate for the survey. The survey responses rate was

somewhat low due since the survey being conducted in June, a

period when most faculty and many staff are on leave or

vacation.

For each of the returned surveys, the results of the seven

questions were mapped to a variable to measure either an

attitudinal or behavioral outcome in response to negative or

positive pay inequities or demographic information (see Appendix

D for the encoded data). The results were inserted into a

Microsoft Access Database and then transferred to SPSS software

for analysis. The seven variables are described in the Table 1.


Table 1

Research variables

Variable Description Possible values

NPIST Behavioral outcome of

negative pay inequity

based on a theoretical

situation

1 = improve performance

2 = Some improvement

3 = no change

4 = some lesser performance

5 = lesser performance

PPIST Behavioral outcome

positive pay inequity

based on theoretical

situation

1 = improve performance

2 = Some improvement

3 = no change

4 = some lesser performance

5 = lesser performance

NPISP Attitudinal outcome of

negative pay inequity

based on personal

experience

1 = strongly agree

2 = agree

3 = natural

4 = disagree

5 = strongly disagree

PPISP Attitudinal outcome of

Positive Pay inequity

based on personal

experience

1 = strongly agree

2 = agree

3 = natural

4 = disagree

5 = strongly disagree

JC Job Classification 1 = professional staff

2 = faculty

3 = classified staff


AGE Age of respondent 1 = under 30

2 = 31 to 40

3 = 41 to 50

4 = over 50

LE Length of employment 1 = under 5 years

2= 5 to 10 years

3 = 11 to 10 years

4 = over 20 years

Questions one and two of the survey measure whether an

individual is willing to work hard or less hard in response to

positive or negative pay inequity. A higher numerical response

corresponds to lesser amounts of effort, which is viewed as a

negative consequence. Question two corresponds to a negative

inequity situation and questions two corresponds to a positive

inequity. A quick look at the means and distributions for

questions one and two produce the following; (a) question one

has a mean that suggests negative behavioral consequence for

negative inequity, M = 3.27 with SD = 0.821 and (b) question two

has a mean that suggests a positive behavioral consequence for

positive inequity, M = 2.68 and SD = 0.567.

Questions three and four of the survey measure an

individual’s agreement to the belief there exists positive

relationships between pay inequity and performance. These

questions test individual attitudinal consequence to pay

inequity. Question three corresponds to a positive inequity

situation and questions four corresponds to a negative inequity


situation. Higher scores on question three correspond to

positive agreement for positive attitudinal results to positive

inequity (more pay means more work). Higher scores on question

four correspond to positive agreement for negative attitudinal

results to negative inequity (less pay means less work) A quick

look at the means and distributions for questions three and four

produce the following; (a) question three has a mean that

suggests positive agreement with the positive consequence for

positive inequity, M = 3.48 with SD = 1.049 and (b) question

four has a mean that suggests a positive agreement with the

negative consequence for negative inequity, M = 3.32 and SD =

1.081.

In order to test that the means for the four questions are

significant and not just coincidental variations for a normal

population, one-sample T tests were performed on the means

against a test value of three, which equates to a neutral

position (no consequence), for all four questions with 95%

confidence interval. Since we are just concerned with deviations

from neutral position, tendency and not absolute measure, and we

are not comparing one mean against another mean, one-sample T

tests are appropriate for this analysis. In all four questions,

the results are found to be significant and the measured

tendencies should be valid. The results are described in Table

2.


Job Classification

StaffFacultyProfessional

Mean Q1

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3.0

2.8

2.6

2.4

Age

Under 30

30-40

41-50

Over 50

Table 2

One sample T-test results

Question t Df Significance

2-tailed

Mean

Diff.

95% CI

Lower

95% CI

Upper

1 2.517 59 .015 .27 .05 .48

2 -4.324 59 .000 .32 -.46 -.17

3 3.567 59 .001 .48 .21 .75

4 2.268 59 .027 .32 .04 .60

Analyzing the data using subgroups delineated by the

demographic category values of age and job classification we get

following visual results in figures 1 through 4.

Figure 1. Means for NPIST (Q1) for age groupings within job

classifications


Job Classification


Mean q2

3.2

3.0

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

Age

Under 30

31 to 40

41 to 50

Over 50

Figure 2. Means for PPIST (Q2) for age groupings within job

classifications

Figure 3. Means for PPISP (Q3) for age groupings within job

classifications

Job Classification


Mean q3

4.2

4.0

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3.0

2.8

AGE

Under 30

31 to 40

41 to 50

Over 50


Figure 4. Means for NPISP (Q4) for age groupings within job

classifications

Note: Graphs produced by SPSS for Windows Student Version

software, by SPSS, Inc. 11.0

The results suggest that our second hypothesis, that pay

inequity sensitivity is higher when the employee is younger than

30 years old than pay inequity sensitivity when the employee is

over 50, may be supportable for staff and professional employees

but not for faculty. Further analysis of the data using Spearman

rank association (see Appendix B) showed no relationship between

age and result for any of our four research variables (a) NPISP,

(b) PPISP, (c) NPIST and (d) PPIST. Performing the same analysis

on all data except for the data collected from faculty members

(see Appendix C) show linear correlation between Length of

Employment and PPISP, rs = 0.359 with a two-tailed significance

of 0.010, but their was no evidence of linear correlation

between AGE and any other measured variable in the study.

Job Classification


Mean q4

4.0

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3.0

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

AGE

Under 30

31 to 40

41 to 50

Over 50


Results and Conclusions

Statistical analysis of the means of question one through

four has allowed us to say the following for the employees at

the University of Maine at Fort Kent. Negative pay inequity

tends to have a negative impact on job performance. Positive pay

inequity has a positive impact on job performance. Employees

tend to agree that more pay should mean more work and that less

pay should mean less work. While these results seem like common

sense, it is important to understand the results generated from

study mirror the results generated from two other empirical

studies on Equity Theory, Brown (2001) and Perry (1993). This is

sufficient to support H1. Equity Theory does apply to this

research domain and that employee satisfaction and individual

productivity measures do compare to existing published empirical

research on Equity Theory.

The second hypothesis, H2, is not supported. There is no

statistical evidence in this study that suggest any correlation

between age and pay inequity sensitivity. There seem to be some

correlation between length of employment and pay inequity

sensitivity but since the relationship was not the focus of this

study, no conclusions should be drawn. Further research will be

necessary to explore that phenomenon.

The results of his study were somewhat confounded by

previous inequity studies that were performed in the last ten

years across the entire University of Maine system. It was

discovered from some anecdotal accounts from more senior

employees that there was a serious problems with pay inequity in


the University of Maine system and that four comprehensive

studies (at a cost of over $100,000) had been conducted since

that time with minimal corrective results.

Results from the four studies varied. Women faculty

members, with the exception of the nursing faculty, were found

to be under-paid compared to their male counterparts at the

University of Maine at Fort Kent (Joint Gender Equity Committee,

2000). The professional staff union, UMPSA, along with

University of Maine Human resources staff, conducted two

studies. The two studies had very little empirical evidence and

tended to be a collection of observations with subsequent

recommendations. The following was the significant outcome for

the professional staff inequity studies; “However, the committee

recognizes that there continues to be a need to improve the way

in which salaries for unit positions are determined” (Bigney and

Skaggs 1998, p. 3). The Associated COLT Staff of the University

of Maine, ASCUM, which is the collective bargaining organization

of the University of Maine systems classified staff, conducted

the fourth and most recent study. Their report produces the most

damming conclusions.

The University needs to recognize that it has a compensation

system that does not pay its employees in the COLT unit

fairly or adequately. The compensation structure leaves too

many employees underpaid and many close to poverty levels. …

Newly hired employees and even management no longer view the

classified positions at the University as career positions.

(vonHerrlich, Lowell, & Bonk, 2002, p. 16)


As result of the inequitable pay structures, those

employees that had the greatest dissatisfaction with the pay

inequities quit and those that remained had become less

sensitive to existing pay inequities. Many of the older

employees that had greater dissatisfaction with pay inequities

had remained employed to protect their retirement and tenure.

These results are an eventual consequence of pay inequity as

predicted by Equity Theory (Greenberg, 1989 & 1990).

These prior studies did not allow an unbiased current study

and the results of this study’s survey were affected. The sample

group is not representative of any larger populations and any

conclusions drawn from this research should not be used beyond

the studied domain. Knowledge of the previous studies was not

factored into the research and the results are skewed. Further

studies using the four previous equity studies as a baseline

should be conducted to determine what, if any, corrective

measures may still need to be applied. Equity Theory could serve

as a model for that further research.


References

Adams, J. S., & Rosenbaum, W. B. (1962). The relationship of

worker productivity to cognitive dissonance about wage

inequities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 161-164.

Ambrose, M. L., & Kulik, C. T. (1999). Old friends, new faces:

Motivation research in the 1990's. Journal of Management,

25(3), 231-292. Retrieved June 19, 2004, from EBSCO

Research Databases Web Site:

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=1999-03301-

001&db=psyh

Bigney, T. B., & Skaggs, M. C. (1998). Final report of the Joint

Committee to Oversee the Professional Salary Evaluation.

Retrieved June 21, 2004 from

http://umpsa.maine.edu/jointfinal.html

Brown, M. (2001). Unequal pay, unequal responses? Pay referents

and their implications for pay level satisfaction. Journal

of Management Studies, 38(6), 879-896. Retrieved May 31,

2004, from Business Source Premier Web Site:

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=5053263&db=buh

Buhler, P. M. (2003). Managing in the new Millennium.

Supervision, 64(12), 20-23. Retrieved June 9, 2004, from

Business Source Premier Web Site:

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=10917954&db=f5h


Fossum, J. A., & Moore, M. L. (1975). The effects of perceived

and actual inputs on the recognitions of over and under pay

inequity without experimental induction. Academy of

Management Proceedings, 146-147. Retrieved June 18, 2004,

from Business Source Premier Web Site:

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=4981038&db=duh

Greenberg, J. (1989). Cognitive reevaluation of outcomes in

response to underpayment inequity. Academy of Management

Journal, 32(1), 174-184. Retrieved June 20, 2004, from

Business Source Premier Web Site:

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=4408378&db=buh

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: yesterday, today,

and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399-435.

Retrieved June 21, 2004, from Business Source Premier Web

Site: http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=5711072&db=buh

Joint Gender Equity Committee (October 16, 2000). Gender Equity

Report. Retrieved June 19, 2004 from

http://www.maine.edu/pdf/genderequity.pdf

Perry, L. S. (1993). Effects of inequity on job satisfaction and

self-evaluation in a national sample of African-American

workers. Journal of Social Psychology, 133(4), 565-573.

Retrieved June 19, 2004, from EBSCO Research Databases Web

Site: http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=1994-11720-

001&db=psyh


Sutton, T. P., & Bergerson, P. J. (2001). Faculty compensation

systems: Impact on the quality of higher education. ERIC

Digest. Retrieved June 19, 2004, from ERIC database

(ED464522).

vonHerrlich, P., Lowell, L., & Bonk, J. (2002). Personal

Economies: Living on the edge with nothing left to give.

Retrieved June 21, 2004 from

http://earth.prohosting.com/acsum/personaleconomies.pdf

Appendix A

1

Survey Questionnaire

Hi, I am Tony Gauvin and I need your help. I am conducting

this survey as partial requirements for a Masters in Business

Administration. Participation in this research is voluntary and

by filling out the survey, you agree to participate in this

research. Please read the paragraph below and answer the

questions given. There are no right answers and I am interested

in everyone’s opinions. Please circle the answers you find the

most consistent with your opinion and please be honest. Your

individual answers will never be disclosed or even individually

recorded. I will have completed my study by July, 2004 and will

have results for anyone that is interested. If you have any

question please contact me at x7519 or [email protected]. When you

have completed this survey, please return it to me via campus

mail (just refold and place my name on the outside) or place in

the mail slot on my office door (216 Nadeau Hall). Thanks for

your help.

There are two employees working at the same company. They

have the same job classification and started work at the company

on the same day. Evaluations of the two employees are similar

yet one employee, let’s call him Employee A, makes 10% more than

Employee B. Management had always kept employee pay records

confidential but a recent executive decision has made all

employee pay records public.

Appendix A

2

1) Imagine that you are Employee B and you have just discovered that Employee A makes 10% more than you do for the same job.

How does this affect you performance at work?

a) It would not have any impact on my job performance b) I would try to improve my job performance. c) I would lower my job performance. d) I would try not to have the pay difference affect my job

performance but my desire to work hard at my job would be

diminished.

e) I would try not to have the pay difference affect my job performance but I would try to work harder to lessen the

perceived difference in mine and Employee A’s

productivity.

2) Imagine that you are Employee A and you have just discovered that Employee B makes 10% less than you do for the same job.

How does this affect you performance at work?

a) It would not have any impact on my job performance b) I would try to improve my job performance. c) I would lower my job performance. d) I would try not to have the pay difference affect my job

performance but my desire to work hard at my job would be

diminished.

e) I would try not to have the pay difference affect my job performance but I would try to work harder to lessen the

perceived difference in mine and Employee B’s

productivity.

3) A person tends to work harder if paid more than another. a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Neutral d) Disagree e) Strongly disagree

4) A person tends to work less if paid less than another. a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Neutral d) Disagree e) Strongly disagree

Appendix A

3

5) What is your Job Classification? a) Professional b) Faculty c) Classified Staff

6) What is your Age bracket? a) Under 30 b) 31-40 c) 41-50 d) 50 and over

7) How long have you been employed at your current position a) Under 5 years b) 5-10 years c) 11-20 years d) over 20 years

Appendix B

1

Spearman’s test of Correlation for all data

Correlations

Q1 q2 q3 q4 q7 q5 q6

Spearman's

rho

Q1 Coefficient 1.000 .051 -.019 -.329 .128 .180 .011

Sig. (2-tailed) . .699 .883 .010 .328 .168 .935

N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

q2 Coefficient .051 1.000 -.011 -.131 .117 .205 .177

Sig. (2-tailed) .699 . .936 .317 .375 .116 .175

N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

Q3 Coefficient -.019 -.011 1.000 .572 .169 -.023 -.059

Sig. (2-tailed) .883 .936 . .000 .196 .860 .656

N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

q4 Coefficient -.329 -.131 .572 1.000 .186 -.006 -.153

Sig. (2-tailed) .010 .317 .000 . .155 .962 .244

N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

q7 Coefficient .128 .117 .169 .186 1.000 .141 .568

Sig. (2-tailed) .328 .375 .196 .155 . .284 .000

N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

q5 Coefficient .180 .205 -.023 -.006 .141 1.000 .035

Sig. (2-tailed) .168 .116 .860 .962 .284 . .788

N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

q6 Coefficient .011 .177 -.059 -.153 .568 .035 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .935 .175 .656 .244 .000 .788 .

N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

Appendix C

1

Spearman’s test of Correlation for all but faculty data

Q1 q2 q3 q4 q7 q5 q6

Spearman's

rho

Q1 Coefficient 1.000 .142 -.036 -.218 .185 .241 -.031

Sig. (2-tailed) .365 .817 .159 .234 .119 .841

N 43 43 43 43 43 43 43

Q2 Coefficient .142 1.000 -.026 -.098 .160 .252 .178

Sig. (2-tailed) .365 . .869 .530 .306 .104 .255

N 43 43 43 43 43 43 43

Q3 Coefficient -.036 -.026 1.000 .708 .359 -.031 -.055

Sig. (2-tailed) .817 .869 . .000 .018 .844 .728

N 43 43 43 43 43 43 43

Q4 Coefficient -.218 -.098 .708 1.000 .292 -.028 -.157

Sig. (2-tailed) .159 .530 .000 . .058 .857 .313

N 43 43 43 43 43 43 43

q7 Coefficient .185 .160 .359 .292 1.000 .176 .585

Sig. (2-tailed) .234 .306 .018 .058 . .260 .000

N 43 43 43 43 43 43 43

q5 Coefficient .241 .252 -.031 -.028 .176 1.000 .063

Sig. (2-tailed) .119 .104 .844 .857 .260 . .690

N 43 43 43 43 43 43 43

q6 Coefficient -.031 .178 -.055 -.157 .585 .063 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .841 .255 .728 .313 .000 .690 .

N 43 43 43 43 43 43 43

Appendix D

1

Encoded Survey Data NPI ST PPI ST PPI SP NPI SP JC AGE LENE

4 1 4 4 1 1 1

4 3 3 3 3 1 1

4 2 4 4 1 2 2

4 2 3 3 3 2 1

2 3 2 2 1 3 1

3 3 3 3 1 4 1

2 2 2 3 1 4 2

3 3 3 3 2 3 4

2 3 3 3 1 2 1

2 2 4 4 3 3 3

4 3 4 2 2 3 1

4 3 4 4 3 2 3

3 3 3 3 2 4 3

4 3 3 2 2 3 4

4 3 3 3 2 3 3

2 3 3 4 3 2 1

4 3 4 4 3 2 2

4 2 4 4 1 4 4

3 3 4 4 1 3 2

3 3 1 1 3 4 3

3 3 4 2 1 4 2

2 2 4 4 3 1 1

4 3 4 4 2 4 3

4 3 3 2 2 4 1

3 3 1 2 3 1 1

3 3 4 3 3 4 3

3 3 2 5 3 4 4

4 3 5 5 3 4 4

3 3 4 4 2 2 1

4 3 4 3 2 4 4

2 2 4 4 3 4 1

3 3 4 4 3 3 4

4 3 5 3 3 4 4

4 3 4 2 2 4 2

3 3 5 5 3 1 1

4 3 4 4 3 2 2

1 3 4 4 1 2 1

4 3 2 2 3 3 1

2 1 4 4 1 2 2

4 3 4 4 3 1 2

3 3 4 4 3 4 4

4 3 1 1 1 2 1

3 3 5 3 2 4 3

4 3 4 2 2 2 2

3 3 4 4 2 3 1

4 3 4 4 1 3 3

4 2 2 2 1 1 1

3 3 5 5 1 2 3

4 2 2 2 3 4 4

4 1 4 4 2 4 4

3 3 4 4 1 4 4

3 3 4 4 1 3 3

2 2 5 5 1 1 2

4 2 4 4 2 2 1

4 3 4 2 3 3 3

4 3 3 2 3 3 1

2 2 4 4 1 2 1

3 3 4 4 3 3 4

2 3 2 5 2 4 4

4 2 1 1 2 3 3

Pay inequity sensitivity at the University of Maine at Fort Kent

Documents

Transcript of Pay inequity sensitivity at the University of Maine at Fort Kent