This research explores frontline employees’ (FLEs) perceptions of fairness regarding guardianship policies that require or authorize them to intervene in customer deviant behavior (CDB), namely, shoplifting. This study aims to investigate how firm-level (FLE increased compensation) and customer-level (FLE–customer relationship strength) factors influence emotional and psychological responses and, ultimately, fairness judgments.
Drawing on institutional theory and Service-Dominant (S-D) logic, two experimental studies with US retail FLEs test how guardianship policy type, pay incentives and customer relationship strength shape policy fairness perceptions. Study 1 uses a 2 × 2 design to examine policy type and compensation. Study 2 introduces relationship strength and tests a moderated serial mediation model involving empowerment and anger.
Pay increases improve fairness perceptions only when employees are authorized (vs required) to confront customers. Required confrontation decreases FLE empowerment and increases anger, which in turn reduces fairness perceptions. These effects are intensified when FLEs share strong ties with bystanding customers.
Findings suggest that firms should avoid rigid guardianship mandates and instead empower FLEs to use discretion in interactions with deviant customers and demonstrate that increased compensation alone is insufficient to offset perceptions of unfairness when autonomy is constrained.
This research extends institutional theory and S-D logic by demonstrating how customer relationships, along with psychological and emotional mechanisms, shape frontline responses to organizational policies. It builds on recent guardianship research by identifying boundary conditions and pathways that explain fairness perceptions in demanding frontline service contexts.
