Organizational level as a moderator of the relationship between justice perceptions and work-related reactions

Abstract

SummaryIn this study, we examined the role of organizational level as a moderator of the relationships of procedural and distributive justice with seven employee attitudes and behaviors. Based on social identity and resource allocation theories, we suggested an allocational model of authority in organizations. We posited that lower rank encourages a more process-oriented perspective that emphasizes procedural concerns while higher rank imbues a more resultoriented perspective that emphasizes distributive outcomes. We considered the cultural context that characterized work relationships in our sample of respondents from a Chinese state-owned enterprise. Significant sets of interactions supported the predicted relationships of procedural justice with three outcomes at lower levels and distributive justice with four outcomes at higher levels. Implications and extensions of these findings are considered.

The Effects of Social Exchange Perspective on Employee Creativity: A Multilevel Investigation

“…This finding is also in line with previous empirical findings at individual analysis, which proposed that social exchange perspectives (i.e., POS) (e.g., Saks, 2006), and supervisory support have a positive influence on employee work engagement (e.g., Menguc, Auh, Fisher, & Haddad, 2012), and job engagement (e.g., Sze & Angeline, 2011). At individual level analysis, the relationship between POS and job satisfaction has been empirical examined by previous studies on a variety of research contexts (e.g., Ambrose & Schminke, 2009;Baranik et al, 2010;Begley et al, 2006;Erdogan & Enders, 2007;Loi et al, 2009;Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002;Riggle et al, 2009). However, at cross-level analysis, this relationship is confirmed by this study.…”

Ranking low, feeling high: How hierarchical position and experienced power promote prosocial behavior in response to procedural justice.

“…Based on FHT, we will argue that in particular organization members in lower (vs. higher) positions are motivated to pay attention to procedural justice because doing so informs whether they can trust those in authority (cf. Begley, Lee, & Hui, 2006;Lind, 2001). However, we build on SFT to argue that in particular organization members with a high (vs. low) sense of power are able to focus on procedural justice information Power, Procedural Justice, and Prosocial Behavior 5 because they are less distracted.…”

“…As noted, according to FHT, one way to obtain trustworthiness information is via procedural justice (Lind, 2001). Thus, because in particular employees in lower (vs. higher) positions lack information about the trustworthiness of top management, they would be particularly motivated to use procedural justice as an indicator of the trustworthiness of top-ranked authorities (Begley et al, 2006).FHT is thus relevant to explain the relationship between hierarchical position and procedural justice. However, it does not address the workings of the sense of power, a variable that is arguably critical to understand exactly how power affects psychological processes and subsequent behavior (Keltner et al, 2003;Tost, 2015).…”

Organisational citizenship behaviour in the People's Republic of China and comparison to the West: construct, antecedents, consequences and implications for future research

“…Farh et al (2001Farh et al ( , 2004Farh et al ( , 2007, Zhong and Farh (2003) and Yao and Wang (2008) Altruism towards colleagues (task) Tjosvold et al (2003a), Wong et al (2002Wong et al ( , 2003Wong et al ( , 2006Wong et al ( , 2005, Hui et al (1999Hui et al ( , 2008, Chen et al (2002aChen et al ( , 2005b, Chen and Francesco (2003), Wong and Liu (2007), Tjosvold and Yu (2004) and Zhang et al (2007Zhang et al ( , 2008 Interpersonal facilitation Aryee et al (2008) and Wang et al (2008) Altruism (task) Wang et al (2005), Hui et al (2004aHui et al ( , 2004b, Tjosvold et al (1998), Begley et al (2002Begley et al ( , 2006, Zhong et al (2006), Chang (2008a, 2008b), Li and Wan (2007), Felfe et al (2008), Zhang and Agarwal (2009) Farh et al (2001Farh et al ( , 2004Farh et al ( , 2007, Zhong and Farh (2003) and Yao and Wang (2008 Tjosvold et al (2003a), Wong et al (2007), Hui et al (1999), Chen and Farh (2001), Chen et al (2002a…”

“…Identification with company Tjosvold et al (2003a), Wong et al (2007), Chen and Farh (2001), Hui et al (1999), Wong and Liu (2007) and Tjosvold and Yu (2004) Civic virtue Begley et al (2006Begley et al ( , 2002, Wang et al (2005), Hui et al (2004aHui et al ( , 2004b, Tjosvold et al (2003b), Chang (2008a, 2008b), Wan (2007), Felfe et al (2008), Zhang et al (2008), Zhang and Agarwal (2009) and Baba et al (2009) Group participation Farh et al (2001Farh et al ( , 2004 and Zhong and Farh (2003) Sportsmanship Wang et al (2005), Hui et al (2004aHui et al ( , 2004bHui et al ( , 2008, Chen et al (1998), Tjosvold et al (2003a), Begley et al (2006), Chang (2008a, 2008b), Li and Wan (2007), Zhang et al (2008), Markoczy et al (2009), Zhang andAgarwal (2009) and Baba et al (2009) Courtesy Tjosvold et al (2003b, Wang et al (2005), Hui et al (2004aHui et al ( , 2004bHui et al ( , 2008, Begley et al (2006), Chang (2008a, 2008b), Li and W...…”