On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility ...€¦ · Social mobility types There are two types of social mobility. The first one, inter-generational mobility, designates

EXPOSE MASTER THESIS

On leader-subordinate

relationships and social mobility

perception: A comparison between domestic

and foreign-based organizations in India

Jean Figarol

13/10/2014

On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception 1

Master Thesis Exposé – Jean Figarol

ABSTRACT

Title: “On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility perception:

A comparison between domestic and foreign-based organizations in India”

Keywords: Social mobility, subjective social class, fairness, organizational justice,

Leader-member exchanges (LMX), career

Background: Although the concept of social mobility appears to be already well

studied in the literature about western countries, the questions it raises are still very

relevant and up-to-date. Indeed, the causes and consequences of social mobility have

been extensively discussed and there are also numerous theories on the subject trying

to understand the tenants of perceived mobility, subjective social class and the link

between mobility and economic development. Nevertheless, the perception of people

about mobility remains good indicator of their vision over the societal “fluidity” and

fairness. Hence it would also be a good indicator in the organizational context to

observe employee’s perception on organizational justice, career possibilities and on

the overall idea that companies are a social mobility facilitator. Undeniably,

companies are, by principle, the place of social mobility. Indeed, it is a place where

anyone can, thanks to his proactivity and success (“rules of access” from Bourdieu),

access to better positions, increase his salary and therefore access to a higher “social

room”.

Purpose: Following this thinking process, the idea in this study is to show in two

different context (domestic vs. foreign based company in India) to which extent the

perception about the idea of mobility depends on the organizational culture and the

ties shared with the superiors in the organization.

Method: Using an exploratory approach from different disciplines (sociology and

human resources management), the study will be conducted through a quantitative

questionnaire circulated online to diverse Indian companies.

Conclusion: At the end of this study, it is expected to highlight the potential

divergences between the leader-member exchanges in domestic and foreign-based

companies, the influences of these relationships on the career mobility mechanisms

and the effects of these both concepts over the social mobility perception.



Table of content

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 3

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 5

a) A review of social mobility concepts ......................................................................... 5

i. Social mobility types ............................................................................................ 6

ii. Subjective social mobility and subjective social class .......................................... 6

iii. Social mobility factors .......................................................................................... 7

iv. On the link between economic development and mobility ................................... 7

v. Sociological perspective on perceived fairness and mobility ............................... 8

b) Organizational justice: theories on career mobility and leader-member

exchanges ........................................................................................................................... 10

i. Organizational justice ......................................................................................... 10

ii. Leader-member exchange theory ........................................................................ 12

iii. Findings on organizational relationships in India ............................................... 12

c) An interdisciplinary approach on career and its new literature .......................... 14

i. Sociological conceptualization of career ............................................................ 15

ii. New career new theories ..................................................................................... 15

3. STUDY FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................. 17

a) Problem statement .............................................................................................. 17

a) Literature review ................................................................................................. 18

b) Research hypothesis ............................................................................................ 21

c) Methodology ....................................................................................................... 24

i. Setting ................................................................................................................. 24

ii. Participants ......................................................................................................... 25

iii. Plan of work ........................................................................................................ 25

iv. Overview of chapters .......................................................................................... 26



1. INTRODUCTION

Lounsbury and Ventresca, (2003) declared “the time is ripe for organizational theorists

to renew their attention to broader social structures and to bring ‘society’ back to center

stage”. On the basis of this statement, the development of this exposé is grounded on

an interdisciplinary approach, associating sociological with organizational theories.

Social mobility is a concept firstly introduced in the beginning of the 20th century, and

later discussed by sociologists such as Sorokin, Boudon Bourdieu. It designates the

possibility to climb the social ladder more or less easily according to the culture and

society’s structure.

This notion was extensively studied by economists and sociologists in the last century,

who therefore observed the social trends and evolutions thanks to this concept.

Nevertheless, many authors (Goldthorpe, 1985; Tyree, Semyonov, & Hodge, 1979; or

Kingsley, 1962) demonstrated a strong link between social mobility and economic

development, arguing for the causality of one over the other or the contrary.

Since mobility appears to come with development, it is naturally that most of the

literature until the 2000’s focused on western and developed countries. However, an

interesting wave of literature dealing with the reasons and consequences of social

mobility in developing countries has emerged since few decades. This study and the

following reasoning were inspired by the interdisciplinary approach developed by

Efendiev and Sorokin (2013): “Sociological perspective for studying career in

developing society”

What will interest us in this thesis is not precisely the social mobility concept itself but

to which extent the perception about the idea of mobility depends on the organizational

culture and the ties shared with the superiors in the organization.

Indeed, sociological theories about perceived social mobility provide with a great

approach on the perception of fairness and welfare. This coupled with organizational

theories based on the leader-member exchange (LMX), which argues that despite the

supposed standardization of relationships between managers and subordinates, it is

impossible to avoid creating different relationships with each of the members, the

study will show the differences between LMX in foreign based companies and the type

of superior-subordinate relationships in domestic Indian companies.



Then, supported with existing literature, it will be shown to which degree the relative

distance to employees and the developed relationships affect the career evolution and

mobility of employees inside the company.

Finally, thanks to a prior study of the Indian social mobility background which will

give us real insights on the mobility in India, this study intends to see whether a

supposedly meritocratic organization (foreign-based) enable a different perception of

social mobility than a “traditional” domestic organization.



2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

In this chapter, the concepts used in the study will be defined and contextualized.

Firstly, it will present a western theoretical background on social mobility which will

help us to fully understand the stakes of the following parts. Secondly, it will define

and analyse the interesting organizational theories for our investigated topic and the

related theories and academic findings in developing countries and India. Finally, it

will provide some interesting interdisciplinary concepts previously developing career

theories under a sociological perspective.

a) A review of social mobility concepts

Social mobility, also called social movement, have started to intensify in the post-war

time and has become a sociological “mainstreamed” concept. Before defining the

concept, it is interesting to quote Touraine (1985) who wisely wrote about social

movement: “The notion of social movement, like most notions in the social sciences,

does not describe parts of “reality” but is an element of a specific mode of constructing

social reality”.

Nonetheless, the sociologist Barber (cited by Miller, 1960) provided us with a

comprehensive definition of social mobility:

“Movement, either upward or downward, between higher and lower social classes; or

more precisely, movement between one relatively fulltime, functionally significant

social role and another that is evaluated as either higher or lower. This movement is

to be conceived as a process occurring over time, with individuals (and their family

units) moving from one role and social class position to another because of what they

have done or what has happened to them in various kinds of social interaction, such

as in their family or in their work organization, or during war or socio-economic

expansion in their society.”

It is important to understand the width of the concept of social mobility. Indeed, its

sociological perspective makes it extremely complex to apprehend and what seems to

appear as contradictory findings may be explained by other endogenous factors or by

different approaches. There is a rather good illustration in the study of Heath and Graaf

(2008): when the economists Blanden and Machin (2007) stated that intergenerational

earning mobility has decreased in the past decades, the sociologists Goldthorpe and

Mills (2008) declared that intergenerational occupational mobility has been rather



stable over the last 3 decades. Nevertheless, these observations are not necessarily

contradictory since for instance there could have been changes of salary structures

within occupational classes.

i. Social mobility types

There are two types of social mobility. The first one, inter-generational mobility,

designates the relative movement of one person compared to the previous generation

(e.g. one’s occupation vs his parents’ occupation). The second one, intra-generational

mobility, defines the mobility within one generation, that is to say the evolution of one

person from one social class to another in the course of his life time.

ii. Subjective social mobility and subjective social class

Subjective social mobility defines the one’s self-assessment of his social position

compared to his parent’s position. Whereas subjective social class is only one’s self-

assessment of his current position in the society. Those two notions are highly relevant

for our topic since it involves people’s perception on their situation, on the relative

fluidity of the society and on overall fairness and well-being. Thus, subjective social

mobility and subjective social class are indirectly influencing people professional

performance and involvement. This argument is supported by S. Kelley and C. Kelley

(2009) whose work proved that people thinking themselves mobile will more easily

consider to live in a fair society (“think their pay is just, and believe they ought to earn

high salaries”). Indeed, in the Western countries where these observations were made,

there would be a strong correlation between people’s perception over social mobility

and their consideration toward the overall societal fairness. As observed again by S.

Kelley and C. Kelley (2009), there is a strong effect of subjective social mobility over

subjective social class. Indeed, they demonstrate that people thinking they have

benefited from inter-generational mobility are more likely to think they are in a high

social class.

Besides, there are interesting observations on the correlation between subjective social

class and actual occupational status. Kluegel, Singleton, & Starnes (1977) suggested

that subjective social class is as correlated with education and salary as with objective

occupational status. Whereas others academics were surprised by the low correlation

between occupational status and subjective correlation (between 0.2 and 0.3) as going

so far as to proclaim the “death of class” (Clark, Terry, Seymour, & Lipset, 1991; and

Pakulski & Malcolm, 1996).



Anyhow, the extensive study of S. Kelley and C. Kelley (2009) on 30 countries (which

was conducted mostly developed countries) showed a rather homogenous result with

a frequency of 29 out of 30 countries considering they are either of similar or higher

status than their parents.

iii. Social mobility factors

There are various factors from each individual micro-environment influencing the

potential social mobility. Among those, one of the most significant factor is obviously

the family (Becker & Tomes, 1979, 1986; Loury, 1981). Indeed, as discussed by

several authors (Mazumder, 2001; Barone & Schizzerotto, 2011; Bjornskov, Dreher,

Justina, Schnellenbach, & Gehring, 2013) the parental education/occupation/income

have substantial direct and indirect effects on the next generation’s educational

attainment level, occupational achievements and well-being. Another important

mobility factor is obviously education. Barone & Schizzerotto (2011) conducted a

study on career mobility which suggested that access to education influences widely

the first occupation but anyway only moderates slightly social origins effects.

Moreover, they stated that less educated people know a slower career evolution which

is partially lessened by the “glass ceiling” effect that touches the more educated people.

Many macro-economic factors such as economic development or government

orientations for instance, influence social mobility. These factors are not obviously of

the highest interest for us since our study will deal with the perceived mobility in

companies. However, it will be discussed below the relation between economic

development and social mobility to establish the context of our later comparison.

iv. On the link between economic development and mobility

In this part, different theories covering the connection between economic mobility and

social mobility are discussed. It was common knowledge that economic development

and mobility are positively correlated, enabling greater social equality (Tyree et al.,

1979), but the division remained among theorists about the causality link. On the one

hand are the ones who proclaim, as Kingsley (1962) for instance, that social mobility

and more precisely intergenerational or occupational mobility, is a “precondition” for

the development of a society from a pre-industrial level to an industrial level.

According to him, an ideological “breakdown” is necessary to enable changes in

economy, hence creating new motivations and opportunities. Furthermore, Davis

suggested that society should reach a certain level of mobility to enable the economic



shift, he called this the “threshold effect”. On the other hand, the other school of

thought claims that high rates of mobility are a consequence of industrialization. Lipset

and Zetterberg (1956) supported this idea by suggesting that intergenerational

occupational mobility increase is a consequence of economic development. However,

they do not assert that industrial society are more fluid but that the occupational

mobility is greater thanks to a more dynamic economic structure. Finally, standing

back from this opposition, literature provides more comprehensive opinions

recognizing the correlation between economic development and social mobility, but

denying the causality link: there is indeed a shift “from traditionalism to rationality, in

Weberian terms” (Goldthorpe, 1985) enabling a structural change of society, giving

thus more importance to achievement than to ascription. Previous studies (Kerr,

Dunlop, Harbison, and Myers, 1960; Blau and Duncan, 1967; and Treiman, 1970)

showed that economic development and mobility are the manifestation of the same

reorientation in modern society supporting new values and normative standards. Still,

there are authors such as Hazelrigg and Garnier (1978) who failed proving the previous

idea and found similarities on relative mobility rates among 17 countries with different

level of development. Going further on our topic and making the transition between

social mobility and career, Breen and Whelan (1993) submitted diverging thoughts,

rejecting modernization theory and liberal industrialization according to which

meritocracy and personal achievements are overcoming social origins and ascriptions

factors in developed societies.

v. Sociological perspective on perceived fairness and mobility

This section is prominent in our theoretical background as for the potential parallel

between societal fairness and organizational fairness. Indeed, it deals with well-being

and perception of inequalities according to meritocracy and income inequality which

are indicators influencing motivation and involvement, therefore possibly usable in an

organizational context as well.

First, as an introduction to the concept of meritocracy stands its rather famous

definition, though not completely scientific, by Young (1958) declaring that it is a

situation when the occupational mobility and the allocation of positions occur on the

basis of “IQ plus effort”. Arguments were brought proving as per as a meritocracy,

that “inequality becomes more acceptable as people are better rewarded for their

efforts” (Mitchell, Tetlock, Mellers, & Ordóñez, 1993). As per this current of thought,



societies based on meritocracy can allow inequalities since the allocation of resources

befalls proportionally to the level of efforts provided.

A wave of theories supported the idea that more equality and mobility in a country

reinforce people’s welfare and satisfaction. From the early 20th century, Lerner’s

classic contribution (1944) established that in an unequal society, the income

redistribution would increase the general well-being since the utility function’s

concavity implies that most of the population would be positively affected by an

increase of their revenues. In more contemporary studies, this notion is nuanced by

additional insights taking into account the shift to liberal values developed by western

societies in the second half of the 20th century. So Alesina, DiTella, & MacCulloch

(2004) established that inequality would negatively affect only individuals with

specific values and perception on social mobility, even if the general trend do not show

contradictory results. Following this argument, Clark and D’Angelo (2008) conducted

a survey in the UK and identified a profile of people, which could hypothetically fit

the previous theory, who experienced an upward mobility and were in favour of

“having capped incomes, or state ownership, and being left-wing”. Nevertheless, it

appears that welfare is not only originated from the actual outcomes (incomes, social

status), but is also relative to comparison of others’ situation, and is as well derived

from “procedural utility” (Veblen, 1899; Fehr & Schmidt, 1999; and Frey & Stutzer,

2005) which is similar concept to the procedural justice subsequently defined in the

next section. Finally, as per to the one of the latest study on the subject (Bjornskov et

al., 2013): “According to our model, perceived social mobility should have a positive

impact on individual human capital investments, expected life-time earnings and

occupational status in equilibrium, with perceived social mobility affecting subjective

well-being through these transmission channels". This last evidence matches perfectly

the investigated topic, bridging the gap between two contexts (organizational and

societal) and supporting our predictions on the link between social mobility,

occupational commitment and welfare.



b) Organizational justice: theories on career mobility and leader-member

exchanges

This part contrarily to the previous one examines theories from the organizational

milieu. It details first the settings of organizational justice and continues with the

supervisor subordinates relationships and its effects on career mobility. Finally it

proposes results of studies from the same theoretical background applied to developing

countries.

i. Organizational justice

This parts aims at evaluating the weight of the different forms of organizational justice

and the different influences stimulated in employees’ satisfaction. Here, there is a

distinction between three different forms of justice among which two where defined

by Greenberg (1986): the first one, distributive justice, concerns the perceived fairness

of employees on the content and the outcomes of a decision; whereas procedural

justice deals with the perceived fairness of the context, i.e. the methods used to achieve

the goals. Another form of justice which interests us in this part is the so-called

interactional justice somehow encompassing the two previous. It is particularly

relevant in our topic since it directly involves the leader-subordinate relationships. The

interactional justice according to Tyler and Bies (1990) is determined by the content

(what is said), and the context (how it is said) available to the employees along the

decision process. Since the study’s scope of investigation includes mainly the

influence of relationships on satisfaction, it won’t take the distributive justice into

account. Now that the various concept of organizational justice are clearly defined, it

would be relevant to have a look into the effects of these different forms of justice.

Procedural

There is an extensive literature focusing specially on procedural justice, its effects, its

components and the optimized ways to apply it. Here, it will be content to define and

quote relevant analysis on its benefits. Stutzer and Frey (2003) put forward the

prominence of procedural justice over distributive justice asserting that two-third of

the advantageous effects in the process of decision arise from the procedural justice

(i.e. the context and participation, exchanges). Adams (1965) also proved, thanks to

the social exchange theory, that the people care more about procedural than

distributive justice. Moreover, it was discussed that the power of procedural justice is



such that it is not only restricted to create trust but it can also substitute trust in

relationships (Konovsky, 2000). This can be explained by the recent neuro-scientific

discovery (Hopkins, 2008) stating that procedural justice stimulates a part of the

human brain located in its reward center.

Interactional

Since interactional justice covers both forms of justice distinguish by Greenberg

(1986), it would be interesting here to understand its possible leverages to develop

trust and satisfaction among the subordinates. As per Brockner & Wiesenfeld's (1996)

framework integrating various authors, interactional justice depends on two main

criteria based on superiors’ behaviour: (a) the good interpersonal treatment of

individuals (Bies & Moag, 1986) and (b) the clarity and transparency of the

information communicated along the process (Sitkin & Bies, 1993). Additionally,

Masterson and Taylor (1996) suggested that interactional justice is influencing

individuals’ commitment towards their leader. Indeed, still related to interactional

justice, Folger and Lewis (1993) found that direct communication (“voice-based

systems”) from managers stimulates more the impression of justice. As per Srikanth

and Gurunathan's findings (2013), there is a correlation between interactional justice

and job mobility preparedness (i.e. “‘the degree to which an individual prepares

himself or herself to be ready to act on internal and external career opportunities” as

per Kossek, Rober, Fisher, & Denmarr's definition, p.939, 1998). Besides,

interactional justice was proved to be a crucial source of trust towards supervisors in

organisational structure of the companies (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002) and its

reflection on a successful business strategy on marketing aspects (Wagner, 2013). In

other words, people’s perception on organizational justice depends much on decision

makers’ behaviour along the process (how individuals felt integrated without personal

biases in the decision making process; how procedures were explained and formal).

To conclude, fairness is as important for employees as for managers since it involves

fundamental values such as trust and since binds conflicting parties into “stable social

structures” (Konovsky, 2000). Lately, the perception of fairness matters more in an

uncertain environment as it will help employees to evaluate their leader’s legitimacy

and lead irremediably to an interpretation in the future [Lind, Kulik, Ambrose, & De

Vera Park, 1993; Van den Bos, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1997].



ii. Leader-member exchange theory

The link between the previous section and this one might appear obvious when

considering the explanations, though it should be precised that this study does not

intend to cross this two notions since it represents a whole other topic (Masterson,

Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000). As a transition, Blau's (1964) suggested that social

exchanges are based on “relationships and unspecified obligations” and is highly

related to trust building. The leader-member theory (LMX), also called “Dyad linkage

theory”, is the theory according to which leaders, despite their leadership style of

predilection encouraging a supposedly standardized behaviour, will develop

differentiated relationships with each of their subordinates according to the level of

personal affinity. Using Dansereau, Graen, & Haga's (1975) eloquent words, it can be

defined as a “reciprocal process of mutually defined exchange relationship between

the leader and the follower”. These relationships, or dyads, depend on several criteria

which are the levels of mutual trust, respect and obligation. Logically, when those are

high, individuals belong to the “in-group”, on the contrary when they are low,

individuals fall into the “out-group” category (Liden & Graen, 1980; Graen & Uhl-

Bien, 1995). Although, it is important to complete this description saying that members

of the “in-group” can be chosen on the basis of totally formal and rational criteria such

as performance and skills (Liden & Graen, 1980). To conclude with this definition and

to enable the comparison with subsequently discussed forms of leader-subordinate

relationships, the psychological distinction applied to organizations between cognition

and affect-based trust (McAllister, 1995) should be considered. The first type,

cognition-based trust, relies on a rational and objective assessment of one’s

trustworthiness and skills, whereas affect-based trust translates an emotional bindings

implying mutual care. Although, we understand by its nature that the LMX model falls

under people’s affinity and subjectivity, it was said to be strictly work-related (Law,

Wong, Wang, & Wang, 2000). Therefore, LMX would be a relationship model

grounded mostly on cognition-based trust.

iii. Findings on organizational relationships in India

This section aims at highlighting the cultural differences possibly influencing the

relationships between supervisors and subordinates. Findings which were supposedly

applicable for all developing countries are developed. For example, in 1986 Pandey

posited that due to the specific context proper to developing countries (poverty,



inequality, socio-political instability), it would be more common to observe there

managers having manipulating behaviours influencing hence organizational justice

and supervisor-subordinate exchanges. Furthermore, an interesting theoretical

contribution was brought by contemporary authors (Pearce, 2001; and Pearce,

Branyiczki, & Bigley, 2000) which enables to identify business environment

according to the following distinction: “facilitative” and “non-facilitative contexts”

(based on the political and social environment: institutions, red tape, government’s

intervention, businesses’ respect of the rules).

As per India, it was agreed by Wade (1981) and later Pearce (2000) that its

organizational context is rather non-facilitative. This was supported by theoretical

evidences such as the particularistic orientation of India (in Trompernaarian terms)

which implies individual-oriented treatment of employees. In the same line of

thinking, it was postulated by Pearce and al. (2001) that in “[...] particularistic settings,

those with power to hire, reward and fire would be expected to do so based on certain

employee’s characteristics.” Furthermore, it was advanced by Aryee, Chen and

Budhwar (2004) in their study about fairness in India, that despite the

bureaucratization and formalization of organizations, those were used to achieve

particularistic ends, thus negatively influencing the fairness perception in the

organization. When having a more precise look at the factors explaining the

particularistic orientation of India, it was found that the power distance is highly

predisposed by the castes-based societal structure, the political pressures and the

bureaucracy, thus creating unequal treatment within organizations and reinforcing the

verticality of the hierarchy (Budhwar, 2000, 2003; Dehejia & Dehejia, 1993). Indeed,

a study conducted in 2005 over 25 Indian manufacturing companies showed that the

power structure is such that it often involves and requires loyalty and liability from the

subordinates (Afza, 2005). Going further, Amba-Rao, Petrick, Gupta, and Von der

Embse, (2000) proposed incomprehensive common features which would apply to

describe India’s organizational exchanges: “submissiveness”, “fatalism”, “clan

orientation” and “power consciousness”. These organizational characteristics

obviously influence the career management and HRM methods as well. To illustrate

this, Baruch and Budhwar's (2006) study on call-centers is relevant. It points out that

supervisors would inflate the results of low performers being therefore poorly affected

by organizational norms in their performance appraisal process. In 2003, the same

authors (Budhwar & Baruch, 2003) were already discussing the career management



practices in India and described the country as being a “cultural island” excluded from

all the other countries clusters.

Nevertheless, despite the interest and relevance of all these studies, other authors

advanced contradictory arguments proving that Indian diversity is such that it is

complicated to generalize about the Indian organizational culture. Indeed, the human

and knowledge exchange flows since India’s liberalization in the 1990s tended to

flatten the differences (joint-ventures’ effect on local partner, Indians receiving

western education etc.) and to activate a shift towards a more “strategic approach” in

organizations (Patra, Khatik, & Kodwani, 2002). Indeed, it was established by studies

from Singh (1990) and Sahay & Walsham (1997) that Indian organizational values

differ from national cultural values. So, managers as per their study would tend to

underemphasize their conferred power (potentially greater due to social

considerations). Moreover, it was proved that the most competitive firms (domestic

and foreign) in the country use egalitarian and non-hierarchic practices (Amba-Rao et

al., 2000; Rao, & Yadav, 2001; Som, 2006). Besides, studies showed how in India as

well, commitment to the organization were positively correlated with friendly work

environment, career development, training access or power-sharing (Paul &

Anantharaman, 2004; and Rasmaswamy & Schiphorst, 2000) which are all practices

more related to meritocratic values than traditional ones.

Closing this part about organizational theories, we can conclude that the fairness from

a societal or an organizational point of view are two close concepts although not from

the same literature. Subsequently, we understood the stakes of cultures at its two levels

(national and organizational) and its influence on individuals’ exchanges and on career

mobility.

c) An interdisciplinary approach on career and its new literature

This part is a crucial phase of our theoretical background. Indeed, it enables us to

associate our first part on mobility from a sociological perspective and our second part

dealing with organizational relationships and justice. Efendiev & Sorokin (2013)stated

that “Sociological research in career has been limited in contemporary social science.

However sociological career analysis may have crucial importance for understanding

social structure and mobility processes in modern society”. As mentioned by Khapova,

Arthur, & Wilderom (2007), it is no more possible, due to the new international

dynamics, to study career under a mono-disciplinary approaches without biases.



However, this part will first present here the main concepts of career under sociology

theories and then it will provide the main findings on career “new literature”.

i. Sociological conceptualization of career

The most comprehensive sociological approach on career was provided by Bourdieu’s

theory of practice and later discussed by a multitude of authors (Chudzikowski &

Mayrhofer, 2010; Dobbin, 2008; or Cuzzocrea & Lyon, 2011). First on a micro-level,

organizations can be considered, as postulated by Bourdieu himself, as a “field”. The

“social field” is the “arena” within which people evolve in a quest of assets (material

or immaterial) which will provide them with a better dotation in capital (being

economic, cultural or social). In this line of thinking, career promotion is seen as one

“desirable resource” (all above ideas are extracted from Bourdieu, 2000). Then, thanks

to Iellatchitch, Mayrhofer, and Meyer (2003), it can be advanced that Bourdieu’s

theory is also applicable on career on a macro-level: “career field can be considered as

a 'super-field', which may be divided into sub-fields, following the interest and the

special focus of the research”. To conclude with Bourdieu’s theory of practice, it

provides with an extensive framework to study career in sociology thanks to: (a) its

multilevel characteristic (field, habitus and capital) which fits career studies under

sociological or organizational approaches (Peiperl & Gunz, 2007); (b) its

interdisciplinary view which can be extended to the structure (provided by

organizations and institutions: “fields”) and agency theory (provided by individual

freedom of choice ruled by “habitus”) (Barley & Kunda, 2004); (c) its comprehension

on career’s boundaries, internal or external to individuals (provided by the “rules of

access” as well as by the personal and group behaviour as per the “habitus” and

“capital”) (Dobbin, 2008); and finally (d) its integration of dynamics which are crucial

in career studies (Schein, 1978) since the habitus is adaptive and generates new

practices and since fields are also dynamics (Bourdieu & Sayad, 1984).

ii. New career new theories

“New career theories” have been developed since the late 90’s and posit that the

traditional organizational career “is dead” (Hall, 1996) due to the entrance into a new

“boundaryless” (M. M. B. Arthur & Rousseau, 2001) and “post-corporate” (Baruch &



Peiperl, 2000) era. As stated by Arthur, Kerr, Inkson, & Pringle (1999) careers are no

longer on a basis of vertical mobility but rather transversal. Indeed, individuals should

develop a “portofolio of skills” to be quickly adaptable, flexible to the changing

environment (Handy & Charles, 1994).

The evolution of society has indeed pushed theorists to modify their approach on

career. This evolution of the career environment could be summarized under the

following concepts: (a) liquidity (Bauman & Zygmunt, 2000), i.e. the rapidity with

which exchanges are done; (b) risk and uncertainty (Beck & Ulrich, 2000) which

characterize the job market today; and (c) the mobility (Urry & John, 2000) over the

world and between occupations. Following these ideas and to conclude this part,

Jacoby (1999) postulated that in the 20th century, people have seen their freedom of

profession increased (due to a greater mobility) while the organizational environment

decreased in stability, leading to an extinction of traditional vertical career evolution.

Now that detailed theoretical background was provided, including the definitions of

social mobility theories, the organizational and relational theories influencing

perception of fairness and occupational mobility and finally a presentation of

interdisciplinary framework to study mobility, we can present our problem statement

and the research questions arising from it.



3. STUDY FRAMEWORK

a) Problem statement

What will interest us in this thesis is not precisely the social mobility concept itself but

to which extent the perception about the idea of mobility depends on the organizational

culture and the ties shared with the superiors in the organization.

There is a need to contextualize the issue. Indeed, India is the developing country

which has the lowest level of occupational and spatial mobility (Munshi &

Rosenzweig, 2009). This can find explanations in different grounds. First, many

centuries ago, the caste system was established and allocated occupations to

individuals according to a specific social stratification which remained the traditional

social structure. Being anchored in society, this structure is obviously an important

break to mobility and it is strengthened by the Hindu tradition which does not allow

marriage outside castes. Moreover, India went through “Green Revolution” which

reinforced low rural-to-urban mobility from the 70’s to the 80’s, and Singh, prime

minister of India, talked about a second Green Revolution with 60% of the labour force

working in the agricultural sector. Finally, the last main reason for the low mobility in

India would be the high gender discrimination which results in very low rates of

literacy for women.

This low mobility coupled with an organizational structure sometimes based on

traditional forms of relationships or career opportunity based on affinity, leads us to

wonder whether there would be a real difference in the perception of employees on

mobility and equality of chances between domestic and foreign-based firms in India.



a) Literature review

This section presents the articles and studies which provided me with the main

inspirations, concepts and theories. It does not have the ambition to comprehend the

main literature on the subjects but rather to expose the studies and publications which

supported my working process and were the pillars of my reasoning.

Authors Title Year Key words

Christian

Bjornskov, Axel

Dreher, Justina

A.V. Fischer, Jan

Schnellenbach and

Kai Gehring

Inequality and happiness: When

perceived social mobility and

economic reality do not match

2013 Happiness, life

satisfaction, subjective

well-being, inequality,

income distribution,

redistribution, political

ideology, justice,

fairness, World Values

Survey

Raymond Boudon Education, Opportunity, and

Social Inequality: Changing

prospects in western Society

1976

Sarah Kelley and

Claire Kelley Subjective social mobility: Data

from 30 nations

2009 subjective social

mobility, social mobility,

education, parents'

education, occupation,

GDP, subjective social

class, earnings, legitimate

earnings

John H.

Goldthorpe On Economic development and

social mobility

1985

PB Srikanth and L

Gurunathan Interactional justice and job

mobility

2013

Anthony Heath,

Nan Dirk de Graaf

and Yaojun Li*

How fair is the route to the top ?

Perception of social mobility

2008



Azer Efendiev &

Pavel Sorokin Sociological perspective for

studying career in developing

society

2013 Career, Career mobility,

Meritocracy, Career

fields, Career capitals

Valentina

Cuzzocrea and

Dawn Lyon

Sociological Conceptualisations

of ‘Career’: A Review and

Reorientation

2011

Katharina

Chudzikowski &

Wolfgang

Mayrhofer

In search of the blue flower?

Grand social theories and career

research: The case of Bourdieu’s

theory of practice

2010 Bourdieu, career theory,

contextuality, grand

social theories,

interdisciplinarity, theory

building

Kenneth S. Law,

Chi-Sum Wong,

Duanxu

Wang & Lihua

Wang

Effect of supervisor–subordinate

guanxi on supervisory decisions

in China: an

empirical investigation

2011 Guanxi; supervisor–

subordinate relationship;

supervisory decisions;

Chinese management

Carlo Barone and

Antonio

Schizzerotto

Career mobility, education, and

intergenerational reproduction

in five European societies

2011 Study of career mobility

in five European

countries (Sweden, Great

Britain, The Netherlands,

Germany, and Italy) and

to its implications for the

dynamics of

intergenerational

reproduction.

Kaivan Munshi

Mark Rosenzweig Why is social mobility so low in

India? Social insurance,

inequality and growth

2009 social mobility, out-

marriage, in-jati-

marriage, rural migration

Majumder Intergenerational mobility in

educational & occupational

attainment: a comparative study

of social classes in India

2010

Samuel Aryee,

Pawan S. Budhwar

and Zhen Xiong

Chen

Trust as a mediator of the

relationship between

organizational justice and work

outcomes: test of social exchange

model

2002



Samuel Aryee,

Zhen Xiong Chen,

and Pawan S.

Budhwar

Exchange fairness and employee

performance: An examination of

the relationship between

organizational politics and

procedural justice

2004

Edwina Pio HRM and Indian epistemologies:

A review and avenues for future

research

2007 Human resource

management; India;

Indian epistemologies

Mainuddin Afza Superior-Subordinate

Relationships and Satisfaction in

Indian Small

Business Enterprises

2005 Leader Power

Job Satisfaction

Organizational

Commitment

Performance Contingent

Reward

Expert/Referent Power

Efficiency Bases

Social Mobility &

Child Poverty

Commission of

UK

Business and Social Mobility: A

Manifesto for change

2013 Benefits for businesses

Current situation in UK



b) Research hypothesis

To which extend the Leader-member exchanges (LMX) differ in a domestic and

foreign company in India?

H1a: LMX theory is limited to define leader-subordinate relationships in domestic

companies.

Indeed, in an empirical study on Chinese organizations about supervisor-subordinate

relationships (called “Guanxi”), Law, Wong, D. Wang and L. Wang (2000) showed

that the relationships developed in Chinese organizational culture were different from

the LMX which is described here as a “Western concept”. Given this, it can be assumed

that there could also be a differences in the domestic companies’ leader-member

relationships. Today’s lack of precise information on the subject pushes to establish

the basis for a deeper research on the Indian equivalent of LMX which would bring

insights operational for professionals in the Indian organizations. Thus, the first

hypothesis aims at testing the limits of LMX concept in domestic companies.

H1b: The concept of fairness matters more in leader-member relationships of foreign

based companies.

The hypothesis is based on the findings of Pandey (1986) who advanced that managers

from developing countries tend to behave in such ways that manipulates organizational

justice and supervisor-subordinate exchanges. Furthermore, it was posited that the

Indian society verticality fosters unequal treatments within organizations (Budhwar,

2000, 2003; Dehejia & Dehejia, 1993). Moreover, quoting Aryee, Chen and Budhwar,

(2004): “Emphasis on particularism suggests that although bureaucratic means of

formalism and hierarchy are present, they have been harnessed to particularistic ends

leading to perceptions of lack of fairness in employee–organization exchanges.”

Despite the obvious cultural embedding of fairness’ concept which is not to be

discussed here, this point remains interesting to highlight the differences in

organizational justice perception in both groups (domestic and foreign-based

companies).



H1c: Good superior-subordinate relationships influence positively the perception of

organizational justice.

This point highlight the causality link between manager behaviours and relationships

with the perception of justice. It was proven that the perception of fairness is more

important in an uncertain environment since it helps employees to assess their leader’s

legitimacy and lead obviously to a biased and subjective interpretation in the future

(Lind, Kulik, Ambrose, & De Vera Park, 1993; Van den Bos, Vermunt, & Wilke,

1997). Hence, it is important to verify that correlation between good relationships and

justice perception and maybe to compare the effects according to the type of

relationships observed beforehand (H1a). This would contribute to the existing

theories cited here and enable a new approach of the matter through the comparison.

How do the organizational settings influence the career mobility in domestic and

foreign companies?

H2a: Mobility in foreign-based companies is more based on meritocratic mechanism

and professional, rational relationships than in domestic companies.

This hypothesis is supported by the idea that in “[...] particularistic settings, those with

power to hire, reward and fire would be expected to do so based on certain employee’s

characteristics” (Pearce and al., 2001). Indeed, it would be interesting to verify this

idea so as to see whether India’s organizational values differ really from national

cultural values (Singh, 1990; and Sahay & Walsham, 1997).

H2b: Egalitarian and meritocratic practices enabling mobility increases

proportionally with the size of the companies (in terms of number of staff).

Independently from the home country of companies, this hypothesis aims at observing

whether the tendency to use fair advancement practices is also influenced by

companies’ size. Indeed, it was proved that the most competitive firms (domestic and

foreign) in India use egalitarian and non-hierarchic practices (Amba-Rao et al., 2000;

Rao, & Yadav, 2001; Som, 2006).

H2c: Good interactional justice influences positively the perceived social mobility.

This hypothesis relies on the correlation between interactional justice and job mobility

preparedness (Srikanth and Gurunathan, 2013). Indeed, if employees tend to be more



ready to evolve in the company when they perceive more justice, there should be a

correlation between fairness perception and the perception over social mobility.

How do these differences in vertical relationships affect perceived mobility and

subjective social class and perception of fairness?

H3a: Subjective of social mobility and social class are higher in foreign companies.

Provided that fairness perception is higher in foreign-based companies (H1b), this idea

would be supported by the fact that domestic companies convey more national cultural

values as the foreign companies. Hence, since people perceiving a higher mobility

consider to live in a fair society (S. Kelley & C. Kelley, 2009), it is expected to find a

correlation between the type of company and the perception of social mobility. It

would also be expected to find a positive correlation between egalitarian practices and

high social mobility perception.

H3b: The more fluid (enabling mobility) a company is perceived, the greater is the

impact on employee’s commitment.

It is of the greatest significance to assess one of the outcome of social mobility

perception on the organization. This hypothesis aims at evaluating the results through

employees’ commitment. Indeed, Bjornskov et al. (2013) developed a model that

forecasts a positive impact of perceived social mobility on “individual human capital

investments, [...] occupational status in equilibrium, with perceived social mobility

affecting subjective well-being through these transmission channels".



c) Methodology

Using an exploratory approach from different disciplines (Sociology and human

resources management), the study will be conducted through a quantitative

questionnaire circulated online to diverse Indian companies.

We will first spread the questionnaire to a reduced sample of respondents (±20) to

detect potential problems of formulation, methodology and biases. Then we will

spread the questionnaire to the representative sample.

The questionnaire will be based on various sources such as pre-existing questionnaires

on subjective social class (crossed with the World Value Survey), on perceived

mobility as well as on leader-subordinate relationships and on satisfaction towards the

working environment.

i. Setting

The questionnaire will be composed of 4 main parts (developed below). It will be

conceived on Sphinx Declic (online version of the Sphinx software). Filling the

questionnaire should last about 5 minutes per participants.

Part 1: Leader-subordinate relationships

Definition of the relationship

Influence on the perceived justice

Importance of fairness

Part 2: Organizations fluidity and practices

Fairness and meritocracy

Career practices

Part 3: Mobility and its effect

Subjective social class and mobility

Commitment & loyalty

Part 4: Personal data

Demographic (age, sex, marital status, nationality)

Position (job, position, number of direct superiors/subordinates)

Company information (size, foreign/domestic)



ii. Participants

Respondents of the questionnaire will be employees of Indian domestic and foreign-

based companies.

iii. Plan of work

Period of time Phase Objectives September 2014 Research phase Final decision on topic

Find suitable literature

from different

prospective (sociology

and organizational)

October 2014 Theoretical phase

13.10.14: Exposé deadline

Literature review

Designing hypothesis

November 2014 Theoretical phase

&

Methodology phase

Refining of the exposé

Design of the

methodology

Design of online

questionnaire

December 2014 Methodology phase

&

Analysis phase

15.12.14:

Handing draft

presentation

Questionnaire test

Refining of the

questionnaire

Presentation for

intermediate report

January 2015 Analysis phase

28 to 31.01.15:

Intermediate presentation

Spread of the

questionnaire

Analysis of the results

February 2015 Analysis phase Spread of the

questionnaire

Analysis of the results

March 2015 Finalization phase Analysis of results

Finalization of the

master thesis

Final presentation



iv. Overview of chapters

Abstract

List of content

List of tables

List of abbreviations

1. Introduction

1.1 Research problem

1.2 Topic importance

1.3 Contributions

1.4 Thesis structure

2. Research question and hypotheses

2.1 Problem statement

2.2 Research questions

2.3 Hypotheses

3. Literature review and theoretical background

3.1 A review of social mobility concepts

3.2 Organizational justice: theories on career mobility

and leader-member exchanges

3.3 An interdisciplinary approach on career

4. Research methodology

4.1 Method: Questionnaire

4.1. a) Setup

4.1.b) Execution

4.1.c) Results

4.2 Summary of results

4.3 Concerns for validity

5. Conclusion

5.1 Implications for management

5.2 Limitations of the study

5.3 Suggestions for further researchers

6. Bibliography

7. Appendix



Bibliographie

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology, 2, 267–299.

Afza, M. (2005). Superior-subordinate relationships and satisfaction in Indian small

business enterprises, 30(3), 11–19.

Alesina, A., R., DiTella, & MacCulloch, R. (2004). Inequality and happiness: Are

Europeans and Americans different? Journal of Public Economics, 88, 2009–

2042.

Amba-Rao, S. C., Petrick, J. A., Gupta, J. N. D., & Von der Embse, T. J. (2000).

Comparative performance appraisal practices and management values among

foreign and domestic firms in India. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 11(1), 60–89.

Arthur, M. M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (2001). The boundaryless career. A new

employment principle for a new organizational era (Oxford Uni., pp. 3–13).

Arthur, Michael, B., Kerr, Inkson, & Pringle, J. K. (1999). The new careers (Sage.,

pp. 163–176). London.

Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the

relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes : test of a social

exchange model, 285(March), 267–285.

Barley, S., & Kunda, G. (2004). Gurus, hired guns and warm bodies: Itinerant

experts in knowledge economy. In M. Arthur & D. Rousseau (Eds.), Enactment

and the boundaryless career: Organizing as we work. (Oxford Uni., pp. 40–57).

Barone, C., & Schizzerotto, A. (2011). Career mobility, education, and

intergenerational reproduction in five European societies, 13(3), 331–345.

doi:10.1080/14616696.2011.568248

Baruch, & Peiperl. (2000). Career management practices: an empirical survey and

implications. Human Resource Management, 39, 347.

Baruch, Y., & Budhwar, P. S. (2006). A comparative study of career practices for

management staff in Britain and India. International Business Review, 15(1),

84–101. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2005.11.001

Bauman, & Zygmunt. (2000). Liquid modernity (Polity.). Cambridge.

Beck, & Ulrich. (2000). The brave new world of work (Polity.). Cambridge.

Becker, G. S., & Tomes, N. (1979). An equilibrium theory of the distribution of

income and intergenerational mobility. Journal of Political Economy, 87(6),

1153–1189.



Becker, G. S., & Tomes, N. (1986). Human capital and the rise and fall of families.

Journal of Labor Economics, 4, 1–39.

Bjornskov, C., Dreher, A., Justina, A. V, Schnellenbach, J., & Gehring, K. (2013).

Inequality and happiness: When perceived social mobility and economic reality

do not match. Munich Personal RePEc Archive.

Blanden, J., & Machin, S. (2007). Recent changes in intergenerational mobility.

Report for the Sutton Trust.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life (Wiley.). New York.

Blau, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New

York.

Bourdieu, P., & Sayad, A. (1984). Le déracinement. La crise de l’agriculture

traditionnelle en Algérie (Editions d.). Paris.

Breen, R., & Whelan, C. T. (1993). From ascription to achievement? Origins,

education and entry to the labour force in the republic of Ireland during the

twentieth century. Acta Sociologica, 31(1), 3–17.

Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining

reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures.

Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), 189–208.

Budhwar, P. (2000). Indian and British personnel specialists’ understanding of the

dynamics of their function: An empirical study. International Business Review,

9, 727–753.

Budhwar, P. S. (2003). Employment relations in India. Employee Relations, 25(2),

132–148.

Budhwar, P. S., & Baruch, Y. (2003). Career management practices in India: An

empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 24(6), 699–719.

Chudzikowski, K., & Mayrhofer, W. (2010). In search of the blue flower? Grand

social theories and career research: The case of Bourdieu’s theory of practice.

Human Relations, 64(1), 19–36. doi:10.1177/0018726710384291

Clark, A., & D’Angelo, E. (2008). Upward social mobility, wellbeing and political

preferences: Evidence from the BHPS. In Working paper, Paris School of

Economics (Vol. 17).

Clark, Terry, N., Seymour, M., & Lipset. (1991). Are social classes dying?

International Sociology, 6, 397–410.

Cuzzocrea, V., & Lyon, D. (2011). Sociological conceptualisations of “career”: A

review and reorientation, 12, 1029–1043.



Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to

leadership with formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 13(1), 46–78.

Dehejia, R., & Dehejia, V. (1993). Religion and economic activity in India: A

historical perspective. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 52(2),

145–153.

Dobbin, F. (2008). The poverty of organizational theory: Comment on: “Bourdieu

and organizational analysis.” Theory and Society, 37(1), 53–63.

Efendiev, A., & Sorokin, P. (2013). Sociological perspective for studying career in

developing society.

Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and

cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.

Folger, R., & Lewis, D. (1993). Self-appraisal and fairness in evaluations. In Justice

in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management

(Lawrence E., pp. 107–131). New Jersey.

Frey, B., & Stutzer, A. (2005). Beyond outcomes: measuring procedural utility.

Oxford Economic Papers, 57, 90–111.

Goldthorpe, J. H. (1985). On economic development and social mobility.

Goldthorpe, J. H., & Mills, C. (2008). Trends in intergenerational class mobility in

modern Britain: evidence from national surveys. National Institute Economic

Review, 205, 83–100.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development of leader-member exchange

(LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain

perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 219–247.

Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 340–342.

Hall, D. (1996). The career is dead-long live the career. A relational approach to

careers (Jossey-Bas.). The Jossey-Bass Business & Management.

Handy, & Charles. (1994). The empty raincoat: Making sense of the future

(Hutchinson.). London.

Hazelrigg, L. M., & Garnier, M. (1978). Occupational mobility in industrial

societies. American Sociological Review, 41(1).

Heath, A., & Graaf, N. D. De. (2008). Perceptions of social mobility.

Hopkins, E. (2008). Inequality, happiness and relative concerns: What actually is

their relationship? Journal of Economic Inequality, (6), 351–372.



Iellatchitch, A., Mayrhofer, W., & Meyer, M. (2003). Career fields: A small step

towards a grand career theory? International Journal of Human Resources

Management, 14(5), 728–750.

Jacoby, S. . (1999). Are career jobs headed for extinction? California Management

Review, 42(1), 123–145.

Kelley, S., & Kelley, C. (2009). Subjective social mobility: Data from 30 nations, 1–

16.

Kerr, C., Dunlop, J. T., Harbison, F. H., & Myers, C. A. (1960). Industrialism and

industrial man. Harvard University Press.

Khapova, S., Arthur, M., & Wilderom, C. (2007). The subjective career in the

knowledge economy. In H. Gunz & M. Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of Career

Studies (Sage., pp. 114–130). Thousand Oaks.

Kingsley, D. (1962). The role of class mobility in economic development.

Population Review, 6.

Kluegel, J., Royce Singleton, J., & Starnes, C. E. (1977). Subjective class

identification: A multiple indicator approach. American Sociological Review,

42, 599–611.

Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on

business organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 489–511.

Kossek, E. E., Rober, K., Fisher, S., & Denmarr, B. (1998). Career self management:

A quasi-experimental assessment of the effects of a training intervention.

Personnel Psychology, 51(4), 935–962.

Law, K. S., Wong, C.-S., Wang, D., & Wang, L. (2000). Effect of supervisor–

subordinate guanxi on supervisory decisions in China: an empirical

investigation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

11(4), 751–765. doi:10.1080/09585190050075105

Lerner, A. (1944). The economics of control: principles of welfare economics

(MacMillan.). New York.

Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model

of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 451–465.

Lind, E. A., Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M., & De Vera Park, M. V. (1993). Individual

and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision

heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(2), 224–251.

Lipset, S., & Zetterberg, H. L. (1956). A theory of social mobility. Transactions of

the Third World Congress of Sociology, 3.

Lounsbury, M., & Ventresca, M. (2003). The new structuralism in organizational

theory. Organization 10., Vol 3, 457–480.



Loury, G. C. (1981). Intergenerational transfers and the distribution of earnings.

Econometrica, 49(4), 843–867.

Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating

justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and

treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 738–

748.

Masterson, S. S., & Taylor, M. S. (1996). The broadening of procedural justice:

Should interactional and procedural components be separate theories? In Paper

Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. Cincinnati.

Mazumder, B. (2001). Earnings mobility in the US: A new look at intergenerational

inequality.

McAllister, D. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for

interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal,

38, 24–59.

Miller, S. M. (1960). Comparative social mobility. Current Sociology, 9(1), 1–61.

doi:10.1177/001139216000900101

Mitchell, G., Tetlock, P. E., Mellers, B. A., & Ordóñez, L. D. (1993). Judgments of

social justice: compromises between equality and efficiency. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 629–639.

Munshi, K., & Rosenzweig, M. (2009). Why is social mobility so low in India?

Social insurance, inequality and growth.

Pakulski, J., & Malcolm, W. (1996). The reshaping and dissolution of social class in

advanced society. Theory and Society, 25, 667–691.

Pandey, J. (1986). Sociocultural perspectives on ingratiation. Progress in

Experimental Personality Research, 14, 205–229.

Patra, R. K., Khatik, S. K., & Kodwani, A. D. (2002). Human resources professionals

at the crossroads. International Journal of Human Resources Development and

Management, 2(3-4), 436–444.

Paul, A. K., & Anantharaman, R. N. (2004). Influence of HRM practices on

organisational commitment: A study among software professionals In India.

Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(1), 77–88.

Pearce, J. (2001). Organization and management in the embrace of government.

(Mahwah, Ed.) (Erlbaum.). New Jersey.

Pearce, J. L., Branyiczki, I., & Bigley, G. A. (2000). Insufficient bureaucracy: Trust

and commitment in particularistic organizations. Organization Science, 11,

148–162.



Peiperl, M., & Gunz, H. (2007). Taxonomy of career studies. In H. Gunz & M.

Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of Career Studies (Sage., pp. 39–54). Thousand Oaks.

Rao, T. V., Rao, R., & Yadav, T. (2001). A study of HRD concepts, structure of

HRD departments, and HRD practices in India. Vikalpa, 26(1), 49–63.

Rasmaswamy, E. A., & Schiphorst, F. B. (2000). Human resource management,

trade unions and empowerment: two cases from India. International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 11(4), 664–680.

Sahay, S., & Walsham, G. (1997). Social structure and managerial agency in India.

Organization Studies1, 18(3), 415–444.

Schein, E. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs

(Addison-We.).

Singh, J. P. (1990). Managerial culture and work-related values in India.

Organization Studies, 11(1), 75–101.

Som, A. (2006). Bracing for MNC competition through innovative HRM practices:

The way ahead for Indian firms. Thunderbird International Business Review,

48(2), 207–237.

Srikanth, P. B., & Gurunathan, L. (2013). Interactional justice and job mobility

preparedness : Mediating role of leader-member exchange ( LMX ), (Lmx).

Stutzer, A., & Frey, B. S. (2003). Institutions matter for procedural utility: An

economic study of the impact of political participation possibilities. In R. M. et

Al. (Ed.), Economic Welfare, International Business and Global Institutional

Change (Edward Elg., pp. 81–99). Cheltenham.

Touraine, A. (1985). An introduction to the study of social movements. Social

Research, 52, 748–787.

Treiman, D. J. (1970). Industrialisation and social stratification. In Laumann (Ed.),

Social Stratlfcation: Research and Theory for the 1970s (Social Str.).

Indianapolis.

Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal

context of procedural justice. In Applied Social Psychology and Organizational

Settings (J.S. Carol., pp. 77–98). New Jersey.

Tyree, A., Semyonov, M., & Hodge, R. W. (1979). Gaps and glissandos: Inequality,

economic development, and social mobility in 24 countries. American

Sociological Review, 44.

Urry, & John. (2000). Mobilities (Polity.). Cambridge.

Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). Procedural and

distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what

comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 95–104.



Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class (MacMillan.). New York.

Wade, R. (1981). The system of administrative and political corruption: Canal

irrigation in southern India. Journal of Development Studies, 18, 287–328.

Young, M. (1958). The rise of the meritocracy: An essay on education and equality

(Thames & H., pp. 1870–2023). London.

Documents

On leader-subordinate relationships and social mobility ...€¦ · Social mobility types There are two types of social mobility. The first one, inter-generational mobility, designates