Social exchange from the supervisor’s perspective: Employee trustworthiness as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp

Social exchange from the supervisor’s perspective: Employee trustworthiness as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice Cindy P. Zapata a,⇑, Jesse E. Olsen b,1, Luis L. Martins c a

Scheller College of Business, Georgia Institute of Technology, 800 West Peachtree St., NW, Atlanta, GA 30308-1149, United States School of International Studies, Kwansei Gakuin University, 1-1-155 Uegahara, Nishinomiya, Hyogo 662-8501, Japan c McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station, B6300, Austin, TX 78712-0210, United States b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 12 July 2011 Accepted 9 November 2012 Available online 11 December 2012 Accepted by Paul Levy Keywords: Organizational justice Fairness Interpersonal justice Informational justice Trustworthiness Benevolence Integrity Social exchange

a b s t r a c t Using social exchange theory, we argue that because supervisors tend to value employee trustworthiness, they will be more likely to adhere to interpersonal and informational justice rules with trustworthy employees. Given social exchange theory’s assumption that benefits are voluntary in nature, we propose that the benevolence and integrity facets of trustworthiness will be more likely to engender social exchange relationships than the ability facet. Specifically, we propose that employees seen as having high benevolence and integrity engender feelings of obligation and trust from their direct supervisors, increasing the likelihood that these supervisors will adhere to interpersonal and informational justice rules, which in turn influences employee perceptions of justice. We find partial support for our mediated model using a field sample. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Introduction Understanding the effects of organizational justice has been a popular topic of research for several decades (for a narrative review, see Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005). Most scholars agree that organizational justice is multifaceted, consisting of procedural justice, which is fostered by adhering to rules like consistency, accuracy, and bias suppression (Leventhal, 1976, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975) and distributive justice, which entails adhering to rules like equity, equality, and need (Adams, 1965; Homans, 1961). In addition, interpersonal justice involves adhering to respect and propriety rules of interpersonal treatment and informational justice captures adherence to truthfulness and justification rules (Bies & Moag, 1986; Greenberg, 1993). Past research has demonstrated that, when an employee perceives that his or her supervisor has adhered to distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice rules, a number of beneficial attitudes and behaviors result (for reviews, see Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Conlon, Meyer, & Nowakowski, 2005). ⇑ Corresponding author. Fax: +1 (404) 894 6030. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.P. Zapata), jeolsen@ kwansei.ac.jp (J.E. Olsen), [email protected] (L.L. Martins). 1 Fax: +81 798 54 6082. 0749-5978/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.001

Despite the numerous beneficial employee attitudes and behaviors associated with justice (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001), there remains an important gap in the justice literature: to date, we know little about why supervisors adhere to justice rules in the first place. We should note that our study focuses on the predominant framework in the organizational justice literature by measuring justice indirectly (i.e., measuring adherence or violation of specific justice rules). As it stands, models of organizational justice tend to focus on justice as an independent variable, making it exogenous in the causal system. Although important, this perspective fails to account for antecedents of justice rule adherence. In fact, the need to consider justice as a dependent, rather than an independent, variable has been noted recently by several justice scholars (Colquitt, 2012; Masterson, Byrne, & Mao, 2005; Patient & Skarlicki, 2005; Scott, Colquitt, & Paddock, 2009). From a theoretical perspective, examining why supervisors adhere to justice rules will provide a more complete picture of justice. From a practical perspective, understanding the reasons why supervisors adhere to justice rules can help organizations find ways to foster increased justice rule adherence on the part of supervisors. To be clear, there are a few studies that examine direct measures of fairness perceptions (as opposed to indirect rulebased measures) as dependent variables. For example, Skarlicki and Latham (1997) examined the effects of providing fairness training to union leaders on employee perceptions of global

2

C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12

fairness (see also Skarlicki & Latham, 1996). We should also note that our review of the literature revealed only two studies treating justice rule adherence as a dependent variable. Using an experimental design, Korsgaard, Roberson, and Rymph (1998) found that when confederates behaved assertively (by speaking in a confident manner, maintaining eye contact, listening attentively, and directly questioning the feedback received), student participants were more likely to grant the confederate process and decision control, as well as provide additional justifications for the feedback provided. However, a second field study failed to demonstrate significant effects of assertiveness training on perceptions of interactional justice. More recently, Scott, Colquitt, and Zapata-Phelan (2007) examined the influence of an employee characteristic, namely charisma, on supervisor justice rule adherence. Using an approach/ avoidance framework, Scott et al. (2007) suggested that charismatic employees could actually increase positive sentiments and decrease negative sentiments felt by a supervisor, thus positively affecting perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice. Unlike Scott et al. (2007), which provides an emotional explanation for why managers might choose to adhere to justice rules, we use social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) to propose a cognitive explanation for managerial justice rule adherence. Thus, the purpose of our study is to apply what has become the dominant lens in the justice effects literature, namely social exchange (Blau, 1964), to a relatively new question: Why do supervisors adhere to justice rules, and what ultimately predicts employee perceptions of justice rule adherence? Social exchange theory is arguably the dominant theoretical lens used in the justice literature. However, our approach is unique in that we examine the supervisor-employee relationship in reverse, focusing on the supervisor’s role in the exchange relationship, rather than the beneficial employee behaviors that result as a consequence of fair treatment. According to the justice literature, justice on the part of a supervisor can be viewed as a benefit to employees—a benefit that may obligate employees to reciprocate with beneficial attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; Tekleab, Takeuchi, & Taylor, 2005). Our study takes a new perspective by examining this theoretical dynamic in reverse, proposing that employees can also provide supervisors with valued benefits that may obligate them to reciprocate with justice rule adherence. Although both employees and supervisors can provide each other with numerous valuable resources, social exchange theory suggests that a particularly important resource is trustworthiness, which is often conceptualized as perceptions of ability, benevolence, and integrity (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). In fact, Blau (1964) suggests that ‘‘since social exchange requires trusting others to reciprocate, the initial problem is to prove oneself trustworthy’’ (p. 98; see also Holmes, 1981). As a way to reciprocate employee trustworthiness, we propose that supervisors may respond with increased interpersonal and informational justice rule adherence. In addition to making a significant contribution to the justice literature, our study also contributes to the trust literature by examining the effects of employee trustworthiness, rather than supervisor trustworthiness. To date, trust scholars have overwhelmingly referenced the importance of trust in one’s supervisor and perceptions of supervisor trustworthiness as antecedents of valuable employee behaviors (for a review, see Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Yet social exchange theory implies that trustworthiness amongst both parties is important for effective social exchange relationships (Blau, 1964). Moreover, as organizations become flatter and supervisors increasingly rely on their employees, having trustworthy employees becomes more critical to workplace success. Our model suggests that employees seen as trustworthy by their supervisors are more likely to engender social exchange relationships with the supervisors, leading to

increased interpersonal and informational justice rule adherence (see Fig. 1). A secondary purpose of our study was to examine the relationship between supervisor justice rule adherence and employee perceptions of justice. Unlike the philosophical view of justice, which attempts to prescribe what should constitute as just behavior, organizational justice is conceptualized as somewhat of a subjective phenomenon (Cohen & Greenberg, 1982; Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997). Thus, the widely accepted operationalization of justice is in the eye of the recipient. However, qualitative studies have demonstrated that certain rules, the rules we now use to describe organizational justice, are in fact linked to perceptions of fair treatment (e.g., Bies & Moag, 1986; Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978). Perhaps because of these studies, the justice literature often tends to assume that employee perceptions of supervisory justice are consistent with managerial justice rule adherence. However, we know of no empirical study that has actually examined both the supervisor’s justice rule adherence behavior (self-reported or otherwise) and his or her employee’s perceptions of justice. Theoretically, capturing supervisors’ justice rule adherence demonstrates the exchange of valued benefits critical to social exchange theory. Put differently, social exchange entails not just the obligation or need to reciprocate, but actual reciprocation. Thus, our model attempts to capture the multiple theoretical mechanisms involved in social exchange relationships. From a practical perspective, establishing the link between supervisor justice rule adherence and employee perceptions of justice increases our ability to theoretically propose antecedents to justice, thus better informing the development of justice interventions. In other words, in addition to explaining why employees have strong justice perceptions, one might also ask, why do supervisors adhere to justice rules in the first place? Thus, our model includes supervisors’ self-reported justice rule adherence as an antecedent of employee perceptions of justice. The following sections provide conceptual support for our model. Social exchange and employee trustworthiness Beginning in the 1950’s, trust scholars began to document the importance of characteristics of a trustee that foster a willingness to be vulnerable on the part of the trustor, now commonly referred to as trustworthiness (Mayer et al., 1995). Despite what appeared to be some disagreement regarding the structure of trustworthiness, Mayer et al. (1995) identified three characteristics that appeared repeatedly throughout the literature: ability, benevolence, and integrity. With respect to trustworthiness, ability captures the trustor’s perception of the trustee’s capabilities and skills required for success in a particular domain (Mayer et al., 1995). Competence and expertise are oft-used synonyms of ability (Gabarro, 1978; Mayer et al., 1995). Benevolence, sometimes termed loyalty, caring, supportiveness, and openness, is typically defined as the perceived extent to which the trustee wants to do well by the trustor, excluding self-interested motives (Mayer et al., 1995). Integrity refers to the extent to which the trustor believes the trustee adheres to moral and ethically sensible principles (Mayer et al., 1995). We should note that the trust literature tends to conceptualize trustworthiness as a perception (e.g., Levin, Whitener, & Cross, 2006; Mayer & Davis, 1999; Mayer & Gavin, 2005; Simons, 2002). For example, Mayer et al. (1995, p. 720) noted that ‘‘in the evaluation of trustworthiness it is the perceived level of integrity that is important rather than the reasons why the perception is formed.’’ Therefore we also operationalize trustworthiness as perceptions of ability, benevolence, and integrity. Many empirical studies have demonstrated the importance of trustworthiness. For example, a recent meta-analysis demonstrated that employees who view their supervisors as trustworthy

C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12

3

Fig. 1. Research model: the effect of supervisor perceptions of employee trustworthiness on employee justice perceptions, as mediated by social exchange mechanisms and supervisor justice rule adherence.

perform better, engage in more frequent citizenship behaviors, and refrain from counterproductive behaviors more often than employees who view their supervisors as less trustworthy (Colquitt et al., 2007). In their review, Colquitt et al. (2007) speculated that demonstrations of ability, benevolence, and integrity could be viewed as supervisory benefits that invite employee reciprocation in the form of beneficial job behaviors. Casting this relationship in reverse, one could also reason that supervisors are more likely to develop social exchange relationships with employees who are perceived to be more trustworthy, particularly with regard to the facets of benevolence and integrity. Although there are varying perspectives on exchange relationships, scholars agree that one of the core assumptions of social exchange theory is that benefits given are contingent upon the expectation of some future unspecified benefit (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1976). Consequently, ‘‘an individual who supplies rewarding services to another obligates him. To discharge this obligation, the second must furnish benefits to the first in turn’’ (Blau, 1964, p. 89). More importantly, social exchange theory distinguishes between the initial provision of a benefit or service (i.e., ‘‘rewarding services’’), which if valued, prompts the recipient of the benefit to experience attitudes supportive of reciprocation (i.e., ‘‘felt obligation’’). Additionally, ‘‘since there is no way to assure an appropriate return for a favor, social exchange requires trusting others to discharge their obligations’’ (Blau, 1964, p. 94; i.e., willingness to be vulnerable). Thus, feelings of obligation and trust are important drivers of the reciprocation of benefits in the social exchange process. Because trust entails a ‘‘willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party’’ (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712), a lack of trust equals increased risk in social exchange relationships. Blau (1964, p. 94) stated that ‘‘only social exchange tends to engender feelings of personal obligation, gratitude, and trust; purely economic exchange as such does not.’’ In keeping with Holmes’s (1981) argument that perceptions of another’s trustworthiness provide the basis for social exchange relationships, we argue that one factor likely to prompt the feelings of obligation and trust that are critical to social exchange is employee trustworthiness. As facets of trustworthiness that inform social exchange, benevolence (i.e., ‘‘the extent to which a trustee is believed to want to do good to the trustor, aside from an egocentric profit motive’’ Mayer et al., 1995, p. 718) and integrity (i.e., ‘‘trustor’s perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable’’ Mayer et al., 1995, p. 719) differ from ability in an important

respect: ability, defined as a ‘‘group of skills, competencies, and characteristics that enable a party to have influence within some specific domain’’ is arguably seen as less discretionary (i.e., within one’s personal control) in nature than either benevolence or integrity (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 717). In fact, many scholars have noted that ‘‘most people assume that ability is not under the direct volitional control of the individual’’ (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001, p. 76; see also Weiner, Frieze, Kukia, Reed, Rest, & Rosenbaum, 1971). In contrast, demonstrating loyalty to a supervisor (e.g., benevolence) and adhering to moral principles (e.g., integrity) are likely viewed by others as more discretionary than ability. We expect that the more seemingly discretionary aspects of trustworthiness—benevolence and integrity—should be more relevant to social exchange relationships than ability, which the literature suggests is less discretionary. This is because social exchange theory relies on the assumption that exchanges are discretionary, and therefore when a supervisor experiences more discretionary aspects of trustworthiness from a subordinate, it should engender greater felt obligation than when the supervisor experiences the less discretionary aspect of subordinate trustworthiness. Indeed, while an employee’s ability might indicate whether or not that individual has the requisite competencies needed, benevolence and integrity are sometimes jointly referred to as character (Gabarro, 1978). As such, benevolence and integrity are also important to social exchange relationships because having employees with strong character should be a valuable asset for supervisors. For example, employees that demonstrate high levels of integrity should be viewed as more reliable than their low integrity counterparts (Simons, 2002). Thus, uncertainty should decrease when integrity is high. Benevolent employees, which are those that demonstrate a positive orientation toward their supervisor (e.g., displaying loyalty, care, and support) aside from a profit motive, should elicit a positive emotional response from the supervisor (Colquitt et al., 2007). In sum, supervisors benefit when employees are seen as demonstrating benevolence and integrity. If employee benevolence and integrity are in fact valuable to supervisors, social exchange theory would suggest that supervisors should develop feelings of obligation toward employees viewed as trustworthy on these facets. Perceptions of trust should also follow, as benevolence and integrity are conceptualized as two central antecedents of trust perceptions (Mayer et al., 1995). Therefore, we argue that supervisors experience an increase in perceptions of both trust and obligation toward employees viewed as having benevolence and integrity. Ability is also an important facet of trustworthiness, but because it is seen as less discretionary in nat-

4

C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12

ure, the effects of employee benevolence and integrity should be significantly stronger than those of ability with respect to social exchange relationships. Therefore, we hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 1a. Perceived employee benevolence and integrity are positively related to supervisor felt obligation. Hypothesis 1b. Perceived employee benevolence and integrity are positively related to supervisor trust. Hypothesis 2a. The effects of perceived employee benevolence and integrity on supervisor felt obligation are significantly more positive than the effects of perceived employee ability on supervisor felt obligation. Hypothesis 2b. The effects of perceived employee benevolence and integrity on supervisor trust are significantly more positive than the effects of perceived employee ability on supervisor trust. According to social exchange theory, to ensure the continuation of exchanges, one must discharge obligations by reciprocating in kind (Blau, 1964). In fact, failing to reciprocate sufficiently places future benefits at risk (Blau, 1964). Similarly, trust scholars have also described a cycle of reciprocity whereby trust begets trust (e.g., Butler, 1995). Thus, it is to be expected that the felt obligation and trust resulting in part from employee trustworthiness will be followed by actual reciprocation behaviors. We propose that one way supervisors can reciprocate is by adhering to interpersonal and informational justice rules. Because the social exchange dynamic focuses on what Blau (1964) termed ‘‘voluntary actions’’ (p. 91), we operationalized justice using interpersonal and informational justice. There are several reasons why managers have more discretion in adhering to interpersonal and informational justice rules than with procedural and distributive justice rules (for a review, see Scott et al., 2009). First, the four justice rules differ in the degree to which characteristics of the organization constrain managerial discretion (Scott et al., 2009). For example, formalized systems typically limit the amount of discretion supervisors have over procedures used to determine rewards (i.e., distributive and procedural justice rules). Such constraints are less relevant to informational justice rules, and not at all relevant to interpersonal justice rules (Scott et al., 2009). In addition, some rules are enacted more frequently than others, with increased frequency providing supervisors with more discretion over them (Scott et al., 2009). For example, exchangebased rules, such as distributive and procedural justice, require an exchange context such as a resource allocation decision (Bies, 2005). In contrast, more encounter-based rules, such as interpersonal and informational justice, can occur in daily interactions between supervisors and employees (Bies, 2005). Thus, scholars tend to agree that, ‘‘interpersonal and informational justice have a ‘dayin day-out’ significance that the other justice dimensions may not possess’’ (Scott et al., 2007, p. 1597). According to the multiple needs model (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001), justice is an important concern for individuals because it helps to fulfill fundamental human needs such as the need for belonging, described as a desire to form and maintain lasting, positive interpersonal relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) and the need for positive self-regard, described as a desire to create and maintain a positive view of oneself (Cropanzano et al., 2001). Similarly, the group value/relational models (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Lind, 1992) suggest that justice is important to employees partly because it conveys important information about their standing or status with their supervisors. Information that indicates high status within a group, such as the fact that one’s supervisor adheres to interpersonal and informational justice rules positively validates one’s identity or sense of self-worth, as well as one’s sense of belonging (Festinger, 1954; Tyler & Lind, 1992). For

instance, when a supervisor is open and honest in communications with an employee, and treats an employee with respect and propriety, the underlying signal is that the employee is valued by the supervisor. Taken together, this line of thinking suggests that actions indicating adherence to interpersonal and informational justice rules are particularly important reciprocation behaviors that a supervisor can supply as a means of discharging obligations and reciprocating the trust engendered by employee benevolence and integrity. Therefore, we hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 3. Felt obligation is positively related to supervisor interpersonal and informational justice rule adherence. Hypothesis 4. Trust is positively related to supervisor interpersonal and informational justice rule adherence. Although the importance of justice rule adherence should not be understated, ultimately it is the recipient’s perceptions of justice rule adherence that acts as a key driver of employee attitudes and behaviors. In fact, the vast majority of field studies in the justice literature utilize employee perceptions of supervisors adherence to the various justice rules as the independent variable, predicting a number of attitudinal and behavioral variables (for a review, see Conlon et al., 2005). However, we are aware of no studies that have examined one of the most obvious antecedents of employee justice perceptions, namely a supervisor’s actual adherence to, or violation of, justice rules. Put differently, employee justice perceptions presumably result from supervisors’ adherence to, or violation of, justice rules. In fact, there is some indirect evidence suggesting a link between justice rule adherence and perceptions of justice. For example, the rules we now ascribe to interpersonal and informational justice were identified using open-ended questions concerning corporate recruiting practices (Bies & Moag, 1986). In that study, MBAs identified truthfulness, respect, propriety of questions, and justification as ‘‘fairness criteria that they expected recruiters to follow’’ (Bies & Moag, 1986, p. 47, emphasis in original). Therefore, we hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 5. Supervisor interpersonal justice rule adherence is positively related to employee perceptions of interpersonal justice. Hypothesis 6. Supervisor informational justice rule adherence is positively related to employee perceptions of informational justice. Summary The central thesis of our manuscript is that employee trustworthiness (benevolence and integrity) positively affects interpersonal and informational justice, through the social exchange mechanisms of felt obligation and trust. According to social exchange theorists, one can exchange a wide variety of resources, both concrete and symbolic (e.g., Blau, 1964; Foa & Foa, 1980). We argue that trustworthiness is one such resource. For example, integrity, which involves the demonstration of high word-deed alignment, as well as upholding high moral standards (Mayer et al., 1995), and benevolence, which is characterized by demonstrations of caring and concern for the supervisor (Mayer et al., 1995), constitute valuable resources for supervisors. If trustworthiness is a valuable resource for supervisors, then according to social exchange theory, supervisors would want to provide these employees with resources in an effort to sustain the relationship. Research supports this line of thinking by demonstrating that, in general, individuals that are seen as trustworthy are more likely to receive beneficial resources than individuals who are not seen as trustworthy (Dirks & Skarlicki, 2009). For example, when employees are perceived as demonstrating care

C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12

and concern (i.e., benevolence), and seen as being reliable and dependable (i.e., integrity), they tend to receive more assistance in the form of citizenship behavior (McAllister, 1995). Previous research has also shown that coworkers are more willing to share resources with trustworthy employees (Dirks & Skarlicki, 2009). One valuable resource that supervisors can provide trustworthy employees is justice rule adherence. By providing increased respectful treatment (i.e., interpersonal justice) and increased truthfulness in explanations (i.e., informational justice), supervisors can discharge the obligations produced by the provision of benevolence and integrity, and thus ensure the continuation of future resource exchanges. In sum, benevolence and integrity should affect employee perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice through a supervisor’s feelings of obligation and trust toward the trustworthy employee, as well as the supervisor’s actual justice rule adherence. Therefore, we hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 7. The relationship between perceived employee benevolence and employee perceptions of interpersonal justice is mediated by felt obligation, trust, and ultimately supervisor interpersonal justice rule adherence. Hypothesis 8. The relationship between perceived employee benevolence and employee perceptions of informational justice is mediated by felt obligation, trust, and ultimately supervisor informational justice rule adherence. Hypothesis 9. The relationship between perceived employee integrity and employee perceptions of interpersonal justice is mediated by felt obligation, trust, and ultimately supervisor interpersonal justice rule adherence. Hypothesis 10. The relationship between perceived employee integrity and employee perceptions of informational justice is mediated by felt obligation, trust, and ultimately supervisor informational justice rule adherence. Method Sample A total of 187 supervisor-employee dyads participated in the study. All participants were full-time employees from a variety of industries, including financial services, information technology, engineering, healthcare, banking, telecommunications, and pharmaceuticals. The participants (employees and supervisors) were on average 38 (SD = 13.06) and 45 (SD = 11.33) years old, and had been with their organizations for an average of 5.9 (SD = 6.99) and 3.5 (SD = 3.64) years, respectively. The sample was 79% Caucasian, with other ethnicities as follows: Hispanic (5%), Asian/Pacific Islander (9%), and African American (3%). Some participants chose ‘‘other’’ as their ethnicity (4%). The gender breakdown was as follows: females (45%) and males (55%).

5

into a drawing for one of five $100 Visa gift cards. Out of 149 students, a total of 117 (79%) agreed to participate. To maintain full control of the data collection process, students were asked to provide us with business, not personal, email addresses for the potential participants. In an effort to ensure full credit, nineteen students opted to provide us with more than two potential participants (one student provided four email addresses, two students provided five addresses, and the remaining students provided three addresses). We directly contacted 258 employees. In order to address any potential concern regarding the anonymity of participants’ responses, participants were made aware of the fact that the website hosted the survey via a Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocol, which provides a high level of security for the transmission of survey data. Participants were also informed that all identifying information would be removed from the dataset. To increase our response rate, we sent out reminder emails one and two weeks after initial contact. In total, 239 employees (93%) responded while 202 supervisors (85%) responded. Our relatively high response rate is a result of students asking participants to participate before releasing a potential participant’s email addresses. Once all data were collected, we visually inspected the data for a combination of red flags, such as personal email addresses, identical IP addresses within each employee-supervisor pair, multiple instances of careless reverse coding, and the length of time spent on the survey. Listwise deletion resulted in a total of 187 employee-supervisor pairs. Measures To minimize potential order effects, we randomized the order of the scales. Each participant was then randomly assigned to a slightly different version of the survey. Any scales that were adapted for this study are presented in the Appendix. Supervisor perceptions of employee trustworthiness The three facets of trustworthiness were measured with items from Mayer and Davis’s (1999) trustworthiness measure, adapted to reference the supervisor’s employee. Supervisors were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each statement, with response scales ranging from 1 (‘‘Strongly Disagree’’) to 5 (‘‘Strongly Agree’’). The perceived ability scale consisted of six items, including: ‘‘My subordinate is very capable of performing his/her job’’ and ‘‘My subordinate is well qualified.’’ This scale demonstrated a coefficient alpha of .91. Sample items from the perceived benevolence scale included: ‘‘My subordinate really looks out for what is important to me’’ and ‘‘My needs and desires are very important to my subordinate.’’ This scale demonstrated a coefficient alpha of .90. The perceived integrity scale consisted of six items including: ‘‘I never have to wonder whether my subordinate will stick to his/her word’’ and ‘‘Sound principles seem to guide my subordinate’s behaviors.’’ This scale resulted in a coefficient alpha of .77.

Procedure To recruit a wide variety of occupations, we relied on the oftenused snowball sampling technique (Eddleston, Veiga, & Powell, 2006; Martins, Eddleston, & Veiga, 2002; Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). We asked undergraduate students enrolled in organizational behavior classes at a large southeastern university in the United States to each recruit two potential research participants as one potential option to fulfill a course requirement. In order to meet the eligibility requirements, participants had to be willing to fill out a brief online survey, as well as have an immediate supervisor that was also willing to fill out an online survey. In exchange for their participation, all employees and supervisors were entered

Felt obligation We measured felt obligation with three items from the Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkle, Lynch, and Rhoades (2001) scale, adapted to reference the supervisor’s felt obligation toward his or her employee. Supervisors were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each statement, with response scales ranging from 1 (‘‘Strongly Disagree’’) to 5 (‘‘Strongly Agree’’). The items included: ‘‘I feel a personal obligation to do whatever I can to help my subordinate achieve his/her goals,’’ ‘‘I owe it to my subordinate to do what I can to ensure that s/he is well-served and satisfied,’’ and ‘‘I would feel an obligation to take time from my personal schedule to help my subordinate if s/he needed my help.’’ The coefficient alpha for this scale was .72.

6

C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12

Trust To measure trust, we used five items from a scale reported by Schoorman, Mayer, and Davis (2007). Supervisors were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each statement, with response scales ranging from 1 (‘‘Strongly Disagree’’) to 5 (‘‘Strongly Agree’’). The items included: ‘‘I would be willing to let my subordinate have complete control over a task that was important to me,’’ ‘‘If my subordinate asked why a problem occurred, I could speak freely even if I were partly to blame,’’ and ‘‘It is important for me to have a good way to keep an eye on my subordinate (R).’’ The coefficient alpha for this scale was .67. Employee perceptions of justice We measured the employee’s perception of interpersonal and informational justice using Colquitt’s (2001) scale. For interpersonal justice, employees were asked to reflect on the interpersonal treatment received from their supervisors. Sample items from the four-item scales include: ‘‘Has he/she treated you in a polite manner?’’ and ‘‘Has he/she refrained from improper remarks or comments?’’ For informational justice, employees were asked to reflect on the explanations and communications received from their supervisors during decision-making procedures. Sample items from the five-item scales include: ‘‘Has he/she been candid when communicating with you?’’ and ‘‘Were his/her explanations regarding procedures reasonable?’’ The coefficient alphas for these scales were .89 and .87, respectively. Supervisor self-reported justice rule adherence We measured supervisor interpersonal and informational justice rule adherence using an adaptation of Colquitt’s (2001) scale. Supervisors were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each statement, with response scales ranging from 1 (‘‘To a Very Small Extent’’) to 5 (‘‘To a Very Large Extent’’). For interpersonal justice rule adherence, supervisors were asked to reflect on the interpersonal treatment of his or her employee. The four-item scale included the following: ‘‘Do you treat this subordinate in a polite manner?’’ ‘‘Do you treat this subordinate with dignity?’’ ‘‘Do you treat this subordinate with respect?’’ and ‘‘Have you refrained from improper remarks or comments toward this subordinate?’’ Unexpectedly, the scale demonstrated an unacceptable alpha of .66 due to the impropriety item. In hindsight, supervisors might view the term ‘‘improper remarks’’ as vague, and perhaps as less relevant to justice. Thus, dropping this item results in a scale that better captures the justice phenomenon of interest in this manuscript, and has the added benefit of reducing random error (coefficient alpha = .92). For informational justice rule adherence, supervisors were asked to reflect on the explanations and communications given to the employee during decision-making procedures. Sample items from the five-item scale are: ‘‘Are you candid when communicating with this subordinate?’’ and ‘‘Are your explanations to this subordinate regarding procedures reasonable?’’ The coefficient alpha for this scale was .74. Control variables To control for individuals’ response tendencies on the dependent variables (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), we controlled for employee neuroticism, because a general disposition toward negative moods may bias perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice (Barsky & Kaplan, 2007). We used three items from Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, and Lucas’ (2006) scale to measure this trait. Employees were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each statement, with response scales ranging from 1 (‘‘Strongly Disagree’’) to 5 (‘‘Strongly Agree’’). Sample items include: ‘‘I have frequent mood swings,’’ and ‘‘I get upset easily.’’ The coefficient alpha for this scale was .73.

Results Descriptive statistics Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among the variables in the study, with the coefficient alphas for each scale shown on the diagonal.

Analysis To provide support for the construct validity of our measures, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis. All 45 factor loadings were statistically significant. Fit statistics indicated acceptable fit for the hypothesized ten-factor model and were as follows: v2 (900, N = 187) = 1,363.91; CFI = .90; IFI = .90; SRMR = .06. As expected, the ten-factor measurement model fit the data significantly better than alternative measurement models as judged by a chisquare difference test, including a model that combined employee perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice rule adherence into one interactional justice rule adherence factor (v2 diff [9, N = 187] = 353.92, p < .05; CFI = .82; IFI = .83; SRMR = .08), a model that combined supervisor perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice rule adherence into one interactional justice rule adherence factor (v2 diff[9, N = 187] = 192.15, p < .05; CFI = .86; IFI = .86; SRMR = .08), a model that combined benevolence and integrity into one character factor (v2 diff[9, N = 187] = 151.89, p < .05; CFI = .87; IFI = .87; SRMR = .07), and a model that combined supervisor perceptions of employee ability, benevolence, and integrity into one perceived trustworthiness factor (v2 diff[17, N = 187] = 610.72, p < .05; CFI = .77; IFI = .77; SRMR = .08). We therefore proceeded using the hypothesized tenfactor model. We should note that in order to adequately reduce the possibility of nonconvergence or improper solutions in a LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996) analysis, Kline (2005) recommends obtaining at least ten (and certainly no fewer than five) observations per free parameter to be estimated. We report the results of a traditional confirmatory factor analysis in order to confirm the relationships between the manifest and latent variables. Although we use previously validated measures, these results should be interpreted with caution given our sample size and number of parameters. In testing our hypotheses, however, we opted to use a ‘‘partially latent’’ approach, in which scale scores were used as single indicators of the latent variables with error variances set to (1-alpha)  variance (Kline, 2005, p. 229) In light of Kline’s (2005) above mentioned recommendations, a ‘‘fully latent’’ approach in cases such as ours would reduce the likelihood of achieving acceptable fit, even if the hypothesized model were an accurate representation of reality (Williams, Vandenberg, & Edwards, 2009). This use of single indicators reduces the number of paths to be freely estimated in our final path model and alleviates concerns about such potentially improper solutions. All exogenous variables were allowed to covary in our tests. We also allowed the disturbance terms for employee interpersonal and informational justice rule adherence to covary, and for supervisor interpersonal and informational justice rule adherence to covary, in order to represent higher-order ‘‘interactional justice’’ factors. Covarying disturbance terms are used to recognize that the endogenous variables likely share other common causes that are not included in the present model (Kline, 2005; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Scholars also point out, however, that prior research should be used to determine whether such covariances are justified (Kline, 2005). Interpersonal and informational justice were first conceptualized as a single interactional justice facet (Bies & Moag, 1986). Scholars have recently argued on both conceptual and empirical

7

C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12 Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations. Variable

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1. Perceived employee ability 2. Perceived employee benevolence 3. Perceived employee integrity 4. Felt obligation 5. Trust 6. Supervisor interpersonal justice 7. Supervisor informational justice 8. Employee interpersonal justice 9. Employee informational justice 10. Employee neuroticism

4.53 4.14 4.35 4.45 4.04 4.62 4.14 4.50 4.03 2.24

.53 .64 .51 .56 .51 .49 .44 .63 .71 .71

(.91) .44* .49* .28* .40* .33* .30* .15* .16* .05

(.90) .61* .35* .56* .32* .30* .13  .16* .10

(.77) .29* .54* .36* .39* .26* .23* .08

(.72) .38* .35* .26* .14  .08 .09

(.67) .26* .29* .21* .19* .01

(92) .34* .26* .12 .05

(.74) .25* .46* .01

8

(.89) .48* .11

9

10

(.87) .01

(.73)

Notes: N = 187. Coefficient alphas appear in parentheses on the diagonal. * p < .05, two-tailed.   p < .10, two-tailed.

grounds that this construct be separated into two correlated facets (e.g., Bies, 2005; Colquitt et al., 2001), an assertion supported further by tests of our data, discussed below. Similarly, we allowed the disturbance terms for the mediators of felt obligation and trust to covary, in accordance with Preacher and Hayes’s (2008) recommendation for such multiple mediator models. We controlled for employee neuroticism by including paths to employee perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice. To test our mediation predictions, we also included direct effects from supervisor perceptions of employee trustworthiness (i.e., ability, benevolence, and integrity) to employee perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). Fit statistics indicated good model fit: v2 (16, N = 187) = 53.97, p < .05; CFI = .96; IFI = .96; SRMR = .08.1 Fig. 2 illustrates all paths included in this model, noting estimates resulting from our tests. Hypothesis 1a predicted that perceived employee benevolence and integrity were positively related to supervisor felt obligation. As expected, our results demonstrated significant effects of perceived benevolence on felt obligation (b = .26) while perceived integrity did not have a significant effect on felt obligation (b = .11, ns). Thus, Hypothesis 1a was partially supported. Hypothesis 1b predicted that perceived employee benevolence and integrity were positively related to supervisor trust. As expected, benevolence and integrity demonstrated significant effects on trust (b = .35 and b = .30, respectively). Thus, Hypothesis 1b was supported. Hypothesis 2a predicted that the effects of perceived employee benevolence and integrity on supervisor felt obligation would be significantly more positive than the effects of perceived employee ability while Hypothesis 2b made the same prediction for supervisor trust. As expected, employee ability was not significantly related to either felt obligation or trust (b = .13 and b = .11, respectively) providing indirect support for Hypotheses 2a and b. To more directly compare perceived employee ability, benevolence, and integrity, we used dominance analysis (Azen & Budescu, 2003; Budescu, 1993), a method that is particularly useful when evaluating the relative importance of correlated predictors (LeBreton, Ployhart, & Ladd, 2004). Specifically, we computed the general dominance statistic (the average increase in R2 for each predictor

1 We also conducted the analysis including a path from supervisor informational justice rule adherence to employee perceptions of interpersonal justice and a path from supervisor interpersonal justice rule adherence to employee perceptions of informational justice (v2 [14, N = 187] = 49.12; CFI = .96; IFI = .96; SRMR = .07), but it did not alter our findings. The path for supervisor informational justice rule adherence to employee perceptions of interpersonal justice was significant (b = .15, p < .05), but the path between supervisor interpersonal justice rule adherence and employee perceptions of informational justice was not (b = .10, ns).

across all possible subset regression models) using Dominance Analysis 4.4 (James LeBreton). To provide an index of average importance for each predictor, we rescaled the general dominance statistic by dividing it by the total variance explained in the outcome (note that the columns representing rescaled dominance sum to 100). As Table 2 indicates, perceived ability accounts for 26.32% of the predictable criterion variance of felt obligation, compared to the 48.05% accounted for by perceived benevolence and 25.63% accounted for by perceived integrity. Thus, Hypothesis 2a was partially supported. With trust as a dependent variable, we found that perceived ability accounts for 17.58% of the predictable criterion variance of trust, compared to the 44.66% accounted for by perceived benevolence and the 37.76% accounted for by perceived integrity. Hypothesis 2b was therefore supported. Hypothesis 3 predicts a positive relationship between supervisor felt obligation and supervisor-reported interpersonal and informational justice rule adherence. As Table 3 demonstrates, felt obligation was significantly related to supervisor reported interpersonal and informational justice (b = .36 and b = .16, respectively), providing support for Hypothesis 3. Similarly, Hypothesis 4 predicts a positive relationship between supervisor-reported trust and supervisor-reported interpersonal and informational justice rule adherence. This hypothesis was also supported, as both paths were significant (b = .21 and b = .26, respectively). Hypothesis 5 predicts that supervisor-reported interpersonal justice is positively related to employee perceptions of informational justice, while Hypothesis 6 predicts that supervisor-reported informational justice is positively related to employee perceptions of informational justice. As indicated in Table 3, supervisor-reported interpersonal justice was significantly related to employee perceptions of interpersonal justice (b = .32), thus providing support for Hypothesis 5. Supervisor-reported informational justice was significantly related to employee perceptions of informational justice (b = .49), thus providing support for Hypothesis 6. We tested our four mediation hypotheses using the product of coefficients approach discussed by MacKinnon et al. (2002). The product of coefficients approach requires modeling both direct and indirect effects, with mediation resulting in a statistically significant indirect effect. Therefore, we report the direct, indirect, and total effects for our model in Table 4. Hypothesis 7 predicts that felt obligation, trust, and ultimately supervisor interpersonal justice mediate the relationship between supervisor perceptions of employee benevolence and employee perceptions of interpersonal justice. Hypothesis 8 makes the same prediction in terms of informational justice. As seen in Table 4, LISREL’s effect decomposition demonstrates that the indirect effects of supervisor perceptions of employee benevolence on employee perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice were statistically significant (.05 and .06, respectively), supporting Hypotheses 7 and 8.

8

C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12

Fig. 2. The hypothesized model and results. v2 (16, N = 187) = 53.97; CFI = .96; IFI = .96; SRMR = .08. Values shown are unstandardized regression coefficients. p < .05, onetailed. Hypothesized paths are illustrated with thick lines. Significant paths are illustrated with solid lines, while non-significant paths are illustrated with dotted lines.

Table 2 Dominance analysis results. Predictable criterion variance explained Predictors

Felt obligation (%)

Trust (%)

Perceived employee ability Perceived employee benevolence Perceived employee integrity

26.32 48.05 25.63

17.58 44.66 37.76

Notes: Predictable criterion variance explained was computed by dividing the general dominance statistic for each predictor (or the average increase in R2 for each predictor across all possible subset regression models) by the total variance in the outcome explained by all predictors.

of interpersonal justice. Hypothesis 10 makes the same prediction for informational justice. As seen in Table 4, LISREL’s effect decomposition demonstrates that the indirect effects of perceived integrity on interpersonal and informational justice were statistically significant (.03 and .05, respectively). However, as we did not previously find a significant effect of perceptions of employee integrity on felt obligation in our test of Hypothesis 1, this indirect effect is likely transferred primarily through the trust mediator. Therefore, we interpret the results of this test in conjunction with the results of our tests of Hypothesis 1 as partial support for Hypotheses 9 and 10.

Discussion Hypothesis 9 predicts that felt obligation, trust, and ultimately supervisor-reported interpersonal justice mediate the relationship between perceived employee integrity and employee perceptions

In addition to proposing employee trustworthiness, conceptualized as perceived benevolence and integrity (Mayer et al., 1995),

Table 3 Structural equation modeling results. Variables

Perceived employee ability Perceived employee benevolence Perceived employee integrity Felt obligation Trust Neuroticism Supervisor interpersonal Supervisor informational R2

Felt obligation

.13 .26* .11 – – – – – .17*

Trust

.11 .35* .30* – – – – – .43*

Supervisor self-reported justice rule adherence

Employee perceptions of justice

Interpersonal

Informational

Interpersonal

– – – .36* .21* – – – .24*

– – – .16* .26* – – – .13*

Informational

.08 .11 .26* – –

.11 .06 .09 – –

*

.22 .32* – .19*

.01 – .49* .24*

Notes: The model included all indirect paths described and direct paths from perceived trustworthiness (ability, benevolence, and integrity) to employee perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice. v2 (16, N = 187) = 53.97; CFI = .96; IFI = .96; SRMR = .08. The path coefficients shown are unstandardized path coefficients. * p < .05, one-tailed.

C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12 Table 4 Effect Decomposition for Justice Perceptions. Effect decomposition

Total effect

Indirect effect

Direct effect

On employee perceptions of interpersonal justice Supervisor perceptions of employee trustworthiness Ability .06 .02 Benevolence .06 .05* * .03* Integrity .29 Employee neuroticism .22* –

.08 .11 .26* .22*

On employee perceptions of informational justice Supervisor perceptions of employee trustworthiness Ability .09 .02 Benevolence .00 .06* Integrity .13 .05* Employee neuroticism .01 –

.11 .06 .09 .01

Notes: Values shown are unstandardized path coefficients. p < .05, one-tailed.

*

as a new predictor of supervisor justice rule adherence, our study used the dominant lens in the justice effects literature, namely social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), to provide a cognitive explanation for why supervisors adhere to more discretionary justice rules. For social exchange relationships to flourish, each party must feel obligated to reciprocate the benefits provided by the other and trust the other to reciprocate in kind (Blau, 1964). According to Blau (1964), felt obligation and trust result from the receipt of valued benefits. We reasoned that benevolence and integrity were two potential benefits employees can provide to their supervisors (Blau, 1964). Therefore, we predicted that supervisors would be more likely to trust and feel obligated toward employees that they perceived to have higher benevolence and integrity, and subsequently to reciprocate with increased adherence to interpersonal and informational justice rules. Further, we proposed that supervisory adherence to justice rules would affect employee perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice. As expected, our results demonstrated that supervisor perceptions of employee benevolence were positively associated with employee perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice through supervisor feelings of obligation and trust, as well as supervisor adherence to interpersonal and informational justice rules. Thus, when employees are seen as demonstrating caring and concern for the supervisor (Mayer et al., 1995), supervisors’ feelings of obligation and trust in the employee do in fact lead to increased respect, propriety, truthfulness, and justification (i.e., interpersonal and informational justice), which in turn result in higher employee perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice. We also found similar results for employee integrity, in that a supervisor’s perceptions of employee’s integrity were related to employee perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice through trust and supervisor justice rule adherence. However, we did not find a significant effect of integrity on felt obligation. Although we certainly expected the results for integrity to mirror the results found for benevolence, in hindsight there may be reasons why trust was a more powerful mediator of the effects of integrity than felt obligation. Often, adherence to informational or interactional justice rules requires supervisors to share sensitive information with their employees. This sharing is facilitated when supervisors trust the employees concerned, and perceived integrity is a strong predictor of trust (Mayer & Davis, 1999; Mayer & Gavin, 2005). Whereas demonstrations of integrity and benevolence are discretionary, the former is directed at a wider range of targets, including the task and the supervisor, whereas benevolence is

9

more directly targeted at the supervisor. That difference may account for the stronger effects of benevolence on felt obligation than of integrity on felt obligation. While our primary focus was on the benevolence and integrity dimensions of trustworthiness, we also contrasted them to the effects of ability. As expected, benevolence had significantly stronger positive effects on supervisor felt obligation and trust than did ability. However, while integrity had a significantly stronger positive effect on trust than did ability, the two did not differ significantly in strength of effect on felt obligation. Although integrity and ability are certainly valuable resources, benevolence, by definition, seems likely to evoke stronger supervisory feelings of obligation and trust. Given that benevolence entails demonstrating support for one’s supervisor, trust and feelings of obligation should naturally result on the part of the supervisor when benevolence is perceived to be high. After all, as mentioned previously, benevolence is target-specific (e.g., demonstrating loyalty), while integrity and ability are more general in nature. In support of our assertions, Colquitt, LePine, Piccolo, Zapata, and Rich (2012) recently argued that although both affect and cognition-based trust demonstrate beneficial effects on outcomes such as employee performance, they likely do so through different mechanisms. Specifically, their results demonstrated that affectbased trust (benevolence) led to increased obligations in the form of normative commitment whereas cognition-based trust (ability and integrity) decreased perceptions of uncertainty. Given our focus on social exchange and felt obligation in particular, our results demonstrating a stronger effect of benevolence on obligation and trust are consistent with Colquitt et al.’s (2012) results. It is also important to note that while our assessments of these constructs are supervisor-reported and thus same-source, these differential results should not be attributed to common method variance (see Podsakoff et al., 2003). Our findings regarding the links between supervisory assessments of justice rule adherence and employee perceptions of justice contribute a test of a common assumption in the justice literature. Up until this point, there has been an assumed link between actual justice rule adherence and employees’ subsequent perceptions of justice. Our data corroborate this link, by demonstrating a significant effect between supervisors’ self-perceived interpersonal and informational justice rule adherence and employee perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice. Though we are unaware of any studies measuring perceptions of justice rule adherence from both perspectives (i.e., the employee and the supervisor), our results are consistent with past research in related literatures. For example, Heidemeier and Moser (2009) demonstrated an uncorrected meta-analytic correlation of .22 between self-reported and supervisory ratings of job performance, which is consistent with previous meta-analyses (see also Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988). In addition, meta-analytic data on leader-member exchange relationships suggests moderate agreement (r = .29 uncorrected) between employee and supervisor perceptions of leader-member exchange quality (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Interestingly, our results demonstrate stronger effects for informational justice than interpersonal justice. This result is reasonable if one considers the nature of interpersonal and informational justice rule adherence. When compared to interpersonal justice, informational justice may be less subjective in nature. For example, informational justice rules should demonstrate a stronger effect than interpersonal justice rules because a supervisor objectively either provides or withholds explanations from his or her employees, whereas a supervisor’s demonstrated level of sensitivity and concern toward his or her employees (i.e., interpersonal justice) is more subjective in nature.

10

C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12

Practical implications Taken together, our results offer a number of practical implications. Because of the importance of employees’ perceptions of justice to a wide variety of outcomes, justice scholars have begun to examine ways to increase those perceptions. For instance, a handful of studies have demonstrated that justice training results in an increase in employees’ perceptions of justice (for a review, see Skarlicki & Latham, 2005). However, this area of research focuses primarily on the role that supervisors play in employees’ perceptions of justice. As stated previously, there are very few studies that have examined the effects of employees’ characteristics and behaviors on justice perceptions. For example, Korsgaard et al. (1998) evaluated employee assertiveness, while Scott et al. (2007) examined employee charisma. However, assertiveness and charisma may be less mutable than benevolence and integrity. Our findings suggest that employees may be able to influence their supervisors’ adherence to interpersonal and informational justice rules by demonstrating high levels of benevolence and integrity. Scholars suggest that perceptions of benevolence take time to develop through employees’ demonstrations of loyalty and altruism toward their supervisors (Mayer et al., 1995; Schoorman et al., 2007). Further, such demonstrations must not be perceived to be motivated by extrinsic rewards, but rather by a personal attachment and a genuine desire to help the supervisor (Mayer et al., 1995). Also, research in the area of integrity has proposed specific behaviors that can increase perceptions of one’s level of integrity (e.g., Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). For example, Simons (2002) has argued that the alignment of one’s words and deeds is critically important to building a reputation of behavioral integrity. Similarly, Dasgupta (1988) has emphasized the importance of keeping promises as a way of increasing perceptions of one’s integrity. Thus, by increasing supervisory perceptions of their integrity by acting reliably and consistently (e.g., meeting agreed-upon deadlines, keeping your word, etc.), employees may be able to influence the kind of treatment they receive from their supervisors (i.e., increased interpersonal and informational justice rule adherence). Importantly, our findings suggest that rather than being passive recipients of justice from supervisors, employees can influence their own justice climate at work through demonstrations of benevolence and integrity. While this does not absolve supervisors from a moral obligation to adhere to justice rules, it suggests that employees may be more empowered than previously assumed in effectuating their experience of justice. While employees usually cannot choose their supervisors, they can choose to engage in behaviors that foster perceptions of their benevolence and integrity. Limitations As with all studies, there are some limitations which should be noted. First, our measures of employee trustworthiness, trust, and felt obligation were same-source, raising concerns about potential common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). However, using the supervisor as the source for both constructs seemed most appropriate, and is consistent with prior research. For example, past research tends to evaluate trustworthiness from the perspective of the trustor rather than self-reported by the trustee (e.g., Levin et al., 2006; Mayer & Gavin, 2005). Of course, one might argue that ability and integrity can be measured objectively, such as with IQ or integrity tests. However, the trust literature emphasizes the importance of perceptions of

trustworthiness as predictors of trust and ultimately risk-taking (Mayer et al., 1995). In addition, felt obligation and trust are conceptualized as one’s own perceptions about another, in this case, the supervisor’s feelings of obligation toward and trust in his or her employee. Because social exchange assumes unspecified obligations, it is important to measure felt obligations from the reciprocator’s perspective. Similarly, since trust is in the eyes of the beholder, it is important to measure it from the supervisor’s perspective in our model. To minimize concerns regarding common method bias, we used different sources when theoretically appropriate. More importantly, our main independent and dependent variables, supervisor perceptions of employee trustworthiness and employee perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice, were not same source. Therefore, the mediation effects demonstrated in our data should not be an artifact of method variance. In addition, we should also note that we theorized and found significant differences between perceptions of ability and benevolence on supervisor felt obligation and trust. These results are also not attributable to common method variance. A second limitation of our study is that we did not include the supervisor’s trust propensity (i.e., a general tendency to trust [Mayer et al., 1995]) in our controls. Given its relationship with perceptions of trustworthiness and trust, it should be included in future research on the effects of trust-related constructs on social exchange processes. Another potential limitation concerns the cross-sectional nature of our data. According to Pedhazur and Schmelkin (1991), causation cannot be inferred without manipulating the independent variable. In a similar vein, StoneRomero and Rosopa (2004) have asserted that longitudinal or experimental data is needed to confirm mediation. Although conceptualizing employee ability, benevolence, and integrity as antecedents to justice is more theoretically appropriate than suggesting the reverse, future research should utilize either experimental or cross-lagged data to establish causation empirically. Suggestions for future research While the current study suggests that employees are not merely passive recipients of justice, future research should also examine the effects of supervisor characteristics on justice. Although we know of no published studies examining supervisor characteristics as antecedents of justice, justice scholars have begun to propose some potentially important traits. For example, Patient and Skarlicki (2005) suggested supervisor empathy as an important characteristic that might influence interpersonal justice. Specifically, supervisors who are sensitive to the emotions of others should be more likely to treat employees with respect and propriety. In addition to trustworthiness, other employee characteristics and behaviors, such as proactivity, may also influence employees’ experiences of justice through their effects on supervisory perceptions, and should be explored in future research. Although it is likely that both supervisor and employee characteristics have independent effects on justice, it may prove fruitful to examine supervisor-employee characteristics concurrently. Research in the area of person-supervisor (PS) fit—or the congruence between the goals, values, or personalities of an employee and his or her supervisor—suggests that employeesupervisor congruence positively affects one’s satisfaction with his or her supervisor (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). Research in the area of relational demography has resulted

C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12

in similar conclusions. In fact, similarity on a wide variety of factors, such as age, race (for a review, see Riordan, 2000), personality (Liao, Joshi, & Chuang, 2004), and functional background (Randel & Jaussi, 2003) can affect work attitudes and behaviors (e.g., satisfaction with one’s supervisor; Vecchio & Bullis, 2001). Researchers could examine how justice-related processes may explain these findings. Appendix A. Adapted scales used in this study Felt obligation (items drawn from Eisenberger et al., 2001; a = .72) 1. I feel a personal obligation to do whatever I can to help my subordinate achieve his/her goals. 2. I owe it to my subordinate to do what I can to ensure that s/he is well-served and satisfied. 3. I would feel an obligation to take time from my personal schedule to help my subordinate if s/he needed my help. Trust (items drawn from Schoorman et al., 2007) 1. My subordinate keeps my interests in mind when making decisions. 2. I would be willing to let my subordinate have complete control over a task that was important to me. 3. If my subordinate asked why a problem occurred, I could speak freely even if I were partly to blame. 4. It is important for me to have a good way to keep an eye on my subordinate. 5. Increasing my vulnerability to criticism by my subordinate would be a mistake. Supervisor justice rule adherence (items adapted from Colquitt, 2001) Interpersonal (a = .92) The questions below refer to the way you treat this particular subordinate when carrying out decision-making procedures. To what extent: 1. Do you treat this subordinate in a polite manner? 2. Do you treat this subordinate with dignity? 3. Do you treat this subordinate with respect? 4. Has he/she refrained from improper remarks or comments? Informational (a = .74) The questions below refer to the explanations and communications you give this particular subordinate about decision making procedures. To what extent: 1. Are you candid when communicating with this subordinate? 2. Have you thoroughly explained decision-making procedures to this subordinate? 3. Are your explanations to this subordinate regarding procedures reasonable? 4. Have you communicated details to this subordinate in a timely manner? Have you tailored communications to meet this subordinate’s individuals’ needs? Neuroticism (items drawn from Donnellan et al., 2006; a = .73) 1. I have frequent mood swings. 2. I am relaxed most of the time. 3. I get upset easily. Note: The coefficient alphas (a) listed were computed from the present study’s sample.

11

References Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press. Azen, R., & Budescu, D. V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8, 129–148. Barsky, A., & Kaplan, S. A. (2007). If you feel bad, it’s unfair: A quantitative synthesis of affect and organizational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 286–295. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 85–112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.). Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 542–551. Butler, J. K. (1995). Behaviors, trust, and goal achievement in a win-win negotiating role play. Group Organ Manage, 20, 486–501. Cohen, R. L., & Greenberg, J. (1982). The justice concept in social psychology. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 1–41). New York: Academic Press. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 287–321. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445. Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Colquitt, J. A. (2012). Organizational justice. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of industrial/organizational psychology (Vol. 1) (pp. 526–547). New York: Oxford University Press. Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Zapata, C. P., & Rich, B. L. (2012). Explaining the justice-performance relationship: Trust as social exchange or trust as uncertainty reduction? Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1–15. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909–927. Conlon, D. E., Meyer, C. J., & Nowakowski, J. M. (2005). How does organizational justice affect performance, withdrawal, and counterproductive behavior? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 301–328). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. R. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164–209. Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.). International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 317–372). New York: Wiley. Dasgupta, P. (1988). Trust as a commodity. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 49–72). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Dirks, K. R., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611–628. Dirks, K. R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2009). The relationship between being perceived as trustworthy by coworkers and individual performance. Journal of Management, 35, 136–157. Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny yet effective measures of the big five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192–203. Eddleston, K. A., Veiga, J. F., & Powell, G. N. (2006). Explaining sex differences in managerial career satisfier preferences: The role of gender self-schema. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 437–445. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42–51. Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. Foa, E. B., & Foa, U. G. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 77–94). New York: Plenum Press.

12

C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12

Gabarro, L. (1978). The development of trust, influence, and expectations. In A. G. Athos & J. J. Gabarro (Eds.), Interpersonal behavior: Communication and understanding in relationships (pp. 290–303). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844. Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self- supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 48, 151–160. Heidemeier, H., & Moser, K. (2009). Self-other agreement in job performance ratings: A meta-analytic test of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 353–370. Holmes, J. G. (1981). The exchange process in close relationships: Microbehavior and macromotives. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 261–284). New York: Plenum. Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 user’s reference guide. Moorseville, IN: Scientific Software, Inc.. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press. Korsgaard, M. A., Roberson, L., & Rymph, R. D. (1998). What motivates fairness? The role of subordinate assertive behavior on managers’ interactional fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 731–744. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342. LeBreton, J. M., Ployhart, R. E., & Ladd, R. T. (2004). A Monte Carlo comparison of relative importance methodologies. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 258–282. LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance. Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326–336. Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz & W. Walster (Eds.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 91–131). New York: Academic Press. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum Press. Levin, D. Z., Whitener, E. M., & Cross, R. (2006). Perceived trustworthiness of knowledge sources: The moderating impact of relationship length. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1163–1171. Liao, H., Joshi, A., & Chuang, A. C. (2004). Sticking out like a sore thumb: Employee dissimilarity and deviance at work. Personnel Psychology, 57, 969–1000. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104. Martins, L. L., Eddleston, K. A., & Veiga, J. F. (2002). Moderators of the relationship between work-family conflict and career satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 399–409. Masterson, S. S., Byrne, Z. S., & Mao, H. (2005). Interpersonal and informational justice: Identifying the differential antecedents of interactional justice behaviors. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), What motivates fairness in organizations? (pp 79–103). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738–748. Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123–136. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734. Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 874–888. Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 1–13.

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59. Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321–1339. Patient, D. L., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2005). Why managers don’t always do the right thing when delivering bad news: The role of empathy, self-esteem, and moral development in interactional fairness. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, D. P. Skarlicki, & Van den Bos, K. (Eds.), What motivates fairness in organizations? (pp. 149–178). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Pedhazur, E., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. Randel, A. E., & Jaussi, K. S. (2003). Functional background identity, diversity, and individual performance in cross-functional teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 763–774. Riordan, C. M. (2000). Relational demography within groups: Past developments, contradictions, and new directions. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.). Research in personnel and human resources Management (Vol. 19, pp. 131–173). New York: JAI Press. Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32, 344–354. Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Paddock, E. L. (2009). An actor-focused model of justice rule adherence and violation: The role of managerial motives and discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 756–769. Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Justice as a dependent variable: Subordinate charisma as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1597–1609. Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13, 18–35. Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1996). Increasing citizenship behavior within a labor union: A test of organizational justice theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 161–169. Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1997). Leadership training in organizational justice to increase citizenship behavior within a labor union: A replication. Personnel Psychology, 50, 617–633. Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (2005). How can training be used to foster organizational justice? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Stone-Romero, E. F., & Rosopa, P. J. (2004). Inference problems with hierarchical multiple regression-based tests of mediating effects. In J. Martocchio (Ed.). Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 23, pp. 249–290). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Tekleab, A. G., Takeuchi, R., & Taylor, M. S. (2005). Extending the chain of relationships among organizational justice, social exchange, and employee reactions: The role of contract violations. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 146–157. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66, 541–566. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Vecchio, R. P., & Bullis, R. C. (2001). Moderators of the influence of supervisorsubordinate similarity on subordinate outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 884–896. Weiner, B., Frieze, L. H., Kukia, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. M. (1971). Perceiving the causes of success and failure. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. The Academy of Management Review, 23, 513–530. Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. (2009). Structural equation modeling in management research: A guide for improved analysis. The Academy of Management Annals, 3, 543–604.