This study investigates the effect of subordinate perceptions of the legitimacy of the superior in her role on subordinate misreporting. Using social norm theory regarding property rights, we predict that when subordinates perceive a superior as having more role legitimacy, they perceive the superior as being a more rightful claimant of project profits, which reduces misreporting. We test this prediction using a participative budgeting experiment that manipulates perceptions of the superior's role legitimacy. We find that budgetary slack is lower when subordinates perceive superiors to be legitimate in their roles than when subordinates perceive superiors to be illegitimate. Further, comparisons to a baseline treatment intended to induce neutral perceptions of role legitimacy, as in prior research, suggest that superior role legitimacy decreases slack. Supplemental experiments suggest that these results are generally robust to several design choices. The results from our three experiments suggest that role legitimacy decreases slack relative to random (neutral) perceptions; however, we do not find a statistically significant increase in slack from role illegitimacy relative to random perceptions across our three experiments. We discuss methodological implications from focusing on promoting role legitimacy and implications for practice, which has largely focused on problems from, and avoidance of, illegitimacy.

We examine whether a firm's corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions that benefit external parties can cause the firm's employees to reduce their effort. We expect employees will reduce their effort in response to their firm's external CSR actions when they perceive that they are treated poorly by the firm and that the firm's external CSR actions use resources that could have been readily transferred toward improving employee treatment. We expect that, when employees hold both of these perceptions, they will react negatively to the firm's CSR actions due to heightened feelings of unfairness. Results support our expectations and theory. We find that employees respond negatively to CSR only when they perceive that they are treated poorly by their firm and that CSR uses transferable resources. Further, we find these effects are driven by employees' perceptions of the fairness of their firm's actions toward employees. Our study suggests that firms should consider how employees perceive their treatment by the firm and the transferability of the resources used for CSR actions that benefit external parties.

ABSTRACT We examine the effect of a charitable contribution matching (CCM) program on employee effort. In CCM programs, employers commit to match employees' donations to charity. We expect CCM to activate a norm of other-regarding behavior, inducing employees to increase effort to benefit their employer. Experimental results robustly support our expectation. We find that CCM increases effort under both fixed-wage and performance-based incentive contracts. Further, our results suggest that CCM is more effective at eliciting effort than alternative uses of firm capital. Specifically, CCM is more effective at eliciting effort than the firm allocating an equivalent amount of capital to either direct firm charitable giving or increased performance-based pay. Our study suggests that CCM has efficient and robust effort-elicitation benefits that increase its value as a compensation tool incremental to any initial employee selection benefits from CCM and any effort benefits from firms' direct charitable giving.

ABSTRACT Rankin, Schwartz, and Young (2008) find experimental evidence that manipulating whether the budget request of the subordinate requires a factual assertion has no effect on budgetary slack when the superior can reject the budget. This calls into question the role of honesty in participative budgeting settings. Using Rankin et al.'s (2008) manipulation to capture honesty effects, we examine the robustness of honesty effects on budget proposals when the superior has rejection authority in two experiments. In Experiment 1, we document that honesty has a strong effect on budgetary slack when the salience of distributional fairness is reduced by withholding the relative pay of the superior from the subordinate. In Experiment 2, we document that honesty continues to have a strong effect on budgetary slack when the salience of reciprocity is increased by giving the superior the ability to set the subordinate's salary. Thus, our evidence suggests that honesty effects on budget proposals are generally robust to giving the superior rejection authority. Our study helps explain prior experimental results and clarifies the role of honesty in participative budgeting settings. Data Availability: Experimental data are available from the authors upon request.