The Effects of Leader Fairness and Pay Outcomes on Superior/Subordinate Relations¹

Abstract

This study assessed the effects of procedurally fair leadership and payment outcomes on subordinate reactions to the supervisor in a pay‐for‐performance task. Procedurally fair leadership was operationalized by the extent to which supervisors enacted three specific behaviors: facilitation of voice, accuracy, and adherence to formal policies and procedures. The payment outcomes were high and low cash payments for performance evaluated as above or below average. Subordinate reactions to these treatments focused on perceptions of supervisory fairness (both procedural and distributive) and the subordinate's relationship with his or her supervisor (in terms of both satisfaction and commitment). Procedurally fair leadership showed a main effect on subordinate perceptions of leader fairness and on their relationship with the leader. No other effects were noted. Implications are discussed.

The role of idealized influence leadership in promoting workplace forgiveness

“…Stemming from the relational model of procedural justice (Tyler & Lind, 1992), there has been a longstanding interest in the connection between fairness and leadership (e.g., Cho & Dansereau, 2010;Cobb & Frey, 1996;Phillips, Douthitt, & Hyland, 2001;Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999;Tyler & Caine, 1981;Tyler & De Cremer, 2005). This body of literature has predominately focused on the study of how various leader behaviors influence recipients' perceptions of fairness and how fair or unfair treatment influence employees' perceptions of leaders.…”

Speaking up: A conceptual model of voice responses following the unfair treatment of others in non‐union settings

“…In contrast to these dysfunctional responses to injustice, a large body of procedural justice research has focused on the importance of voice as a way to restore equity following an injustice (Avery & Quinones, 2002;Cobb & Frey, 1996). With a credible voice system in place, an employee who perceives an injustice (whether perpetrated on him-or herself or perpetrated on a coworker) may simply express his or her concerns to management (Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2008) without resorting to counterproductive behaviors.…”

Marketing strategy and the efficacy of procedural justice: The mid-level marketing manager in industrial service firms

“…Procedurally fair treatment, for example, has been demonstrated to result in increased job satisfaction, organizational commitment (Cobb & Frey, 1996) and organizational citizenship behaviors (Konovsky & Organ, 1994); while procedurally unfair treatment has been found to result in organizational retaliatory behaviors (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). As Kim and Mauborgne (1991) postulate, when employees feel that the processes are unfair, they refuse to cooperate by hoarding ideas and 'dragging their feet' in conceiving and executing strategic decisions.…”