Power-distance, gender and organizational justice

Journal of Management 2000, Vol. 26, No. 4, 685–704

Power-Distance, Gender and Organizational Justice Cynthia Lee Northeastern University

Madan Pillutla London Business School

Kenneth S. Law Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

A sample of Hong Kong employees was used to test the hypotheses that power-distance orientation and gender moderate the relationships between justice perceptions and the evaluation of authorities (trust in supervisor) and the organization (contract fulfillment). Results indicated that 1) the relationship between procedural justice and contract fulfillment was higher for males, 2) the relationship between procedural justice and trust in supervisor was higher for those with low powerdistance orientations, and 3) the relationship between distributive justice and contract fulfillment was higher for those with low powerdistance orientations. The discussion addresses the implication of including power-distance and gender variables in research on procedural and distributive justice. © 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Organizational scholars have been interested in two aspects of justice: procedural justice (or the degree of fairness of the procedures used for distributions) and distributive justice (or the perceived degree of fairness in distributing organizational resources and rewards). Research provides ample evidence that employees’ justice perceptions have a strong impact on their evaluation of authorities and the organization in which they work. Employees who perceive that they have been treated fairly tend to evaluate their superiors and organizations more favorably. Until recently, it has been assumed that justice matters to everyone and in all contexts (e.g., Lind & Tyler, 1988). Recent research suggests that this is not always the case. Individual differences in exchange ideology (Witt & Broach, 1993), gender (Sweeny & McFarlin, 1997), and power-distance orientation (Tyler, Lind, & Huo, 1995) have been found to influence the importance that Direct all correspondence to: Cynthia Lee, College of Business Administration, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115. Copyright © 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc. 0149-2063 685

686

C. LEE, M. PILLUTLA, AND K.S. LAW

people accord to the fairness of procedures when evaluating authorities and organizations. Studies that show individual differences affecting the importance given to justice may be seen as identifying a set of boundary conditions for justice effects. A key obstacle to the articulation of scope conditions for justice effects is the lack of a conceptual model that can organize the findings of disparate studies that have examined different individual difference variables. In this paper, we propose that an individual’s prior socialization influences the value that s/he places on justice. According to our model, individual differences resulting from and/or reflecting the socialization process affect the importance given to justice by an individual. We empirically test the model using two individual difference variables: gender and the cultural value of power-distance orientation (Hofstede, 1980). Although we now have some knowledge on the differential outcomes of procedural and distributive injustice, we know little whether people put more or less weight on justice perceptions. We choose gender because it represents membership in different groups and the socialization of these groups varies. We choose power distance because it refers to people’s ideas about what is acceptable in superior-subordinate relationships. Therefore, it is relevant to ideas about perceived fair treatment by superiors in organizations. The two attitudes that we investigate in this study are trust in authorities and psychological contract fulfillment. We chose these two attitudes because the central focus of this study is to test the conditions in which justice perceptions predict the evaluation of authorities and the organization. Our first criterion variable, trust in supervisor, is an evaluation of authorities that has been found to be consistently related to justice perceptions (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Greenberg, 1990; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995). Our second criterion, psychological contract fulfillment, is an important component of an employee’s evaluation of his or her organization. Rousseau (1995) defines a “psychological contract” as the beliefs that an individual holds regarding promises made, accepted, and relied on in relations with the organization. In addition to their theoretical relevance, we selected these variables because of their substantive importance. Trust in supervisors and perceptions about psychological contract fulfillment are antecedents of important organizational attitudes and behaviors. Studies showed that employees who trust their supervisors are more likely to display citizenship behaviors (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994), voluntarily accept supervisor’s decisions and believe in the legitimacy of decisions made by supervisors (Tyler, Deogey, & Smith, 1996). Similarly, studies showed that psychological contract fulfillment is related to important organizational attitudes and behaviors such as citizenship behaviors (Robinson & Morrison, 1995) and intentions to leave the organization (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). In the following sections, we develop arguments about why power distance orientations and gender will moderate the relationship between justice perceptions and the two attitudes. Specifically, we argue that because individuals’ socialization is largely responsible for their values, attitudes, and belief systems and because justice beliefs are a subset of individuals’ general normative beliefs, socialization should be a significant determinant of their reactions to justice. JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

POWER-DISTANCE, GENDER AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE

687

Values and Attitudes Toward Authorities Guerra, Huesmann and Hanish (1995) suggest that normative beliefs (which are defined as an individual’s cognitions about the acceptability or unacceptability of behaviors that regulate his/her corresponding behaviors) are acquired through a socialization process involving perception of social norms, identification with specific reference groups, and personal evaluation. Socialization does not merely refer to the provision of information on socially approved or prohibited behaviors as it also includes an evaluative process. According to Guerra, Huesmann and Hanish (1995), individuals construct normative beliefs in accordance with their own evaluative schema. This schema includes one’s assessment of self-efficacy for the behavior, response-outcome expectancies, and self-concept. The cultural values that a person subscribes to are important components of his/her selfconcept and, therefore, partially determine their normative beliefs. Judging whether an attitude or behavior is acceptable for oneself involves an evaluative process. This evaluative process is influenced by individual differences in values and/or identification with (or merely being a member of) different groups, and may explain the systematic individual differences in people’s normative beliefs. Beliefs about justice are a subset of people’s situation-specific normative beliefs. So the general process outlined above also holds for the specific case of justice. In fact, Tyler and McGraw (1986) suggest that cultural socialization plays an important part in the formation of beliefs about what is just and when justice is important. Thus, individuals’ normative beliefs about justice would vary according to their membership in different groups and the cultural values to which they subscribe. Because there is almost an infinite number of specific values that one could study (Schwartz, 1994), the question becomes which values are most relevant for justice related attitudes. There exists a number of value typologies (e.g., Braithwaite & Law, 1985; Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1994), with Hofstede’s (1980) being the most familiar one to management scholars. We used Hofstede’s framework, specifically his power-distance dimension, because it is most relevant when examining the role of justice perceptions in the evaluation of authorities and organizations. Power-distance refers to cultural conceptions regarding the degree of power which authorities should have over subordinates (Hofstede, 1980). People who believe that superiors should have a great degree of power over subordinates are considered to be high on the power-distance orientation and people who believe that a smaller degree of power is appropriate are considered low on this orientation. Power distance is of four dimensions as Hofstede (1980) identified for categorizing cultures. Based on a large-scale empirical study spanning over 40 countries, Hofstede (1980) suggested that there are cultural differences in the level of power inequality that people find appropriate for subordinate-authority relations. As with his other dimensions such as individualism-collectivism, Hofstede’s (1980) power-distance dimension is often used as an individual difference variable. This is because people differ in the degree to which they subscribe to the JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

688

C. LEE, M. PILLUTLA, AND K.S. LAW

dominant values of a given culture. Thus, when we refer to research in the following paragraphs that suggests a given relationship may not hold in a given culture (e.g., Leung, Morris, & Su, 1995), we make the assumption that the relationship may or may not hold for people who subscribe to the core values of this culture. There are several reasons to believe that power-distance orientation influences the relationships between procedural/distributive justice and attitudes towards authorities. Beliefs about the appropriate power-distance between authorities and subordinates should shape the nature of people’s relationship with authorities. According to Tyler et al. (1995), subordinates with low powerdistance orientations are likely to have strong personal connections to authorities and have a better understanding of the authorities they are dealing with. James (1992) suggests that in relatively low power-distance cultures, there is less of a tendency to defer to power, which inclines individuals to react negatively when institutions or authorities seem to be treating them unfairly. In contrast, people with high power-distance orientations are likely to have role-constrained interactions with authorities (Tyler et al., 1995). This social orientation is the result of cultures in which authority relations are more strongly regimented by the relative positions of the superiors and subordinates (Tyler et al., 1995). Tyler et al. suggest that, in general, low power-distance subordinates are less sure of the relational implications of the actions of authorities, thus making them less sensitive to variations in procedural justice.1 Like procedures, distributions also signal status or respect, thereby suggesting that they have relational elements in addition to the obvious material advantages. Thus, the fairness of distributions may also be used to judge authorities. However, like procedural justice, low power-distance individuals may use distributive justice more. Tyler et al.’s predictions are consistent with the indirect evidence provided by Bond, Wan, Leung, and Giacalone (1985). Bond et al. found that when compared to American subjects, Chinese were more willing to accept insulting remarks from a high-status in-group person. However, no difference was found when the insult came from a low status individual. Leung et al. (1997) obtained similar results. They found that when compared to Americans, Chinese perceived a senior manager’s actions as less unjust and were less negative about the superior when an employee’s suggestion was criticized by the manager in a manner that violates the requirement of the relational model of procedural justice. That is, there is a tendency among Chinese with higher power-distance orientations to accept an authority’s actions uncritically without regard to perceptions of procedural justice. In summary, attitudes towards power-distance reflect a set of beliefs about roles in society or in organizations. The evaluation of authorities by people with high power-distance orientations reflects their beliefs in the legitimacy of power inequalities between superiors and subordinates (Bond et al., 1985; Leung et al. 1997). Thus, they may be less sensitive to procedural and distributive justice than those with low power-distance orientation. Therefore, we predict that: H1:

Power-distance moderates the relationships between distributive

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

POWER-DISTANCE, GENDER AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE

689

and procedural justice and the evaluation of authorities. Specifically, distributive and procedural justice will be more related to trust in authorities and psychological contract fulfillment when power-distance is low than when power-distance is high.

We chose Hong Kong as the site to examine the moderating effects of individual differences in values because of its unique characteristic as a midway point between two cultures. The reality of a predominantly Chinese population living in a British Colony (through June, 1997) with Western style educational, judicial and political systems suggests that we can expect a high degree of variation in terms of people’s endorsement of Chinese and Western values. Because we assume that the Chinese culture would endorse respect for authority, we would expect people who endorse traditional Chinese values to be higher on the power-distance orientation than those who do not. Thus, Hong Kong’s cultural uniqueness makes it an ideal setting for studying how individual differences in values, particularly power-distance orientation, affect the relationships between justice perceptions and evaluation of authorities and organizations. Gender, Justice and Attitudes Toward Authorities As mentioned earlier, individuals’ beliefs about justice also reflect their membership in different groups. This is because the socialization patterns of different groups vary. The division of the human species into two sexes provides a natural grouping, and membership in either of the two groups is a significant determinant of the kind of socialization that individuals undergo (Cross & Madson, 1997; Hoffman, 1977; Whitting & Edwards, 1973). Some research indicates men’s and women’s normative beliefs differ as a result of the different socialization that they undergo. For example, Gilligan (1977), building on the work of Nancy Chodorow (1974, 1978), suggested that women’s moral beliefs (that are based more on the morality of mutual responsibilities) reflect an alternative structure of moral development, compared to the abstract individual rights based morality that develops for males. Chodorow (1974, 1978) suggests that because women are universal rearers of both boys and girls (at least during the earliest and most formative periods of a child’s life), a girl’s sense of identity develops by means of interactive modeling—interacting with the mother who serves as the model. As for a boy, selfidentity proceeds by denying the model that is present (i.e., the mother) and identifies with the abstract male position, rather than with the male person who is absent and unavailable. Thus, argues Gilligan (1977), a contextual and relational rather than an abstract individual process dominates women’s identities. Because interactive responsibilities are primary in the structuring of women’s moral development, women’s moral judgments are not fixed but vary according to the contexts. This makes their judgments different from the abstract, rule-based moral judgments of men. Men tend to abstract the moral problem from the interpersonal situation, finding in the logic of fairness an objective way to decide what to do. For women, on the other hand, the continuance of existing relationships is most JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

690

C. LEE, M. PILLUTLA, AND K.S. LAW

important in interpersonal situations (Gilligan, 1982). So, although women try to change rules to preserve relationships, men, abiding by these rules, view relationships as easily replaceable (Gilligan 1982). Some recent empirical evidence supports Gilligan’s (1982) proposition that women are more concerned about relationships and responsibilities than men. For example, Stimpson, Neff, Jensen and Newby (1991) found that when men and women are asked to rate adjectives on their social desirability, women rated adjectives that reflect a concern for relationships, such as likable, friendly, adaptable, and so forth, as more desirable than men did. Similarly, Skoe, Pratt, Matthews and Curror (1996) report ‘clear gender differences with regard to care-based moral thought in middle and late adulthood (p. 290).’ Skoe et al. (1996), however, did not find gender differences with young adults and attributed this lack of differences to the transformation in women’s roles and the family in recent years. We hypothesize a similar process for justice beliefs.2 Men would pay more attention to abstract norms of justice, whereas women would pay more attention to relationships. This is borne out by evidence which shows that men may be more sensitive to issues of distributive justice than women (Brockner & Adsit, 1986; Greenberg & McCarty, 1990; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997). A similar pattern is observed in Taiwanese samples (Chang, 1988; Farh et al., 1997). A comparable argument can be made in the case of procedural justice. Gilligan’s (1982) logic that women’s relationships are guided more by a sense of responsibility than by exchange or reciprocity considerations implies that women would pay less attention to procedural justice than men. This is empirically supported by Farh et al.’s (1997) study that found that procedural justice was most consistently related to citizenship behaviors among male Taiwanese employees; a weaker or nonsignificant relationship was observed for female Taiwanese employees. Thus, based on our theoretical reasoning and the Farh et al. results, we expect women to pay less attention to procedural justice and hypothesize that: H2: Gender will moderate the relationships of distributive and procedural justice and evaluation of authorities and the organization. Specifically, we hypothesize stronger positive relationships for males than for females between distributive justice and procedural justice with trust in supervisor and psychological contract fulfillment.

Methods Sample The sample for this study was the Chinese-speaking employees of a university in Hong Kong. Primarily English-speaking employees were excluded because they come from many different countries. This university is relatively young and has only been in operation for six years. Forty nine percentage of the sample was male, and 66% were married with families. About 45% of the sample were at least high school graduates and an additional 19% had graduate degrees. The mean age of the sample was 34.79. The mean job tenure was three years and the mean tenure in their current position was 33 months. Their yearly salary ranged from JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

POWER-DISTANCE, GENDER AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE

691

HK$55.2K to $1.44M, with an average of $250K (approximately US$31,000). Thirty-eight percentage of the respondents were exempt employees. Sixteen percentage were faculty members; 27% were administrators; and 30% were technical staff.3 Procedure Respondents’ name and respective departments were obtained from the university’s Personnel office. The questionnaire was mailed to each potential respondent. A cover letter was used to explain the purpose of the survey and note that participation was voluntary. All participants were assured of confidentiality and were asked to return their completed questionnaires to the authors’ department. Respondents were given the opportunity to win a cash prize in return for their participation. Seven hundred and twenty nine respondents returned their questionnaires and participated in a lucky-based drawing, yielding a response rate of 45%. The questionnaires were presented in Chinese with all the scales translated and back-translated (Brislin, 1980) to ensure the quality of our translation. For questions related to the fairness of procedures, they were asked to think of their immediate supervisor and answer all questions with reference to interactions with the supervisor. It is important to note that our measure of procedural justice refers to respondents’ evaluation of their supervisors and not “management in general.” Measures Recent conceptualizations of procedural justice suggest that the concept refers to the formal structure of the decision-making process, as well as the interpersonal behavior of the parties responsible for implementing the decisionmaking procedures (e.g., Greenberg, 1993; Tyler & Bies, 1990). Interpersonal behavior when enacting procedures is termed interactional justice. Empirical research suggests that people do separate formal procedures from their enactment (e.g., Neihoff & Moorman, 1993), thus suggesting that procedural justice is best regarded as a two-dimensional construct. We, therefore, measure both aspects of procedural justice in our research. Procedural Justice. We used Niehoff and Moorman’s (1993) formal and interactional procedural justice measures in rating the behaviors of supervisors. In their study, six items were used to measure formal procedures and nine items were used to measure interactional justice. Employees responded to the items using a scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The coefficient alphas for the formal and interactive procedural justice scales were .94 and .97, respectively. Distributive Justice. We used Niehoff and Moorman’s (1993) five-item measure to measure distributive justice. Employees responded to the items using a scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The coefficient alpha of the seven items was .91. Moderators. Power-distance orientation was measured using an adaptation of Hofstede’s international work survey (Hofstede, 1980). We used a five-point Likert scale assessing agreement or disagreement of the following statements: JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

692

C. LEE, M. PILLUTLA, AND K.S. LAW

“When a performance appraisal made by the supervisor does not fit with subordinates’ expectations, the employees should feel free to discuss it with the supervisor” (reversed coded); “In order to have efficient work relationships, it is often necessary to bypass hierarchical lines” (reversed coded); and “It is alright for young people to be critical of their teachers and supervisors” (reversed coded). These three items were combined to form a single power-distance scale (␣ ⫽ .72). Gender was the other moderator variable. Males were coded as 0 and females were coded as 1. Dependent Variables. Trust in the supervisor was measured using three items developed by Roberts and O’Reilly (1974). A sample item is: “To what extent do you have confidence and trust in your supervisor regarding his/her general fairness.” Employees responded using a nine-point scale ranging from “have little confidence or trust” to “have complete confidence and trust” (␣ ⫽ .88). Psychological contract fulfillment was measured by using three items developed by Rousseau (1996). The three items were: 1) “Overall, this organization has fulfilled its commitments to me,” 2) “In general, this organization has lived up to its promise to me,” and 3) “This organization has carried out what it said to me.” A nine-point scale, ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” was employed (␣ ⫽ .95). Control Measures. Martin (1993) makes the argument that reactions to procedural and distributive justice are colored by the outcomes one is habitually used to receiving. In addition, Lefkowitz (1994) found that gender differences in job attitudes were eliminated when income and occupational level were controlled for. In our sample, the level that an employee occupies in the hierarchy determines his/her salary level. Thus, by controlling for salary, we control both the important variables that Lefkowitz (1994) suggests lead to spurious gender differences in job attitudes. We thus controlled for salary in our analyses. Salary was obtained from employees’ self-report in the questionnaire. In addition, we controlled for negative affectivity, as recommended by Folger and Konovsky (1989). Negative affectivity reflects an individual’s disposition to respond negatively regardless of the situation. Watson, Pennebaker and Folger (1987) stated that this personality trait measure may operate as a nuisance factor in research and may contaminate the true relationship between predictors and criteria. Negative affectivity was measured using a 10-item scale developed by Watson, Clark and Tellegan (1988). The coefficient alpha was .86. Lastly, job tenure was also used as a control variable because the tenure of employees in an organization may affect their trust in their supervisor as well as their interpretations of the organization’s fulfillment of the employment contract. Construct Validity Although all six variables used in this study are well- established measures in the U.S., we conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) of these predictor and criterion variables (formal procedural justice, interactive procedural justice, distributive justice, contract fulfillment, trust in supervisor, power-distance) using LISREL 8.14a. This was used to test their convergent and discrimiJOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

POWER-DISTANCE, GENDER AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE

693

nant validity because we were applying the constructs to the Chinese culture. In addition to the null model that the 33 items were totally unrelated, we tested our proposed six-factor model against two alternative models—the one-factor model where all items were loaded onto a single factor and the five-factor model where the two procedural justice factors merged into one. The one-factor model is a usual alternative model for testing the convergent and discriminant validity of the items against the proposed factor model. Podsakoff and Organ (1986) argue that the single factor model is a necessary base of comparison when all variables are attitudinal measures and there might be the problem of common method variance. Theoretically, procedural justice can be conceptualized in two aspects: Fairness of the decisions-making procedures (formal procedural justice) and the fairness of the interactive processes by which supervisors make decisions about subordinates (interactive procedural justice). These two aspect of procedural justice (system and interactive procedure justice) are theoretically distinct (see, e.g., Greenberg, 1993; Tyler & Bies, 1990), although they are correlated. As a result of this correlation, the comparison with the five-factor alternative where system and interactive procedural justice load on the same factor is a stringent test of the validity of our six-factor model. Another reason for testing a five-factor model is that there are very few studies of procedural justice using Asian samples and we cannot be sure that individuals in our sample can empirically distinguish between the two aspects of procedural justice. We used ␹2 measures and their associated degrees of freedom and probability levels, root mean square residual (RMR), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI, Tucker & Lewis, 1973), and the comparative fit index (CFI, Bentler, 1990) to assess the goodness-of-fit of various factor models. Results Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the variables used in this study. After listwise deletion of the missing variables, 522 cases were left for the CFAs. Results of the CFAs showed that the six-factor model (␹2 ⫽ 1902.20, df. ⫽ 449) had a reasonably good fit to the observed covariance matrix (CFI ⫽ .92; TLI ⫽ .91; RMR ⫽ .05). The six-factor model showed significant reduction in model ␹2 as compared with the one-factor model (␹2 ⫽ 7208.66, df. ⫽ 464), the five-factor model (␹2 ⫽ 2269.13, df. ⫽ 454), and the null model (␹2 ⫽ 17738.76, df. ⫽ 496). In addition to a significant reduction in model ␹2, the model fit indices of the one-factor model (CFI ⫽ .61; TLI ⫽ .58; RMR ⫽ .13) and five-factor model (CFI ⫽ .90; TLI ⫽ .89; RMR ⫽ .05) were lower than the general acceptance limit of model fit. Based on the significant drop in model chi-squares and the result that the six-factor model had significantly better fit than the two alternative models, we concluded that the 33 items measured six distinct constructs and were valid operationalizations of the underlying constructs. Moderated hierarchical regression analysis was employed to examine the moderating effects of power-distance and gender on the relationships of procedural justice and outcomes. According to Baron and Kenny (1986) and James and JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

694

C. LEE, M. PILLUTLA, AND K.S. LAW

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Variables1,b Inter-correlations Mean

SD

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8) (9) (10)

1. Trust in 4.35 1.27 (.88) supervisor 2. Contract 4.24 1.12 .37** (.95) fulfillment 3. Procedural 4.11 1.29 .68** .39** (.93) justice: formal 4. Procedural 4.38 1.26 .73** .40** .84** (.97) justice: interactive 5. Distributive 4.33 1.14 .48** .53** .49** .55** (.91) justice 6. Power-distance 5.10 .89 .10* .13** .08 .13** .08* (.72) 7. Gender 1.49 .50 .01 ⫺.01 .01 .03 .01 ⫺.07 — 8. Salaryd 20,886 14,249 .12** .02 .05 .12** .17** .17** ⫺.15** — 9. Job tenure 38.07 21.80 ⫺.11** ⫺.07 ⫺.13** ⫺.12** ⫺.01 ⫺.00 .05 .03 — 10. Negative 1.78 .66 ⫺.20** ⫺.19** ⫺.17** ⫺.18** ⫺.17** ⫺.00 .01 .03 .03 ⫺.04 affectivity N ⫽ 637 to 645 **p ⬍ .01 *p ⬍ .05; c Numbers in brackets are coefficient alpha estimates; d Salary is in Hong Kong dollars. a

b

Brett (1984), the test for moderation should include a term for the direct effect of the predictor (distributive and procedural justice), a term for the direct effect of the moderator (power-distance and gender) and the interaction term (i.e., a product of the two terms). The moderator hypothesis is supported if the interaction term is significant. There may also be significant effects for the predictor and the moderator, but these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Table 2 presents results of the hierarchical moderated regression that we used to test Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1 predicted that power-distance orientation moderates the relationship between procedural and distributive justice and evaluations of authority and organizations. Our results showed that power-distance orientation moderated the relationship between the two aspects of procedural justice and trust. For contract fulfillment, power-distance orientation moderated only the relationship with distributive justice. An application of the Cohen and Cohen’s (1975) method for understanding moderating effects suggests that the significant effects were in the direction predicted by the hypothesis. Fig. 1 shows a cross-over interaction effect in all three cases, providing support for the moderating effects of power distance. For low power-distance employees, perceived procedural (both formal and interactional) justice had stronger effects on their trust in supervisor. In contrast, perceived justice did not as strongly influence JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

POWER-DISTANCE, GENDER AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE

695

Table 2. Test for Moderator Effects of Power-Distance on Trust in Supervisor and Contract Fulfillmentab Trust in supervisor ␤

⌬F

⌬R

2

R

3

Contract fulfillment F-value

␤

⌬F

⌬R2

R2 F-value

1. Salary .04 .00 Negative affectivity ⫺.21** ⫺.19** Job tenure ⫺.12** ⫺.09** Gender .13** 12.2** .07** .07** 12.2** .02 6.88** .04** .04** 6.88** 2. Power-distance (PD) .06 .09* Distributive justice (DJ) .43** 74.79** .18** .26** 35.02** .52** 117.95** .27** .31** 45.65** 3. DJ ⴱ PD .22 .87 .00 .26** 30.14** .69** 9.82** .01** .32** 41.10** 2. PD .04 .10* PJ: formal (PJF) .66** 246.45** .41** .49** 96.97** .36** 50.1** .13** .18** 22.14** 3. PJF ⴱ PD .35* 4.09* .01* .49** 84.12** .20 .86 .00 .18** 19.09** 2. PD .00 .06 PJ: interactive (PJI) .71** 312.99** .47** .54** 120.26** .38** 52.36** .14** .19** 22.96** 3. PJI ⴱ PD .40* 5.35* .01* .55** 104.58** .26 1.26 .00 .19** 19.87** N ⫽ 615 to 625; b**p ⬍ .01; *p ⬍ .05.

a

high power-distance individual’s trust in supervisor. Further, perceived distributive justice had greater effects on contract fulfillment for low power-distance orientation employees than their high power-distance colleagues. Hypothesis 2 predicted that gender moderates the relationship between distributive and procedural justice with trust in the supervisor and psychological contract fulfillment. Results of the moderated regression analysis are shown in Table 3. Gender did not moderate the procedural justice-trust nor the distributive justice-trust relationships. Gender moderated the relationship between both contract fulfillment and the formal and the interactional aspects of procedural justice. However, gender did not moderate the relationship between distributive justice and contract fulfillment. To understand the nature of the moderation, we again followed Cohen and Cohen’s (1975) recommendation and plotted the relationships between procedural justice and contract fulfillment for both males and females. The results, as shown in Fig. 2, partially supported our Hypothesis 2. Both aspects of procedural justice were better predictors of contract fulfillment for males than for females. This suggests that males who perceived high procedural justice also reported that the organization had fulfilled its contractual obligations, whereas those perceived low procedural justice reported that the psychological contract was not fulfilled. For the women employees, the effect of procedural justice on contract fulfillment was milder than it was for males. To summarize, procedural justice was not as related to trust in supervisor for people with high power-distance orientation as it was for people with low power-distance orientation. Also, distributive justice was less related to perceptions of contract fulfillment for those with high power-distance orientation than JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

696

C. LEE, M. PILLUTLA, AND K.S. LAW

Figure 1. A Distributive Justice and Contract Fulfillment Relationship by Power Distance JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

POWER-DISTANCE, GENDER AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE

697

Table 3. Test for Moderator Effects of Gender on Trust in Supervisor and Contract Fulfillmentab Trust in supervisor ␤ 1. Power-distance Negative affectivity Job tenure Salary 2. Gender Distributive justice (DJ) 3. DJ ⴱ gender 2. Gender PJ: formal (PJF) 3. PJF ⴱ gender 2. Gender PJ: interactive (PJI) 3. PJI ⴱ gender

.08* ⫺.21** ⫺.12** .11** .02

⌬F

⌬R

2

R

3

13.17** .08** .08**

.43** 72.61** .18** .09 .02 .00 .01 .66** 242.81** .41** .11 .71 .00 ⫺.01 .71** 308.91** .46** ⫺.01 .01 .00

.26** .26** .49** .49** .54** .54**

Contract fulfillment F-value

␤

.12** ⫺.19** ⫺.09* 13.17** .00 ⫺.02

⌬F

⌬R2

R2 F-value

9.45** .06** .06** 9.45**

35.02** .52** 11.28** .25** 30.03** ⫺.24 2.01 .00 ⫺.01 96.97** .36** 44.1** .12** 83.18** ⫺.24 7.1** .01** ⫺.02 120.26** .38** 48.28** .13** 102.91** ⫺.48** 7.41** .01**

.31** 45.65** .31** 39.48** .18** 22.14** .19** 20.18** .19** 22.96** .19** 20.95**

N ⫽ 615 to 625; b**p ⬍ .01; *p ⬍ .05.

a

for those with low power-distance orientation. Both these results were as hypothesized. However, contrary to our predictions, distributive justice was important in predicting trust in supervisor regardless of power-distance orientation. Also, perceptions of procedural justice were related to contract fulfillment for both high and low power-distance groups. The only gender difference that we found in our data were that procedural justice was related to contract fulfillment for males more so than for females. Discussion We briefly note two aspects of the results before discussing the broader framework within which they might best be understood: 1) individual differences in reactions to perceptions of injustice, 2) differences in the moderating effects of gender and power distance depending on the attitude being examined. Individual Differences in Reactions to Injustice Although we examined different criterion variables using a methodology different from those used in past research, our results are consistent with prior studies that examined how power-distance orientation moderates the relationships between distributive and procedural justice and the evaluation of authorities and organizations (e.g., Tyler et al., 1995). Using more traditional measures of evaluation of institutions and their authorities (such as psychological contract fulfillment and trust in supervisor, rather than the ‘legitimacy judgment’ criterion variable used by Tyler et al., 1995), we replicated their empirical results. Also, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

698

C. LEE, M. PILLUTLA, AND K.S. LAW

Figure 2. a. Formal Procedural Justice and Contract Fulfillment Relationship by Gender. b Interactional Justice and Contract Fulfillment Relationship by Gender

despite our focus on the general supervisor-subordinate relationship instead of a given conflict episode like Tyler et al. (1995), our results replicated theirs, thereby pointing to the generalizability of findings about how power distance affects reactions to perceptions of injustice. Our results show that women had lower expectations about procedural justice than their male counterparts. These findings are consistent with Farh et al.’s (1997) results that the relationship between procedural justice and citizenship behaviors were weaker for women than for men, and studies by Major and her colleagues (Major, 1989; Major, McFarlin, & Gannon, 1984) who found that women’s sense of financial entitlement was lower than that of men. However, the JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

POWER-DISTANCE, GENDER AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE

699

lack of gender differences in reaction to distributive injustice is not consistent with Brockner and Adsit (1986) who found that women were less dissatisfied with distributive injustice (defined as inequity) than men. The results are also inconsistent with Sweeney and McFarlin (1997) who reported that women are more sensitive to perceptions of procedural justice than men. In keeping with the long and confusing history of social psychological research on gender differences in reactions to justice, our study too did not yield consistent gender effects. Despite years of research on the effects of gender on reactions to injustice, there is no agreement on the direction of these effects. A potential reason for the inconsistency in empirical findings may be that different studies use different criterion variables. As we point out in the next section, the conclusions that we reach about relationships among the different concepts in justice research depends on the specific criterion variables chosen to operationalize the concepts. Differences on Account of the Attitude Being Explained An important aspect of our results is that the relationships among the key concepts depended on the criterion variable that we used. Individual differences in the importance given to procedural and distributive justice were dependent on the attitude being explained. We found that the positive association between distributive fairness and contract fulfillment was stronger among individuals with low power-distance orientation. However, power distance did not moderate the relationship between distributive fairness and trust in supervisor. Similarly, power-distance orientation moderated the relationship between procedural justice and trust in supervisor, but not the relationship between procedural justice and contract fulfillment. Thus, depending on whether the criterion was ‘trust in supervisor’ or ‘contract fulfillment,’ a different pattern of results emerged. An examination of the two attitudes that we studied here may point to how the characteristics of the criterion measure being examined may be incorporated in theoretical models and empirical investigations of organizational justice. Contract fulfillment refers to beliefs about whether the organization has lived up to its promises, suggesting that the relationship between justice and contract fulfillment would indicate whether individuals consider justice as part of what the employer promised. Thus, a significant correlation between procedural justice and contract fulfillment would suggest that procedural justice was part of the implicit promise made by the employer and was expected by the employee. The lack of significant correlation indicates that procedural justice was not expected, so its presence or absence does not affect perceptions of contract fulfillment. The relationship between justice and trust, on the other hand, tells us how important the justice perceptions are in determining trust in supervisor. Thus, results that show there is a relationship between procedural justice perceptions and contract fulfillment but not between procedural justice and trust in supervisor, also suggest that differences in expectations do not necessarily translate into different degrees of importance given to justice. In our theoretical model, we did not differentiate between expectations about and importance given to justice. Factors that determine whether people expect justice should differ from JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

700

C. LEE, M. PILLUTLA, AND K.S. LAW

factors that determine the importance given to justice perceptions. The interplay between these expectations and importance is interesting from both theoretical and practical points of view. For example, would receiving justice unexpectedly lead to more positive attitudes and behaviors towards the organization than receiving it expectedly? Similarly, would expecting but not receiving justice lead to more negative attitudes and behaviors than not expecting and not receiving it? Does the answers to these questions depend on whether we are discussing procedural or distributive justice and whether justice is expected from supervisors or the organization? These are interesting questions that future research should address. Organizational Justice Research In early writings on procedural justice, it was generally believed that the fairness of procedures mattered to everyone and in every circumstance. Our results concerning the moderating effects of power-distance orientation and gender suggest that it is important to consider individual differences when examining individuals’ reactions to perceptions of injustice. In addition to improving the accuracy of theoretical models, the study of individual differences will help managers anticipate and better manage how specific employees will react to situations where justice concerns arise. Our study indicates that cultural values are important moderating variables that need to be accounted for in empirical studies of procedural justice. Studying differences based on cultural values will become more important in an era of increasing globalization; and heterogeneity in the cultural values of individuals within an organization. Socialization as a basis for individual differences in reactions to justice is implicit in studies that examine these differences (e.g., Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997; Tyler et al., 1995). By explicitly articulating the role of prior socialization in expectations about and importance given to justice, our paper provides a framework for predicting and explaining systematic individual differences. A specific example of how this model helps is in the role of gender in justice research. As Lefkowitz (1994) points out, gender is only a marker variable that carries little or no intrinsic explanatory power in behavioral research. It is not a psychological variable, though it is often used as one (a probable cause for inconsistent empirical findings on gender differences in reactions to justice). By theorizing that differences in socialization are the underlying cause of gender differences, we hope that future researchers may include variables such as sex-role orientation (masculine, feminine and adrogynous) that more closely reflect the differences in socialization. A further implication of our research is the need to pay closer attention to the nature of the attitude being investigated in organizational justice research. Justice researchers have a tendency to lump so-called ‘evaluation of authority’ constructs together theoretically (e.g., Tyler et al., 1996, ‘legitimacy judgments’; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997, ‘organizational outcomes’). Our results suggest that the nature of the attitude being explained should have a place in theoretical models and empirical studies of organizational justice. JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

POWER-DISTANCE, GENDER AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE

701

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research The set of attitudinal measures included in the study was necessarily limited. More importantly, the exclusion of behavioral measures (such as organizational citizenship behaviors, absenteeism, turnover, etc.) prevented us from making strong inferences about the practical significance of our findings. Another limitation is the possibility of common method variance, though it should not be a significant threat in a study that tests moderating effects (i.e., different relationships at different levels of a specified variable). Brockner et al. (1997) note that if common method variance explains significant relationships, there is no reason why there should be a significant relationship at one level of a variable but not at another. For example, if common method variance explains the relationship between procedural justice and trust in the supervisor, why would there be a stronger relationship between the two variables for people with low powerdistance orientations than for those with high power distance orientations? In other words, if common method variance was the explanation, the relationship between the two variables should be the same at different levels of power distance. It is also worth noting that although our logic was built on individual reactions to perceptions of unfairness, we did not directly measure these perceptions. This raises the possibility that we found moderating effects on the relationship between criterion variables and our measures of justice because each group (e.g., low and high power distance) had a different conception of fairness. Although we cannot rule out this alternative explanation, our measures of procedural and distributive justice are those that have been consistently related to perceptions of procedural and distributive unfairness in past research (e.g., Niehoff & Moorman, 1993), thereby suggesting that we can place some confidence in the substantive meaning of our results. Although we believe that the measures of procedural and distributive justice would be related to perceptions of unfairness, future research should measure these perceptions directly. Another limitation with the survey design is our inability to empirically demonstrate the causal relationships that our hypotheses imply. For example, it is possible that an employee’s rating of the interactional justice of a superior’s actions could be an outcome of trust in the supervisor and not vice versa. This is a limitation that should be addressed in future research. Although our theory explains why we would expect power distance to moderate the relationship between interactional justice and trust in supervisor when interactional justice is the cause of trust, we cannot think of any theoretical reason to expect this moderating effect when trust is the cause of interactional justice. Acknowledgments: We thank Virginia Unkerfer for help in editing the manuscript. Parts of this paper were written when Cynthia Lee was a visiting professor and Madan Pillutla was on the faculty at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Funding for this research was provided by a grant from the Research Grants Council, Hong Kong, to the three authors (Kenneth Law, Principal Investigator). JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

702

C. LEE, M. PILLUTLA, AND K.S. LAW

Notes 1. 2.

3.

It is important to note that Tyler et al. (1995) examined how individual differences in the power-distance orientation affected the relationship between justice perceptions and criterion variables. Please note that when we hypothesize a similar process for justice beliefs, we are not making the argument that an individual’s stage of moral development affects his or her response to justice. Instead, we suggest that the same developmental differences that give rise to differences in moral standards may also influence justice beliefs. Our reasoning is very similar to Beutel and Marini (1995), who argue that those differences in socialization that give rise to gender differences in conceptualization of morality also give rise to gender differences in fundamental value orientations. Unlike their counterparts in the United States, faculty in Hong Kong actually do have bosses. The power of the department chair is substantial and the relationship between the chair and individual faculty members may be as formal as traditional boss-subordinate relationships. We thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing this point to our attention.

References Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. 1987. The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1: 177–198. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The mediator-moderator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173–1182. Bentler, P. M. 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 238 –246. Beutel, A. M., & Marini, M. M., 1995. Gender and Values. American Sociological Review, 60: 436 – 448. Bond, M. H., Wan, K. C., Leung, K., & Giacalone, R. 1985. How are responses to verbal insults related to cultural collectivism and power-distance? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16: 111–127. Braithwaiste, V. A., & Law, H. G. 1985. Structure of human values: Testing the adequacy of the Rokeach value survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49: 250 –263. Brislin, R. W. 1980. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1: 185–216. Brockner, J., Siegel, P. A., Daly, J. P., Tyler, T., & Martin C. 1997. When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 558 –583. Brockner, J., & Adsit, L. 1986. The moderating impact of sex on the equity-satisfaction relationship: A field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 585–590. Chang, H.L. (1988). Effects of task type, ability, and reward systems on individual performance in group. Unpublished master thesis, Department of Psychology, National Chengchi Univerity, Taiwan. (In Chinese). Chodorow, N. 1978. The reproduction of mothering. Berkeley: University of California Press. Chodorow, N. 1974. Family structure and feminine personality. In M. Z. Rosaldo & L. Lamphere (Eds.), Women, culture and society: 43– 66. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1974. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. 1975. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cross, S. E., & Madison, L. 1997. Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122: 5–37. Crosby, F. J., Pufall, A., Snyder, R., O’Connell, M., & Whalen, P. 1989. The denial of personal disadvantage among you and me, and all other ostriches. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry (Eds.), Gender and thought: 79 –99. New York: Springer–Verlag. Deutsch, M. 1985. Distributive justice: A social psychological perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. 1997. Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 421– 444. Fine, M., & Wong, L. M. 1996. Perceived (in)justice: Freeing the compliant victim. In B. Bunker and J. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation and justice: Essays inspired by the work of Morton Deutsch: 315–345, San Francisco: Jossey–Bass. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. 1989. Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 115–130. Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice: Psychological theory and the women’s movement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Greenberg, J. 1993. Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54: 81–103. JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

POWER-DISTANCE, GENDER AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE

703

Greenberg, J. 1990. Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16: 399 – 432. Greenberg, J., & McCarty, C. 1990. The interpersonal aspects of procedural justice: A new perspective on pay fairness. Labor Law Journal, 41: 580 –586. Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, L. R., & Hanish, L. 1995. The role of normative beliefs in children’s social behavior. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 15: 140 –158. Hoffman, L. W. 1977. Changes in family roles, socialization, and sex differences. American Psychologist, 42: 644 – 657. Hofstede, G. H. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related attitudes. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. James, K. 1992. The social context of organizational justice: Cultural, intergroup, and structural effects on justice behaviors and perceptions. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: 21–50. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. 1984. Mediators, moderators and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 307–321. Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. 1994. Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 656 – 669. Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. 1995. The role of procedural justice in building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 60 – 84. Lefkowitz, J. 1994. Sex related differences in job attitudes and dispositional variables: Now you see them.. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 323–349. Leung, K., Morris, M. W., & Su, S. K. 1995. When criticism is not constructive: Social interpretation of negative supervisory feedback in two cultures. Unpublished manuscript, Chinese University of Hong Kong. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum. Major, B. 1989. Gender differences in comparisons and entitlement: Implications for comparable worth. Journal of Social Issues, 45: 99 –115. Major, B., McFarlin, D., & Gannon, D. 1984. Overworked and underpaid: On the nature of gender differences in entitlement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47: 399 – 412. Martin, J. 1993. Inequality, distributive justice and organizational illegitimacy. In J. Keith Murnighan (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations: 296 –321. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. McLean Parks, J., & Kidder, D. L. 1994. “Till death us do part. . . ” Changing work relationships in the 1990s. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior, Vol. 1: 111–136. Chichester, N.Y.: J. Wiley. Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. 1993. Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 527–556. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12: 531–544. Roberts, K. H., & O’Reilly, C. A. 1974. Measuring orgnaizational communication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59: 321–326. Robinson, S. L. 1996. Trust and Breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 574 –599. Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. 1995. Organizational citizenship behavior: A psychological contract perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16: 289 –298. Robinson, S. L. & Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15: 245–259. Robinson, S. L., Krantz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Changing obligations and the psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 137–152. Rosener, J. B. 1990. Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68: 119 –125. Rousseau, D. M. 1995. Psychological Contracts in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. 1996. Managing trust while managing change. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology meetings, San Diego, April, 1996. Skoe, E. E., Pratt, M. W., Matthews, M., & Curror, S. E. 1996. The ethic of care: Stability over time, gender differences and correlates in mid-to-late adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 11(2): 280 –292. Steiger, J. H. 1990. Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25: 173–180. Schwartz, S. H. 1994. Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: 85–117. London: Sage. Steiger, J. H. 1990. Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25: 173–180. JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

704

C. LEE, M. PILLUTLA, AND K.S. LAW

Stimpson, D., Neff, W., Jensen. L. C., & Newby, T. 1991. The caring morality and gender differences. Psychological Reports, 69: 407– 414. Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. 1997. Process and outcome: Gender differences in the assessment of justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18: 83–98. Taylor, M. S., Materson, S. S., McClear, K. L., & Goldman, B. M. 1996. Paper presented at the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, April, 1996. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. 1975. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. 1973. The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38: 1–10. Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. 1990. Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In J. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings: 77–98. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P., Smith, H. 1996. Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70: 913–930. Tyler, T. R., Lind, E. A., & Huo, Y. 1995. Culture, ethnicity, and authority: Social categorization and social orientation effects on the psychology of legitimacy. University of California working paper. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. 1992. A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25: 115–192. Tyler, T. R., & McGraw, K. M. 1986. Ideology and the interpretation of personal experience: procedural justice and political quiescence. Journal of Social Issues, 42: 115–128. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegan, A. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 1063–1070. Watson, D., Pennebaker, J. W., & Folger, R. 1987. Beyond negative affectivity: Measuring stress and satisfaction in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8: 141–157. Whiting, B., & Edwards, C. P. 1973. A cross-cultural analysis of sex differences in the behavior of children aged 3 through 11. The Journal of Social Psychology, 91: 171–188. Witt, L. A., & Broach D. 1993. Exchange ideology as a moderator of the procedural justice-satisfaction relationship. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133: 97–103.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000