Employers often give employees general pay increases that are not tied to individual performance. These pay increases can either be unconditional fixed pay raises such as cost-of-living adjustments or be tied to risky firm-level measures of performance (e.g., profit-sharing). We use two experiments and a survey to investigate how employees' position in the firm's value chain affects their psychological ownership of the firm and subsequently their preferences for different types of pay increases. We find theory-consistent evidence that employees exhibit higher levels of psychological ownership of their organization when they add value to their firm's products and services directly (i.e., are primary workers who produce goods or services) rather than indirectly (i.e., are support workers such as janitorial or safety staff) and that this in turn increases their preferences for a profit-sharing pay increase relative to an unconditional pay increase. We discuss the implications of adopting a “value chain” perspective when designing employee compensation packages.

Abstract Firms have increasingly adopted open work environments. Although openness is thought to have benefits, it could also expose firms to an unanticipated cost. An open (closed) internal reporting environment makes it more (less) likely that managers will observe a colleague's communications with senior executives. This increase in what one manager knows about another manager's communication to senior executives could facilitate employee collusion to extract resources from the firm. To test whether internal reporting openness results in more collusion, we conduct an experiment in which two managers each make separate reports to the firm about cost information they know in common but that remains unknown by the firm. Because both managers face the same truth‐inducing contract, conventional economic theory predicts that they will not collude to misreport costs regardless of reporting openness. However, using behavioral theory involving trust and reciprocity, we predict and find that managers honor their nonbinding collusive agreements and successfully collude more often in an open versus closed internal reporting environment, leading to lower firm welfare in the open environment. These results suggest that firms should consider how the cost of collusion compares to the benefits of openness.