PurposeThis paper examines whether dissimilarities in societal cultures impact the path by which a key component of organizational culture—supervisory procedural justice (SPJ)—influences police officer compliance with police agency rules.Design/methodology/approachThe study utilized structural equation modeling across a data set of 1,189 Croatian and Taiwan police officers to test whether a societal value (individualism/collectivism) impacts the role of three intermediary variables (trust in the public, job satisfaction and pro-organization initiative) in a procedural justice model of officer compliance with the rules.FindingsThe study found that, despite a strong statistical similarity in the individual attitudes of Croatian and Taiwan police officers, the intermediary variables in the model significantly differed between the two countries. Most notably, the role of trust in the public and pro-organization initiative supported past research suggesting that collectivist versus individualistic societal cultures lead to divergent organizational attitudes and policing outcomes.Originality/valueThis is the first empirical study to compare the impact of societal values on a model of SPJ on officer compliance with agency rules.

This study steps outside the dominant supervisor-centric approach to organizational justice to examine the impact of peer officers on both procedural justice and injustice in officer–citizen interactions. Recent scandals over the failure of officers to not intercede or object to a colleague’s misconduct has led to a growing policy and research interest in peer influence, training, and intervention programs. A structural equation modeling analysis on a cross-national survey of officers decomposed the direct and indirect effects of peer procedural justice (PPJ) on anticipated officer just and unjust interactions with the public. The study’s finding that PPJ has a greater impact than supervisory procedural justice on officer anticipated just and unjust behavior suggests that policing studies should expand the modeling of organizational justice to include the role of interactions with peer officers. The outcome also adds to the nascent research seeking to better understand how peer-level interventions can promote procedurally just policing.

The COVID-19 pandemic is undoubtedly one of the more significant events that marked the21st century and changed the world. Also, the 21st century was marked by the peculiar rule of USA President Donald Trump. Trumpism as a concept has influenced many aspects of peoples lives around the world. Drawing on statements by former USA President Donald Trump regarding the global pandemic, the question arises as to whether trumpism could have had a global scale to spread the virus. As procedural fairness is one of the essential factors for compliance, this paper relates the concepts of procedural justice, compliance, and trumpism. The paper offers a unique review of literature and research, providing practical implications and suggestions for future international comparative research of these concepts.

As police organizational justice research continues to mature, this article examines whether an asymmetry exists between positive and negative supervisory experiences on officer perceptions of police performance. The study builds on new theoretical developments in organizational justice that argues for better capturing the independent roles of just and unjust supervisory behaviour. A generally held, but untested, view in the organizational behaviour literature suggests a negative bias: perceptions of unjust supervisors affect employee outcomes more than those viewed as procedurally just. This cross-national test of the impact of supervisory procedural justice finds the existence of a strong positive bias across officer attitudes on police-citizen interactions and rule compliance. Specifically, officer perceptions of just supervisors have a greater influence on officer attitudes toward procedural justice, procedural injustice, and rule compliance in their interactions with the public.

No abstract