Altruistic organizations undoubtedly perform their good deeds for their own sake, but research from the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin suggests it might also influence whether job candidates negotiate on their salary or not.
The researchers highlight that many organizations today have deployed what is referred to as “social impact framing”. This results in them emphasizing the positive impact their business has on society. The researchers argue that these efforts are often done with noble intentions, but they can have unintended consequences on salary negotiations as candidates feel less willing to haggle with such firms.
“This speaks to a broader social phenomenon about how we view money when it comes to doing good,” the authors explain. “There’s an implicit assumption that money and altruism don’t mix. Money taints attempts to do good. Even if job candidates might not necessarily subscribe to this view, they’re assuming that hiring managers will.”
Not negotiating
Job candidates exposed to social impact framing exhibit a reluctance to negotiate for higher salaries due to discomfort with making such demands. These individuals worry that seeking greater financial rewards in organizations that emphasize altruistic objectives would be deemed inappropriate by those in positions of hiring authority, potentially resulting in an unfavorable perception of themselves.
It’s a phenomenon described as a “self-censoring” effect by the researchers, and underlines the interplay between social impact framing and wage expectations. Previous studies assumed that candidates willingly traded monetary compensation for the fulfillment of meaningful work. However, the authors demonstrate that the phenomenon may arise from the candidates’ unease in engaging in negotiation under such circumstances.
While it remains uncertain whether companies intentionally utilize social impact framing as a means to suppress pay, the researchers recommend that managers consider the potential human resource costs associated with this phenomenon.
Understanding one’s own biases
They advocate for managers to familiarize themselves with their own bias towards motivation purity, enabling them to adopt a more balanced approach when dealing with prospective employees who inquire about material rewards.
Furthermore, the researchers propose that managers cultivate greater transparency regarding the company’s compensation norms and values, while also suggesting the adoption of objective criteria for job rewards instead of relying solely on salary negotiations.
By implementing these measures, companies can potentially mitigate the negative effects of social impact framing on salary expectations and foster a more equitable approach to employee compensation.
“Job seekers could consider whether companies that stress social impact take care of their own employees—financially or otherwise,” the researchers conclude. “And companies shouldn’t assume that extrinsically motivated workers don’t care about the job and aren’t willing to work hard to perform well.”
