Research in Management: Perspectives on Justice and Trust in Organizations 9781617358197, 9781617358203, 9781617358210, 1617358193

Citation preview

Schriesheim & Neider • Research in Management

We are living in an age of pervasive distrust, one so severe that journalists discuss the “trust deficit” almost as regularly as they do trade or economic shortfalls. Perceptions of injustice and lack of fairness have increased so much during the years after the economic crash of 2008 that few organizations, both public and private, have been left unaffected. In fact, numerous opinion polls illustrate deep distrust on the part of participants towards political leaders, government organizations, and certainly, business leaders across many industries. Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, the wealthy, the poor, executives, police officers, managers—the list goes on and on. Some months back, an NBC/WSJ survey showed an eyepopping 82% disapproval rating for the U.S. Congress, the lowest in the history of the poll! With this climate as a backdrop, Volume 9 of the Research in Management series brings together seven chapters written by leading scholars in the field of justice and trust who present new research, models and conceptualizations to provide insights for key issues in this field both from a scholarly perspective as well as pragmatic suggestions for practice.

RESEARCH MANAGEMENT in

Perspectives

on

Justice and

Trust in

Organizations

Chester A. Schriesheim Linda L. Neider IAP—INFORMATION AGE PUBLISHING P.O. BOX 79049 CHARLOTTE, NC 28271-7047 WWW.INFOAGEPUB.COM

A VOLUME IN: RESEARCH IN MANGAGEMENT Safety Area: All Text, Logos & Barcode should remain inside the Pink Dotted Bleed Area: All Backgrounds should extend to, but not past, the Blue Dotted

Research in Management: Perspectives on Justice and Trust in Organizations

A Volume in Research in Management Series Editors: Linda L. Neider & Chester A. Schriesheim University of Miami

Research in Management Series Editors: Linda L. Neider & Chester A. Schriesheim University of Miami The ‘Dark’ Side of Management (2010) Edited by Linda L. Neider and Chester A. Schriesheim Affect and Emotion: New Directions in Management Theory and Research (2008) Edited by Ronald H. Humphrey Equivalence in Measurement (2001) Edited by Chester A. Schriesheim & Linda L. Neider Leadership (2002) Edited by Linda L. Neider and Chester A. Schriesheim New Directions in Human Resource Management (2003) Edited by Chester A. Schriesheim & Linda L. Neider Power and Influence in Organizations (2006) Edited by Linda L. Neider & Chester A. Schriesheim Research in Management International Perspectives (2007) Edited by Linda L. Neider and Chester A. Schriesheim Understanding Teams (2006) Edited by Linda L. Neider and Chester A. Schriesheim

Research in Management: Perspectives on Justice and Trust in Organizations

Edited by

Chester A. Schriesheim & Linda L. Neider

INFORMATION AGE PUBLISHING, INC. Charlotte, NC • www.infoagepub.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Perspectives on justice and trust in organizations / edited by Chester A. Schriesheim & Linda L. Neider. p. cm. -- (Research in management ; v. 9) ISBN 978-1-61735-819-7 (pbk.) -- ISBN 978-1-61735-820-3 (hbk.) -- ISBN 978-1-61735-821-0 (ebook) 1. Organizational justice. 2. Management--Moral and ethical aspects. 3. Trust. 4. Justice. 5. Industrial relations. I. Schriesheim, Chester. II. Neider, Linda L., 1953HD6971.3.P47 2012 658.3’14--dc23 2012006679

Copyright © 2012 Information Age Publishing Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America

CONTENTS Foreword: Research in Management: Perspectives on Justice and Trust in Organizations: Volume 9, Research in Management Series....................................................................... vii A. Schriesheim and Linda L. Neider 1.

Putting Our Trust in Fairness: Justice and Regulatory Focus as Triggers of Trust and Cooperation ............................................ 1 Russell E. Johnson, Klodiana Lanaj, James A. Tan, and Chu-Hsiang (Daisy) Chang

2.

Task-Relevant Justice: Receiving the Resources to Get the Job Done ....................................................................................... 29 David L. Patient and Hayley German

3.

Fairness in a Virtual World: The Implications of Communication Media on Employees’ Justice and Trust Perceptions ................................................................................... 45 Zinta S. Byrne, Suzanne S. Masterson, and Brian M. Hurd

4.

The Impact of a Victim’s Reaction to Unfair Treatment on Third Parties’ Emotion and Retribution: A Moral Perspective .....77 Daniel Skarlicki, Graham Brown, and Brian Bemmels

v

vi

•

CONTENTS

5.

Was I Unfair? Antecedents and Consequences of Managerial Perspective Taking in a Predicament of Injustice .......................107 Cecily D. Cooper and Terri A. Scandura

6.

Beyond the Eye of the Beholder: Why Managers Act in Ways Likely to Be Perceived as Unfair .................................................139 Jie Li, Suzanne S. Masterson, and Therese A. Sprinkle

7.

Trust Therapy: The Effects of Impact and Intent Strategies on Trust Repair ................................................165 Edward C. Tomlinson, Roy J. Lewicki, and Sheng Wang Author Biographies......................................................................181

FOREWORD

RESEARCH IN MANAGEMENT: PERSPECTIVES ON JUSTICE AND TRUST IN ORGANIZATIONS Volume 9, Research in Management Series A. Schriesheim and Linda L. Neider

We are living in an age of pervasive distrust, one so severe that journalists discuss the “trust deficit” almost as regularly as they do trade or economic shortfalls. Perceptions of injustice and lack of fairness have increased so much during the years after the economic crash of 2008 that few organizations, both public and private, have been left unaffected. In fact, numerous opinion polls illustrate deep distrust on the part of participants towards political leaders, government organizations, and certainly, business leaders across many industries. Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, the wealthy, the poor, executives, police officers, managers—the list goes on and on. Some months back, an NBC/WSJ survey showed an eye-popping 82% disapproval rating for the U.S. Congress, the lowest in the history of the poll! With this climate as a backdrop, Volume 9 of the Research in Management series brings together seven chapters written by scholars who Research in Management: Perspectives on Justice and Trust in Organizations, pages vii–x Copyright © 2012 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

vii

viii

• A. SCHRIESHEIM & LINDA L. NEIDER

present theory and describe key research findings that elucidate some of the factors that are associated with perceptions of justice and trust, as well as providing insights into how, at least on a micro-level, such perceptions might be managed. In the first three chapters, the authors expand our understanding of the variables that influence perceptions of fairness and trust. In Chapter 1, Russell, Lanaj, Tan, and Chang describe two experimental studies utilizing another potential mediating factor to explain the effects of justice perceptions on trust and cooperative behaviors. With regulatory focus theory as the conceptual underpinning, they assess the extent to which fairness experiences differentially affect justice outcomes when mediated by promotion (concern with ideals, hopes, aspirations) or prevention (concentration on security, duties, obligations) motivational dispositions. The consistency of both of Russell et al.’s studies clearly indicates that fairness experiences and aroused motivational dispositions have major impacts on trust, cooperation, and withdrawal symptoms in the workplace. Further, Russell et al. make a strong case that motivational processes are impacted by these experiences on both implicit and explicit levels. The chapter ends with a discussion of future research directions as well as practical insights for managers to stimulate more of a promotion focus in their respective employees. In the second chapter, Patient and German make a strong case for expanding the prevailing view of justice from one which currently entails perceptions with respect to fairness in the distribution of rewards, organizational procedures, and interpersonal treatment to include the concept of task-relevant justice (TRJ). The latter is conceptualized as fairness perceptions concerning whether or not employees receive adequate resources to perform their job functions. Five studies, employing three different methodologies, are described. The chapter provides both theoretical and empirical data demonstrating that TRJ is distinctive from the other forms of justice, and is differentially related to a variety of key organizational outcomes. Patient and German also present preliminary evidence that employees with high conscientiousness may be particularly sensitive to task related forms of injustice, and may, in fact, be more likely to leave the organization when key resources are not provided in a way viewed as fair. With the movement toward virtual workplaces in recent years, a notable concern for many organizations deals with the impact of more impersonal communication media on employees’ perceptions of justice and trust. The third chapter in this volume, contributed by Byrne, Masterson, and Hurd, takes on this fascinating issue in a comprehensive review of the cross disciplinary literature in communications media, information technology, and social psychology. Their assiduous review culminates in a conceptual model that presents a compelling argument for the unique developmental characteristics of trust and fairness in virtual environments, and makes the case

Research in Management: Perspectives on Justice and Trust in Organizations •

ix

that future research in the area should be retested varying work context as well as the forms of media cues. The volume’s fourth chapter moves away from the current dominant research paradigm that assesses the causes and effects of injustice from the victim’s perspective by examining third party reactions to unfair treatment. Skarlicki, Brown, and Bemmels present two compelling studies showing support for a more socially constructed perspective on justice. In this view, fellow employees may be so strongly impacted by the severe reactions of their co-workers to unfairness that they experience strong negative emotions which, in some cases, leads to retribution against the antagonist. The authors present a number of insights into additional research as well as practical recommendations for organizations to consider in attempting to prevent retribution tendencies. In addition, given that an individual’s determination of unfair treatment is perceptual and thus, in some instances may be unfounded, it is particularly important to conduct future research on the factors that could moderate third party reactions to workplace injustice. Cooper and Scandura, in the volume’s fifth chapter, utilize an identity negotiation paradigm as well as the extensive literature on leader member exchange processes to develop a comprehensive model of the “predicament of injustice,” a situation in which one person feels they are being fair while the other involved party perceives an injustice. The fundamental assumption underlying the proposed model is that such predicaments are essentially dyadic-level phenomenon and that the perceptions of both parties, managers and subordinates, may be malleable and, thus, dynamic processes. Based on the existing theoretical and research literature in these fields, the authors incorporate into their model the antecedent conditions under which a manager might be inclined to accept a subordinate’s perspective, the types of processes through which this perspective alteration might take place, and the behavioral outcomes that may ultimately result from such cognitive shifts. After providing support for their model, Cooper and Scandura note that there are a number of fruitful directions for research in justice related areas by conceptualizing the “predicament of injustice” as a dynamic dyadic rather than unilateral and static process. Chapter 6 in the volume helps elucidate why managers may act in ways that may be viewed as unfair by their employees. After discussing findings from organizational justice studies, Li, Masterson, and Sprinkle, review the literature on image theory to determine when fairness concerns may or may not be activated in a manager’s decision process. They then identify under what conditions managers may act in ways that are still likely to be viewed as unfair by employees even when fairness is taken into consideration. Based on their review, how the manager frames the decision problem is partially key to the activation of fairness concerns. Specifically,

x

• A. SCHRIESHEIM & LINDA L. NEIDER

frame recognition, frame identification, individual attributes, and contextual factors are identified as having substantial roles in this process. After framing, however, managers may still act in ways perceived as unfair. Here the authors’ meticulous review leads to the identification of a number of potential determinants, particularly those related to managerial accountability, such as individual difference factors (e.g., cognitive moral development and stage, neuroticism, etc), contextual factors (like organizational culture), consensus and non-consensus issues; and strategic images. After incorporating these factors into a conceptual model with eight propositions, the authors offer a number of insights into needed future research and managerial implications. The final chapter in this volume, contributed by Tomlinson, Lewicki, and Wang, contributes to our understanding of how to repair trust after violations have occurred. As with previous volumes in the Research in Management series, the seven chapters comprising this volume represent interesting and important contributions to an area that has recently been very much in the public eye. Each chapter makes its own unique and worthwhile contribution toward advancing theory and knowledge about trust and trust processes in organizational settings. Each chapter also raises issues and offers insights into new directions where theory and research can go to further clarify our understanding of trust and mistrust as human condictions. We thank the authors for their important contributions to this volume and for their willingness to offer and share new ideas that should stimulate the research interests of many in the field. We are also grateful to the Southern Management Association (SMA) and Information Age Publishing (IAP) for jointly sponsoring and supporting this undertaking. As a final comment, we want to thank Susan Stearns and XXXX???? for their considerable time and effort in helping the preparation, organization, and completion of this volume. We also want to thank our families, Linda and Joe Schriesheim and Syle Kinney and Paul and Rosie Sugrue for their patience and understanding as we were sometimes less than attentive while focusing on the activities associated with this endeavor. Thanks, guys, and thanks to all of our colleagues and friends who have directly and indirectly supported us in this enterprise.

CHAPTER 1

PUTTING OUR TRUST IN FAIRNESS Justice and Regulatory Focus as Triggers of Trust and Cooperation Russell E. Johnson, Klodiana Lanaj, James A. Tan, and Chu-Hsiang (Daisy) Chang

The authors provide one of the first tests of whether justice-related experiences activate promotion and prevention foci. Across two laboratory experiments using different justice manipulations and different measures of regulatory focus, they found that fairness activated a promotion focus whereas a prevention focus was elicited by unfairness. While the effects of justice on regulatory focus occurred at both conscious and subconscious levels, they appeared stronger in the latter case. These regulatory focus-based consequences are important because they mediated the effects of justice on trust and, ultimately, cooperative behavior. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed by the authors.

Perceptions of justice and their effects on motivation are essential for understanding organizational behavior because employees’ actions are proResearch in Management: Perspectives on Justice and Trust in Organizations, pages 1–28 Copyright © 2012 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

1

2

•

R. E. JOHNSON, K. LANAJ, J. A. TAN, & C.-H. CHANG

foundly influenced by the fairness of their social environment. Organizational scholars have paid substantial attention to justice and its effects on distal outcomes like job satisfaction, commitment, trust, and in-role and extra-role behaviors (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Despite the important practical consequences of justice perceptions, however, research has devoted far less attention to proximal outcomes that potentially mediate the effects of justice on such outcomes (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Scott, 2005). Fortunately, research has begun to explore mediating mechanisms that are elicited by fairness, such as affect (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001), intrinsic motivation (Zapata-Phelan, Colquitt, Scott, & Livingstone, 2009), and self-identity (Johnson & Lord, 2010). These and other motivation-based variables are particularly relevant in the case of justice (Zapata-Phelan et al., 2009), as perceiving and responding to (un)fairness often involve goal-related processes (Gillespie & Greenberg, 2005). In this chapter we propose that regulatory focus, a goalstriving-based phenomenon, may serve as another mediating mechanism that underlies the effects of justice. According to regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997, 1998), there are two distinct motivational tendencies that guide goal pursuit: promotion and prevention focus. Promotion focus reflects concerns with ideals, hopes, and aspirations, whereas prevention focus reflects concerns with security, duties, and obligations. Employees with a promotion focus are sensitive to positive information and engage in activities that move them towards desired outcomes. In contrast, employees with a prevention focus are sensitive to negative information and engage in activities that move them away from undesired outcomes. For example, an employee with the goal of helping a coworker may volunteer help (approaching the desired end-state) or turn down an invitation to an after-work party (avoiding a mismatch to the desired end-state) in order to accomplish his or her goal. Recent research provides preliminary support for the relevance of regulatory focus in justice-based processes (Brebels, De Cremer, & Sedikides, 2008; Brockner, De Cremer, Fishman, & Spiegel, 2008; Cropanzano, Paddock, Rupp, Bagger, & Baldwin, 2008; Johnson, Chang, & Rosen, 2010). However, this research has either explored direct effects of justice on regulatory focus (e.g. Johnson et al., 2010) or moderating effects of regulatory focus on justice-outcome relations (e.g. Brebels et al., 2008). To our knowledge, no published work has investigated the mediating effects of regulatory focus despite theoretical reasoning that goal striving strategies may underlie relations of justice with its outcomes (Laurin, Fitzsimons, & Kay, 2011). For example, theoretical work by Gillespie and Greenberg (2005) suggests that justice perceptions influence cognition and behavior within a goal hierarchy. According to this model, employees form judgments about the fairness of an event by comparing their expectations to their percep-

Putting Our Trust in Fairness • 3

tions of the event. If fairness perceptions are favorable, individuals are motivated to maintain contact with the entity, but if fairness perceptions are unfavorable, then security motives are activated and contact with the target is minimized. Gillespie and Greenberg further argued that these goal-based responses to justice may occur at both conscious and subconscious levels. Gillespie and Greenberg’s (2005) theoretical work suggests two important directions for justice research. First, it indicates that justice perceptions motivate goal-directed behaviors to either approach desired outcomes (i.e., maintain contact with fair entities) or prevent undesired ones (i.e., avoid contact with unfair entities). Second, it suggests that motivational reactions to justice perceptions may operate at both conscious and subconscious levels (see also Johnson & Lord, 2010). Thus, in addition to triggering explicit approach and avoidance strategies (Johnson et al., 2010), justice perceptions may also prime these strategies at subconscious levels. We addressed these issues in this current work. First, responding to calls for more attention to mediators (Colquitt et al., 2005), we examined the mediating role of regulatory focus in the relationship between justice perceptions and attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Second, in line with proposals by Gillespie and Greenberg (2005) and Johnson and Lord (2010), we investigated the effects of justice on motivation at both conscious and subconscious levels. In addition, some researchers have expressed concern that despite the acknowledged influence of regulatory focus on cognition and behavior, little research has examined the effect of regulatory focus on interpersonal interactions (Galinsky, Leonardelli, Okhuyesen, & Müssweiler, 2005; Lanaj, Chang, & Johnson, in press). The research presented in this chapter addresses this oversight because we examined the effects of regulatory focus on two interpersonal outcomes: trust and cooperation. Trust reflects positive expectations about another party’s conduct and a willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of the other party (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Theoretical (e.g., Lind, 2001) and empirical (e.g., Dirks & Ferrin, 2002) evidence suggest that people rely heavily on fairness information when judging the trustworthiness of other people. Cooperation is a behavioral manifestation of trust that is also influenced by fairness information and self-regulation (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005; McAllister, 1995). The model proposed in this chapter integrates justice, self-regulation, and cooperation, and thus responds to De Cremer and Tyler’s (2005) call for future research that provides a motivation-based framework that incorporate these areas. The primary purpose of this research was to investigate regulatory focus as a mediator of the effects of justice on trust and cooperation. Our theoretical model is illustrated in Figure 1. In addition, because justice may trigger motivational processes at both conscious and subconscious levels, we examined both explicit and implicit regulatory focus. We conducted two

4

•

R. E. JOHNSON, K. LANAJ, J. A. TAN, & C.-H. CHANG

studies to test our model. In Study 1, we replicate the finding by Johnson, Chang, and Rosen (2010) that justice perceptions trigger explicit regulatory focus and extended it by also assessing implicit regulatory focus. In Study 2, we include trust and cooperation as distal outcomes and test the full model wherein justice affects trust and cooperation via explicit and implicit regulatory focus. In the following sections, we elaborate on the theoretical rationale underlying our hypotheses. INTERPLAY AMONG JUSTICE, REGULATORY FOCUS, AND TRUST Organizational justice concerns employees’ fairness perceptions regarding different aspects of their working environment (Greenberg, 1987). Research recognizes four main aspects of organizational justice: distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice (Colquitt, 2001; Greenberg, 1993). Distributive justice refers to the fairness of resource distributions such as pay, rewards, and support (Adams, 1963). Procedural justice relates to the fairness of the decision-making processes utilized in the resource distribution process (Leventhal, 1976; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Interpersonal justice is fostered when people are treated with respect and dignity by individuals in positions of authority (Bies, 2001; Bies & Moag, 1986). Lastly, informational justice refers to the adequacy and timeliness of explanations given by authority figures (Colquitt, 2001). Collectively, these different facets of justice feed into people’s overall perceptions of fairness in a given context (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009). The majority of organizational justice research has focused on specific facets of justice and their impact on attitudes and behavior (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009). Several scholars, however, have recently criticized this singular approach and have argued that employees often do not differentiate between types of justice but rather form an overall justice judgment using whatever information is readily available and salient (Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005; Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Lind, 2001). Tornblom and Vermunt (1999, p. 51) posited that people’s fairness perceptions represent a Gestalt where the components of justice “are meaningful only in relation to the overall fairness of the situation.” Hence, a singular focus on specific types of justice may not capture the richness of employees’ justice experience and may limit our understanding of how these experiences affect attitudes and behavior (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009). For these reasons, we examined the effects of overall justice perceptions on self regulation and interpersonal outcomes. Perceptions of justice, regardless of the type (i.e., distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational), are informative to employees for

Putting Our Trust in Fairness • 5

a variety of reasons. Folger and Cropanzano (1998) suggested that justice judgments inform people about important economic and socioemotional needs. Economic needs represent concerns with procurement of monetary outcomes (e.g., ability to provide food and shelter), whereas socioemotional needs represent desires for personal dignity and status. Fair outcomes, procedures, and interactions all signal favorable information about employees’ opportunities for achieving desired economic and socioemotional outcomes. Unfair experiences, on the other hand, are indicative of uncertainty and signal negative information about economic and socioemotional outcomes. That is, receipt of unfairness from the organization indicates that employees’ social and economical needs are unlikely to be fulfilled and the effort they contribute to the company will not be reciprocated. According to Lind (2001), employees rely on justice information to determine how trustworthy their company and representatives of their company are. These evaluations of trustworthiness in turn affect employees’ decisions of whether to cooperate or not with their company and its representatives. Thus, we expect that employees who experience fairness will be more trusting and more cooperative compared to less fortunate counterparts who experience unfairness. Effects of Justice on Regulatory Focus Justice experiences provide employees with information about opportunities for gains and risks for losses (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005; De Cremer & Tyler, 2005; Tyler & Blader, 2003). As described above, fair experiences indicate that the organization values the contribution of its employees and provides them with opportunities to achieve their socioeconomic and economic goals. In contrast, unfair experiences indicate that the organization devalues its employees and may limit their access to opportunities to advance economically and socially. The fact that fair and unfair experiences signal potential gains and losses, respectively, suggests that justice may be capable of eliciting different regulatory foci in recipients of fair and unfair treatment. Fair experiences enable employees to pursue opportunities for gain, growth, and advancement. Such experiences convey information that hard work is rewarded and that promotional opportunities are attainable. In addition to positive information about economic exchanges, fair experiences also signals favorable information about socioemotional outcomes such as positive social worth. Receipt of fair treatment denotes that employees are valued by their organization and it affirms their sense of social worth and inclusion (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005). Because promotion focus is induced by opportunities for positive outcomes, both economic and social, we expect that promotion focus will be primed when fairness is experienced (Johnson, Chang, & Rosen, 2010).

6

•

R. E. JOHNSON, K. LANAJ, J. A. TAN, & C.-H. CHANG

In contrast, unfair experiences communicate threats of economic exploitation and low social status. Unfair, arbitrary distribution of rewards, for example, means that employees’ hard work may not be valued and reciprocated. In fact, if one’s supervisor is unfair, hard work may even result in losses like unpaid overtime and undesirable assignments. Unfair treatment makes punishment salient and signifies threats of social devaluation, exploitation, and exclusion (Tyler & Blader, 2003). Because prevention focus is induced by such threats of punishment and loss, we expect it will be primed by unfair treatment (Johnson, Chang, & Rosen, 2010). Based on the above reasoning, we hypothesized the following: Hypothesis 1: (a) Promotion focus will be rated higher when participants are exposed to fairness, whereas (b) prevention focus will be rated higher when participants are exposed to unfairness.

Implicit Effects of Justice Self-regulation occurs at both explicit and implicit levels (Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2004). Processing at explicit levels involves conscious evaluation of experiences, whereas processing at the implicit levels occurs outside awareness, intention, and control (Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977). The latter type of processing is starting to receive attention from organizational scholars who have begun to investigate implicit processes and their effects in work settings (e.g., Bing, LeBreton, Davison, Migetz, & James, 2007; Johnson & Saboe, in press; Johnson, Tolentino, Rodopman, & Cho, 2010; Shantz & Latham, 2009). As we discuss below, implicit approach and avoidance responses can be unconsciously triggered by cues that signal gains and losses, respectively, in achievement domains like the workplace (Elliot, 2006; Johnson & Steinman, 2009). Fair and unfair experiences may affect implicit self-regulation because the reward value of such experiences automatically primes goal striving cognitions and behaviors (Custers & Aarts, 2010). Fair experiences are a cue for economic and socioemotional gains (Johnson, Chang, & Rosen, 2010), which prime a promotion focus (Higgins, Friedman, Harlow, Idson, Ayduk, & Taylor, 2001). For example, a fair talent management system communicates to employees that the effort they invest in career advancement opportunities are likely to pay off. In contrast, unfairness is a cue for economic and socioemotional losses (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005), which primes a prevention focus (Brebels et al., 2008). For example, unfair compensation and promotion systems signal that employees’ contributions to the company are unlikely to be recognized. In line with these arguments, we expect that justice will affect regulatory focus at implicit levels as well as at explicit levels.

Putting Our Trust in Fairness • 7 Hypothesis 2: (a) Promotion focus will be primed when participants are exposed to fairness, whereas (b) prevention focus will be primed when participants are exposed to unfairness.

Mediated Effects of Justice on Trust and Cooperation Fairness judgments are used to assess the trustworthiness of other people and the wisdom of entering into exchange relationships with them (Lind, 2001). Lind (2001) suggested that fair justice perceptions are associated with promotive social behaviors whereas unfair judgments are associated with self-interested behaviors. Thus, employees who experience fair events are more prone to trust and engage in prosocial behaviors towards coworkers. Conversely, employees who experience unfair events are more likely to exhibit self-interested and antisocial behaviors. Research shows that cooperation and intentions to cooperate are prevalent outcomes of justice that reflect behavioral manifestations of trust (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005; Jones & George, 1998). Lind (2001) also posited that there is a fundamental dilemma present in all social relationships: on the one hand people desire to interact and cooperate with others, but on the other hand they also want to act in their own self-interest. Dedication and loyalty towards others limits individual freedom and renders people more vulnerable to exploitation, but dedication to one’s self-interests limits one’s ability to reap the benefits from collective efforts. This desire to both approach and avoid social interactions operates at the basic psychological level (Lind, 2001) and is likely influenced by selfregulation. In fact, work by Gable and colleagues (Elliot, Gable, & Mapes, 2006; Gable, 2006) shows that approach motivation is associated with positive relational events and outcomes (e.g., social satisfaction), whereas avoidance orientation is associated with negative relational events and outcomes (e.g., loneliness). Promotion and prevention focus are similar to approach and avoidance motivation, but are more proximal to behavior and operate at tactical and strategic level (Elliot & Thrash, 2010; Lanaj, Chang, & Johnson, in press). For this reason, we expect promotion and prevention focus to affect employees’ motivation to approach or avoid social interactions, as captured by their level of trust and cooperation with others. The positive benefits of approaching and trusting others are likely more salient to people with a primed promotion focus. People in a promotion focus view the world in terms of gains and opportunities, and are likely to be biased towards seeing the advantages of trusting and working closely with coworkers. In contrast, the benefits of avoiding interactions and being guarded towards others are likely more salient to people with a primed prevention focused who may in turn be less trustful and cooperative. For these reasons we expect that regulatory focus will mediate the relationship between justice perceptions and interpersonal outcomes. Specifically,

8

•

R. E. JOHNSON, K. LANAJ, J. A. TAN, & C.-H. CHANG

we expect employees who are involved in fair interactions to experience approach-oriented motivation that helps foster trust and cooperation between exchange partners. When involved in unfair interactions, employees are likely to experience avoidance motivation and lower trust towards the exchange party, and in turn engage in fewer cooperative acts. Hence, although not examined previously, we expect that regulatory focus is a key mediator of justice–trust relationships: Hypothesis 3: The effects of justice on trust and, ultimately, cooperative behavior will be mediated by regulatory focus. Specifically, (a) a strong promotion focus will elicit greater trust and cooperation, whereas (b) a strong prevention focus will reduce trust and cooperation.

STUDY 1 Our goal for Study 1 was to verify that justice affects regulatory focus, both at explicit and implicit levels. While it has been found that justice influences explicit promotion and prevention focus (e.g., Johnson, Chang, & Rosen, 2010), evidence of possible implicit effects of justice on regulatory focus are limited. To test this possibility, a vignette-based fairness manipulation was administered to participants, followed by measures of explicit and implicit promotion and prevention focus. Method Participants and Procedure Seventy-four undergraduate students recruited from psychology and business university courses participated in the study in exchange for extra credit. Participant demographics were as follows: 59% were female, the majority were Caucasian (54%), African American (20%), or Hispanic (14%), and they had an average age of 26.3 years (SD = 7.5). Most of the participants were employed (78%), and those that were had a mean job tenure of 19.5 months (SD = 22.9), worked 24.5 hours per week (SD = 14.9), and were employed mostly in retail/service (38%; e.g., sales associate) or professional (29%; e.g., accountant) positions. Participants were administered a paper-and-pencil questionnaire under the supervision of an experimenter. The questionnaire included a written vignette that contained the justice manipulation, followed by measures of regulatory focus. Participants were randomly assigned to read a vignette that described either fair (n = 38) or unfair circumstances (n = 36). The experiment required approximately 20 minutes to complete. Justice Manipulation As previously mentioned, while considering the type of justice is useful, we did not do so in the current study for three reasons. First, our goal was

Putting Our Trust in Fairness • 9

to assess the aftermath of justice experiences, making it critical that participants accurately experienced fairness or unfairness as a result of our manipulation. Because there is evidence that people’s sensitivity to different types of justice differ as a function of individual and situational differences (e.g., Johnson, Selenta, & Lord, 2006), we manipulated outcome, procedural, and interpersonal fairness as a set in order to ensure that the manipulation was potent for everyone. Second, different types of justice may not be distinguishable at implicit levels. Determining the source and ascribing blame for justice events involves systematic and effortful information processing (Bradfield & Aquino, 1999), but the immediate experience of injustice is likely processed implicitly (Folger, Cropanzano, & Goldman, 2005; Johnson & Lord, 2010). As Shapiro (2001) notes, people perceive unfairness in terms of the experience not its type. Third, different types of justice are inexorably intertwined due to their shared emphasis on economic and socioemotional outcomes, and it is therefore reasonable to consider overall justice (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009). We manipulated justice via a written vignette that was based on ones developed by De Cremer, van Dijke, and Bos (2007) and Scott and Colquitt (2007). Participants read a passage about a sales associate at a large department store and were instructed to envision themselves in the situation described. Participants in the fair condition read the following passage: For three years you have been employed as a sales associate at a large department store. When you started working there, you were able to exert a great deal of influence because you could often voice your opinion and you were often able to object to decisions that impact your employment. In fact, to this day, store management always encourages you to voice your opinions about store procedures. Your direct supervisor is always sincere with you and is very polite and understanding and never makes comments that could seem offensive. Furthermore, your supervisor frequently rewards those who perform their job duties well. It seems that your supervisor always notices and rewards your strong effort and considers your effort and work accomplishments during performance evaluations. As a result, you consider the pay you earn to be appropriate given your work performance. In general, you feel that the outcomes and interpersonal treatment you receive at work are fair and that your manager makes use of reasonable decision-making procedures.

Participants in the unfair condition read the following passage: For three years you have been employed as a sales associate at a large department store. When you started working there, you were not able to exert a great deal of influence because you could never voice your opinion and you were not often able to object to decisions that impact your employment. In fact, to this day, store management allows some employees to voice opinions about store procedures but denies you that voice. Your direct supervisor is not always sincere with you and is very harsh and inconsiderate and often makes

10

•

R. E. JOHNSON, K. LANAJ, J. A. TAN, & C.-H. CHANG

comments that you find offensive. Furthermore, your supervisor frequently does not reward those who perform their job duties well. It seems that your supervisor always ignores your own strong effort and fails to consider your effort and work accomplishments during performance evaluations. As a result, you consider the pay you earn to be inappropriate given your work performance. In general, you feel that the outcomes and interpersonal treatment you receive at work are unfair and that your manager makes use of unreasonable decision-making procedures.

After reading the vignette, participants answered an open-ended question that asked them to write about what they thought and felt about their job in the department store. This question was intended to strengthen the justice manipulation and to serve as a manipulation check to ensure that participants described circumstances that were consistent with those in the vignette. Lastly, participants completed the regulatory focus measures. Measures Explicit regulatory focus. For the direct measure, we used a work-based measure of regulatory focus developed by Johnson and Chang (2008). Six items each assess promotion focus ( = .89; “I see my job as a way for me to fulfill my hopes, wishes, and aspirations”) and prevention focus ( = .86; “I feel anxious when I cannot meet my responsibilities at work”). Participants responded to these and all other survey items using a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”). Implicit regulatory focus. For the indirect measure, we used a word fragment completion task based on one developed by Johnson (2006). The task is comprised of 22 word fragments (e.g., “A _ _ _ D”) that can be completed to form promotion words (e.g., “AWARD”), prevention words (e.g., “AVOID”), or neutral words (“ASKED”). Participants were instructed to complete the word fragments as quickly as possible and to skip items when they were unable to immediately think of a word. These instructions were provided to ensure that responses reflected the most accessible content at implicit levels. We operationalized implicit promotion and prevention foci by adding up the number of promotion- and prevention-oriented words, respectively, that participants generated, and then divided these sums by the total number of words that participants generated (this latter step was taken to control for differences in the total number of words that participants generated). Responses were coded by two independent raters and discrepancies were resolved by discussion. As evidence for the validity of this measure, Johnson (2006) found that participants exposed to a promotion focus prime generated more promotion words than those exposed to a prevention prime, and vice versa (those exposed to a prevention focus prime generated more prevention words). Word fragment tasks such as this

Putting Our Trust in Fairness •

11

one have been successfully used previously for organizational behavior research (e.g., Johnson & Lord, 2010; Johnson & Saboe, in press; Johnson, Tolentino, Rodopman, & Cho, 2010). Manipulation check. Six items ( = .96) selected from Colquitt’s (2001) justice scales were included to assess the efficacy of the justice manipulation (e.g., “My pay reflects the effort I put into my work” “My direct supervisor treats me in a polite manner,” and “I have influence over decisions and outcomes at work”). Covariates. Participant age, sex, and racial status (majority vs. minority member) were included as covariates in all Study 1 and 2 analyses because there is evidence that they covary with the focal variables (e.g., gender and racial status influence justice perceptions; Shapiro & Kirkman, 2001). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among the variables are listed in Table 1. To assess the efficacy of the manipulation, we regressed the manipulation check items on justice condition (coded unfair = –1 and fair = 1). In support of the manipulation, the beta weight for justice was positive and significant ( = .88), t(69) = 16.68, p < .01, and it accounted for 78% of the variance in the manipulation check items. We next examined the effects of justice on regulatory focus. To do so, we regressed each regulatory focus criterion on justice condition and the covariates. In support of Hypotheses 1 and 2, experiencing fairness caused higher levels of explicit promotion focus ( = .56, r2 = .27), t(69) = 5.26, p < .01, and greater activation of implicit promotion focus ( = .76, r2 = .61), TABLE 1. Study 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among the Focal Variables in Variable

1. Justice

1

2

3

4

5

—

2. Implicit promotion focus

.75

—

3. Implicit prevention focus

–.74

–.56

—

4. Explicit promotion focus

.57

.49

–.35

(.89)

5. Explicit prevention focus

–.51

–.37

.46

–.47

(.86)

.03

.32

.26

3.91

2.79

1.00

.16

.17

.89

1.07

Mean. SD.

Note: N = 74. Justice coded as Unfair = –1 and Fair = 1. Coefficient alphas are reported along the diagonal. Correlations with absolute values greater than .22 are statistically significant at p < .05.

12

•

R. E. JOHNSON, K. LANAJ, J. A. TAN, & C.-H. CHANG

FIGURE 1. Regulatory Focus as a Mediator of the Effects of Justice on Trust and Cooperation.

t(69) = 10.14, p < .01, whereas experiencing unfairness caused higher levels of explicit prevention focus ( = –.49, r2 = .23), t(69) = –4.53, p < .01, and greater accessibility of implicit prevention focus ( = –.78, r2 = .59), t(69) = –12.16, p < .01. Although the direction of effects were the same across explicit and implicit regulatory focus, they were substantially stronger in the latter case (average r2 = .60 vs. .25). This suggests that the effects of justice on regulatory focus occur mostly outside people’s awareness and control. Overall, the findings from Study 1 are consistent with our theoretical model shown in Figure 1. However, they paint an incomplete picture because regulatory focus is hypothesized to mediate the effects of justice on trust and cooperation. We examined these mediated effects in the next study.

STUDY 2 While vignettes can be effective tools for research, we sought to replicate our findings using an in vivo justice manipulation. In the course of doing so, we expanded upon Study 1 in two important ways. First, we included an additional measure of implicit regulatory focus—an established reaction time (RT) technique developed by Higgins (1989)—to complement our word fragment completion task. Second, we measured trust and cooperative behavior in order to test our full model.

Putting Our Trust in Fairness •

13

Method Participants and Procedure Data were collected from 107 undergraduate students recruited from undergraduate business and psychology courses in exchange for extra credit. They were randomly assigned into fair (n = 52) and unfair (n = 55) experimental conditions. Slightly more than half of the participants were female (57%), the majority were either Caucasian (73%), African American (14%), or Asian (10%), and they had an average age of 25.7 years (SD = 2.5). Participants were told that they would be administered a computer-based selection test battery. The battery consisted of multiple choice tests, self-report personality measures, and RT measures. Embedded among these tests were measures of the focal variables (e.g., regulatory focus, trust). To set up the justice manipulation, participants were told that, in order to ensure they have the same level of motivation as actual candidates, the extra credit points they receive would reflect their performance on a portion of the test battery. After completing two multiple-choice tests that determined their extra credit, the justice manipulation was delivered (described below). After the manipulation, participants completed the measures of regulatory focus, trust, and manipulation checks. Cooperation was measured at the conclusion of the experiment. When finished, participants were thanked for their participation and fully debriefed regarding the purpose of the study. The experiment required one hour, and all participants received the same amount of extra credit. Justice Manipulation We manipulated justice via a procedure that has been successfully used previously (Johnson, Chang, & Rosen, 2010; Johnson & Lord, 2010). At the beginning of the experiment, participants were told that the number of extra credit points they receive would equal their highest score on either of two multiple choice tests. The experimenter then left the room and participants began the test battery. After completing each multiple-choice test, predetermined feedback was displayed on the computer screen. Although the feedback was bogus, which was necessary for the justice manipulation, the effects of bogus and accurate feedback on motivation are comparable (Ilies & Judge, 2005). All participants in both conditions knowingly received scores of 2 and 5 out of 10 on the first test and second tests, respectively. After finishing both tests, a summary screen was displayed that listed participants’ scores and the number of extra credit points they earned. At this point, the experimenter entered the room and delivered the justice manipulation.

14

•

R. E. JOHNSON, K. LANAJ, J. A. TAN, & C.-H. CHANG

Fair condition. In the fair condition, the summary screen correctly indicated that participants received scores of 2 and 5. When the experimenter saw this screen, participants were notified that they would receive 5 extra credit points and were handed a participant list and asked to print and sign their name, and assign themselves 5 points. That participants were told they would receive 5 points in line with their expectations represented a fair outcome. Because participants received the correct number of points, they tended to not raise any concerns or opinions. The experimenter therefore solicited participants’ opinions about the test battery and the assignment of extra credit (this was done to control for the opinions that participants proffered in the unfair condition). The experimenter listened attentively to participants (e.g., nodded head in response to comments, asked follow-up questions) and wrote down what participants said in a notebook. That participants were able to express their opinions about the test and extra credit to a receptive listener represented a fair process. In addition, the experimenter was polite and respectful to participants by, for example, maintaining eye contact, adopting an open posture that faced participants, and not making any offhand or rude remarks. That participants were shown respect and dignity represented a fair interpersonal exchange. After assigning the correct number of extra credit points, the experimenter left the room and participants completed the remainder of the test battery. Unfair condition. In the unfair condition, the summary screen correctly indicated that participants received a score of 2 on the first test. However, the box in which participants’ scores on the second test (viz., 5) was supposed to be displayed was blank. When the experimenter saw this screen, participants were told that they would receive 2 extra credit points. Participants were then handed a participant list and asked to print and sign their name, and assign themselves 2 points. That participants were told they earned 2 points when they knowingly deserved 5 represented an unfair outcome. Upon hearing this, every participant expressed concern and objected to the unfair situation. The experimenter, however, ignored these concerns and reiterated that the number of points they receive must correspond to the highest score displayed on the summary screen (i.e., a score of 2). In contrast to the fair condition, the experimenter appeared disinterested in participants’ opinions and did not ask follow-up questions or take notes. That participants’ opinions about the test and extra credit were ignored by the experimenter represented an unfair process. Lastly, the experimenter showed little concern and empathy towards participants by, for example, minimizing eye contact, speaking in an annoyed tone, and making curt remarks (e.g., “OK, I get it, you don’t agree with your points, now finish the rest of the battery”). That participants were shown little respect and dignity represented an unfair interpersonal exchange. After the incorrect number of extra credit points was

Putting Our Trust in Fairness •

15

assigned, the experimenter left the room and participants completed the remaining measures. Measures Explicit regulatory focus. Explicit regulatory focus was measured using a scale developed by Lockwood, Jordan, and Kunda (2002). Nine items each assess promotion focus ( = .87; “Overall, I am more oriented toward achieving success than preventing failure”) and prevention focus ( = .81; “I frequently think about how I can prevent failures in my life”). Participants responded to these items and all other survey items via a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”). Implicit regulatory focus. We measured implicit regulatory focus using two different methods. The first method was the word fragment completion task described in Study 1. The second method was the Selves Questionnaire developed by Higgins and his colleagues (Higgins, 1989; Higgins, Shah, & Friedman, 1997). Participants report three attributes each that describe their ideal and ought selves. To assess accessibility, RTs are collected from three sources: how long it takes participants to (a) generate ideal and ought self attributes; (b) rate the extent to which they desire to possess each attribute; and (c) rate the extent to which they actually possess each attribute. Average RTs for ideal and ought attributes reflect the accessibility of promotion and prevention foci, respectively. Distributions for the promotion and prevention RT scores were normalized via a natural log transformation. Note that faster RTs (i.e., smaller values) denote greater accessibility or activation. Trust. We used 5 items based on ones developed by Mayer and Gavin (2005) to measure trust in the experimenter ( = .76; e.g., “If someone questioned the experimenter’s motives, I would give him the benefit of the doubt” and “I really wish I had a good way to keep an eye on the experimenter”). Manipulation checks. As in Study 1, we evaluated the fairness manipulation using 20 items ( = .91) from Colquitt’s (2001) justice measure that tap the fairness of outcomes, procedures, and interpersonal treatment. Cooperative behavior. After participants completed the test battery, the experimenter entered the room and ‘accidentally’ spilled a cup containing five pencils. After a short two second pause, the experimenter began picking up the pencils one at a time at a rate of approximately one pencil every two seconds. The number of pencils that participants helped pick up served as a measure of cooperative behavior (scores ranged from zero to five). A similar measure of cooperative behavior was used by Johnson and Lord (2010).

16

•

R. E. JOHNSON, K. LANAJ, J. A. TAN, & C.-H. CHANG

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among the variables are listed in Table 2. Consistent with predictions, fairness condition was associated with higher ratings of promotion focus (r = .33, p < .05), generating more promotion words (r = .69, p < .05), and faster promotion RTs (r = –.38, p < .05). Unfairness, on the other hand, was associated with higher ratings of prevention focus (r = .58, p < .05), more prevention words (r = .76, p < .05), and faster prevention RTs (r = –.28, p < .05). Furthermore, high levels of trust were predicted by higher explicit promotion focus (r = .23, p < .05), more promotion words (r = .58, p < .05), and faster promotion RTs (r = –.21, p < .05), whereas low levels of trust were predicted by higher explicit prevention focus (r = .25, p < .05), more prevention words (r = .49, p < .05), and faster prevention RTs (r = –.35, p < .05). Lastly, trust was positively related to cooperative behavior (r = .54, p < .05). These patterns of correlations are consistent with our model. Manipulation Checks Before testing our hypotheses, we first assessed the efficacy of the justice manipulation. To do so we regressed the fairness items on justice (coded as unfair = –1 and fair = 1). The beta weight for justice was positive and significant ( = .71), t(102) = 11.24, p < .01, and it accounted for 50% of the TABLE 2. 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among the Focal Variables in Study Variable

1. Justice

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

—

2. Implicit promotion focus RT

–.38

—

3. Implicit prevention focus RT

.28

.46

—

4. Implicit promotion focus word

.69

–.20

.23

—

5. Implicit prevention focus word –.76

–.04

–.17

–.35

6. Explicit promotion focus

.33

–.42

.22

.28

7. Explicit prevention focus

–.58

–.06

–.38

–.15

.38

–.16

(.81)

.42

–.21

.35

.58

–.49

.23

–.25

9. Cooperation

.48

–.41

.32

.42

–.56

.26

–.24

Mean s

.00 13.85 11.80

.39

.17

3.85

3.45

2.84 2.11

.42

.31

.79

.83

.73 1.17

8. Trust

SD s

1.00

5.82

7.09

— .02 (.87) (.80) .54

—

Note: N = 107. Justice coded as Unfair = –1 and Fair = 1. Coefficient alphas are reported along the diagonal. Correlations with absolute values greater than .19 are statistically significant at p < .05.

Putting Our Trust in Fairness •

17

variance in the fairness items. Thus, we deemed the justice manipulation effective. Effects of Justice on Regulatory Focus To test Hypotheses 1 and 2 we used regression analyses. As in Study 1, participant age, sex, and racial status (majority vs. minority member) were included as covariates. Results revealed that justice had significant effects on explicit promotion focus ( = .32, r2 = .10), t(102) = 3.77, p < .01, and explicit prevention focus ( = –.56, r2 = .31), t(102) = –7.57, p < .01. These findings paralleled those that were observed at implicit levels. Specifically, justice had significant effects on the number of promotion words ( = .81, r2 = .65), t(102) = 16.25, p < .01, and prevention words ( = –.68, r2 = .44), t(102) = –10.29, p < .01, that participants generated. Justice also had significant effects on their promotion focus RTs ( = –.38, r2 = .15), t(102) = –4.54, p < .01, and prevention focus RTs ( = .33, r2 = .11), t(102) = 3.83, p < .01. Hypotheses 1 and 2 therefore received full support. Test of the Theoretical Model We conducted path analyses to assess the fit of our theoretical model depicted in Figure 1. Separate models were run for explicit and implicit

FIGURE 2. Results from the Path Analytic Tests of the Hypothesized Model in Study 2. Note: Path model estimates in the first row are from Model 1 with explicit regulatory focus, estimates in the second row in parentheses are from Model 2 with implicit regulatory focus measured via the word completion task, and estimates in the third row in brackets are from Model 3 with implicit regulatory focus measured via the RT-based task (note that smaller RTs represent greater accessibility). All paths are significant at p < .05.

18

•

R. E. JOHNSON, K. LANAJ, J. A. TAN, & C.-H. CHANG

regulatory focus using the Mplus 6.0 software package (Muthén & Muthén, 2006). The fit of the path models was evaluated against several recommended benchmarks: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) values  .90, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < .08; and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) < .10 (see Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2004). Fit statistics for the three path models are reported in Table 3, which varied from satisfactory (Model 3) to good fit (Models 1 and 2). The best fitting model was the model that included implicit regulatory focus as measured by the word fragment completion task. Path estimates from all three models are shown in Figure 2, all of which were significant and in the expected directions. In sum, these results provide full support for Hypothesis 3 and our conceptual model. GENERAL DISCUSSION The present investigation began with the notion that fairness experiences affect distal interpersonal outcomes through the mediating role of motivation-based phenomena (Colquitt et al., 2005; Cropanzano et al., 2001). In this study we examined regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997) as one such mediating mechanism. To do so, we conducted two experimental studies and tested the hypotheses that fairness experiences affect promotion and prevention foci at both implicit and explicit levels (Study 1) and that these foci mediate the effects of justice on trust and cooperation (Study 2). The results of Study 1 showed that experiencing fairness caused higher levels of explicit promotion focus as well as higher activation of implicit promotion focus among study participants. Experiencing unfairness, in contrast, caused higher levels of explicit prevention focus and higher activation of implicit prevention focus. Findings from Study 2 replicated and extended those of Study 1. Paralleling our initial results, we found that experiencing fairness caused higher ratings and activation of promotion focus, whereas unfairness caused higher ratings and higher activation of prevention focus. These effects support Lind’s (2001) claim that justice perceptions are “pivotal cognitions” capable of altering intrapersonal processes, in this case promotion and prevention self-regulation strategies. We also supported our predictions that explicit and implicit regulatory foci mediate the effects of justice on trust and, in turn, cooperation. Taken together, Studies 1 and 2 reveal that fairness information serves as evidence for people deciding whether or not to trust others and cooperate with them. The consistency our results across two studies that employed different experimental paradigms and different measures further bolsters our confidence in the theoretical soundness of our findings.

Putting Our Trust in Fairness •

19

Theoretical Implications and Suggestions for Future Research Our findings make important theoretical contributions to the justice and motivation literatures. Regarding justice research, our findings are consistent with Gillespie and Greenberg’s (2005) assertions that justice perceptions affect goal directed motivation at both implicit and explicit levels. Justice experiences at work convey information about employees’ ability to access beneficial opportunities. Hence, fair experiences indicate that employees may pursue and in turn achieve their aspirations in the workplace. On the contrary, unfair experiences signal that the workplace is not conducive to facilitate pursuit and achievement of employees’ aspirations. Fairness experiences and the motivational tendencies that they arouse are likely to have consequential effects in the workforce, because as our current findings indicate they affect valuable organizational outcomes such as trust and cooperation. For these reasons, future studies might consider possible effects of justice experiences on other motivation-based variables. For example, fairness experiences may affect employees’ willingness to approach or avoid risk and creativity at work. Research suggests that regulatory focus is associated with risk seeking behaviors (Bryant & Dunford, 2008) and with creativity (Friedman & Forster, 2001). In addition, recent work has linked justice to creativity (George & Zhou, 2007). Given that a promotion focus fosters creativity, perhaps regulatory focus is responsible for mediating observed relations of fairness with creativity. Studies that investigate the mediating role of regulatory focus in the relationship between fairness experiences and relevant outcomes at work (e.g., risk taking, creativity) will help shed light on the processes through which justice has its effects. Another contribution relevant to justice research is our consistent finding that fairness experiences affected motivation at both implicit and explicit levels. In both studies, participants who experienced fairness or unfairness also experienced promotion focus or prevention focus respectively at both conscious and subconscious levels. Interestingly, the effects on implicit regulatory focus were consistently stronger than those on explicit regulatory focus. The stronger implicit effects may suggest that justice exerts greater influence on processes that operate outside people’s awareness and control. Thus, justice may have more pervasive and larger effects than is currently recognized in the literature. These findings are not surprising in light of research suggesting that situational cues prime unconscious goaldirected behavior (Custers & Aarts, 2010). Thus, in response to fairness events, justice perceptions prime both conscious and subconscious motivational tendencies. Future research should examine in more depth the reasons why the effects of justice on explicit regulatory focus are stronger than the effects of justice on implicit regulatory focus as well as the implications that such reasons have for organizational outcomes. Possible explana-

20

•

R. E. JOHNSON, K. LANAJ, J. A. TAN, & C.-H. CHANG

tions may be that regulatory focus operates mostly at implicit levels or that indirect measures are less susceptible to response biases and other sources of systematic error. Turning our attention to the motivation literature, our findings address the criticism that regulatory focus has not been shown to relate to interpersonal interactions (Galinsky et al., 2005; Lanaj, Chang, & Johnson, in press). We found that regulatory focus is a key mediator between environmentallyinduced justice perceptions and interpersonal interactions. It is likely that justice experiences may affect other interpersonal behavior through promotion and prevention focus as well. For example, the uncertainty associated with unfair procedures may motivate employees to withdraw from individuals in positions of authority. Hence, prevention focus may mediate the relationship between procedural unfairness and supervisor support. Likewise, regulatory focus may mediate relationships between justice and other organizational outcomes such as counterproductive behaviors and turnover intentions. Future research investigating the interplay of justice, regulatory focus, and other interpersonal outcomes is warranted. In addition to exploring mediating processes, future research ought to investigate motivational variables that moderate the effects of justice on its outcomes (Colquitt, Scott, Judge, & Shaw, 2006; Scott & Colquitt, 2007). For example, regulatory fit may moderate the relationship between fairness experiences and regulatory focus. Regulatory fit occurs when people’s promotion and prevention orientations match the means used to pursue different activities (Higgins, 2000). Several studies have found that people respond more favorably to activities whose characteristics fit their regulatory focus (Freitas & Higgins, 2002; Freitas, Liberman, & Higgins, 2002). For example, participants with strong promotion foci experienced eagerness related actions more favorably than vigilance related actions, whereas participants with strong prevention foci experienced vigilance related actions more favorably than eagerness related actions (Freitas & Higgins, 2002). In a justice setting, the effects of unfairness on prevention focus may be stronger when there is a regulatory fit between the demands of an activity (e.g., following safety regulations) and individual characteristics (e.g., a strong prevention focus). This also suggests that promotion- and prevention-focused employees will have stronger reactions to fair and unfair experiences, respectively. Future research should explore the moderating effect of regulatory fit in the relationship between justice perceptions and regulatory focus and the repercussions that this has for organizational outcomes. Having established that global justice perceptions affect regulatory focus, future research may also benefit from exploring the effects of different types of justice on promotion and prevention foci. Perceptions of justice are attributed to the sources viewed as responsible for fairness actions. For example, procedural justice tends to generalize to the entity responsible for

Putting Our Trust in Fairness •

21

procedures (e.g., organization), whereas interactional justice perceptions generalize to the individual that enacts the treatment (e.g., the supervisor) (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000). Hence, the source for justice attributions varies from distal (the organization) to proximal (supervisor). Given that promotion and prevention foci are strategic inclinations triggered by environmental cues (Elliot & Thrash, 2010), the size of justicebased effects may vary depending on employees’ proximity to the source of fairness perceptions. For example, because supervisors interact with employees directly and often, it is likely that interactional fairness perceptions may have stronger effects on regulatory focus than other types of justice that emanate from more distal sources (e.g., procedural justice attributed to the company). In fact, some recent studies have shown that leader actions have potent effects on followers’ promotion and prevention foci (Moss, Ritossa, & Ngu, 2006; Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, & Roberts, 2008). In addition to the source of justice, the effects of justice on regulatory focus may vary due to unique associations between specific types of justice and gains and losses. For example, being shown respect and dignity (i.e., interactional fairness) is often regarded as an inherent right (Bies, 2001; Folger et al., 2005). Thus, interactional unfairness may be viewed as a loss whereas interactional fairness is a non-loss. If so, then this suggests that interactional justice may have stronger effects on loss-oriented prevention focus compared to gain-oriented promotion focus. Similarly, given that procedural justice involves the violation of rules and codes of conduct, it too may have stronger ties with prevention rather than promotion focus. On the other hand, distributive justice conveys quantifiable information primarily about economic gains and non-gains and thus, it may have stronger associations with promotion focus. These possibilities are empirical questions in need answering by future research. Practical Implications The results of our studies suggest that managers need to pay special attention not only to behaving fairly, but also to influencing employees’ promotion and prevention foci. While managers may be trained and motivated to behave fairly (Skarlicki & Latham, 2005), they are sometimes forced to make decisions and take actions that may seem unfair to employees. For example, managers may have to implement layoffs, pay cuts, or furloughs due to unfavorable economical conditions. Justice research and our findings suggest that managers may successfully handle such situations by engaging in distributive (e.g., ensuring that pay cuts are proportional to employees’ income), procedural (e.g., explaining the reasons for the freezes and cuts), and interactional (e.g., communicating the news in a candid and respectful manner) justice, as well as by overriding employees’ prevention focus and triggering their promotion focus. Our findings indicate that overriding a

22

•

R. E. JOHNSON, K. LANAJ, J. A. TAN, & C.-H. CHANG

prevention focus and triggering a promotion focus will increase employees’ trust towards their organization and subsequently improve collaboration among coworkers. Managers’ ability to prime a promotion focus in employees may appease their reactions to unfair events and enhance their positive reaction to fair events. Managers may prime a promotion focus in different ways. Kark and Van Dijk (2007) suggested that leaders may prime a promotion focus by using rhetoric and language that focuses subordinates on their ideals, what they aspire to do, and the goals that they want to achieve on the job. Managers, for example, may make an emotional appeal to employees and paint a promising picture of their future on the job by highlighting what needs to be accomplished with their help. Such an appeal is likely to trigger a promotion focus as employees will be motivated to think about their aspirations. Managers may also engage in actions that trigger employees’ promotion focus. For example, recognizing subordinates’ hard work in small ways (i.e. acknowledging one’s work in front of others) may motivate employees to focus on their hopes and aspirations for success in the workplace. Last, managers may prime a promotion focus by framing a situation in terms of gains rather than losses. For instance, in case of pay furloughs managers may encourage employees to focus on the fact that no jobs were lost and that things will get better in the future, rather than on the furloughs. These managerial tactics that prime a promotion focus are likely to engender more trust and cooperation between management and employees, and in turn increase the likelihood that group goals will be met (De Cremer, van Dijke, & Mayer, 2010). Kirk and Van Dijk (2007) also suggested that transformational leaders are more likely to prime a promotion focus among their followers. Organizations, may therefore consider promoting transformational individuals into managerial positions or training mangers to be more transformational. CONCLUSION In this chapter we provided theoretical and empirical evidence that justice perceptions have motivational implications for employees exposed to fair and unfair events. We supported our predictions that regulatory foci—goal-focused motivational tendencies—mediate the effects of justice perceptions on trust and cooperation. Thus, this research identified one motivation-based process through which justice experiences affect subsequent attitudes and behaviors. Identifying the mediating mechanisms that underlie justice-based effects is helpful for anticipating and, if need be, dealing with possible reactions to (in)justice.

Putting Our Trust in Fairness •

23

REFERENCES Adams, J. S. (1963). Wage inequities, productivity, and work quality. Industrial Relations, 3, 9–16. Ambrose, M. L., & Arnaud, A. (2005). Distributive and procedural justice: Construct distinctiveness, construct interdependence, and overall justice. In J. Greenberg & J. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 59–84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009). The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: A test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 491–500. Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89–118). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In B. H. Sheppard, R. J. Lewicki, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (pp. 83–99). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bing, M. N., LeBreton, J. M., Davison, H. K., Migetz, D. Z., & James, L. R. (2007). Integrating implicit and explicit social cognitions for enhanced personality assessment: A general framework for choosing measurement and statistical methods. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 346–389. Bradfield, M., & Aquino, K. (1999). The effects of blame attributions and offender likeableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. Journal of Management, 25, 607–631. Brebels, L., De Cremer, D., & Sedikides, C. (2008). Retaliation as a response to procedural unfairness: A self regulatory approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1511–1525. Brockner, J., De Cremer, D., Fishman, A. Y., & Spiegel, S. (2008). When does high procedural fairness reduce self-evaluations following unfavorable outcomes? The moderating effect of prevention focus. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 187–200. Bryant, P., & Dunford, R. (2008). The influence of regulatory focus on risky decision-making. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 335–359. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278– 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., & Scott, B. A. (2005). Organizational justice: Where do we stand? In J. D. Colquitt & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 589–619). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

24

•

R. E. JOHNSON, K. LANAJ, J. A. TAN, & C.-H. CHANG

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2006). Justice and personality: Using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Processes, 100, 110–127. Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164–209. Cropanzano, R., Paddock, L., Rupp, D.E., Bagger, J., & Baldwin. 2008. How regulatory focus impacts the process-by-outcome interaction for perceived fairness and emotions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 36–51. Custers, R., & Aarts, H. (2010). The unconscious will: How the pursuit of goals operates outside of conscious awareness. Science, 329, 47–50. De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Managing group behavior: The interplay between procedural fairness, self, and cooperation. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 37, pp. 152–218). New York: Academic Press. De Cremer, D., Van Dijke, M., & Bos, A. E. R. (2007). When leaders are seen as transformational: The effects of organizational justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1797–1816. De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M., & Mayer, D. M. (2010). Cooperating when “you” and “I” are treated fairly: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1121–1133. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611– 628. Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motivation and emotion, 30, 111–116. Elliot, A. J., Gable, S. L., Mapes, R. R. (2006). Approach and avoidance motivation in the social domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32,378–391. Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2010). Approach and avoidance temperament as basic dimensions of personality, Journal of Personality, 78, 865–906. Fitzsimons, G. M., & Bargh, J. A. (2004). Automatic self-regulation. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications, (pp. 151–170). New York: Guilford Press. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Folger, R., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. M. (2005). Justice and moral sentiment: The deontic response to “foul play” at work. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 215–245). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291–309. Freitas, A. L., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Enjoying goal-directed action: The role of regulatory fit. Psychological Science, 13, 1–6.

Putting Our Trust in Fairness •

25

Freitas, A. L., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Regulatory fit and resisting temptation during goal pursuit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 291–298. Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001–1013. Gable, S.( 2006). Approach and avoidance social motives and goals. Journal of Personality, 74,175–222. Galinsky, A., Leonardelli, G. J., Okhuysen, G. A., & Mussweiler, T. (2005). Regulatory focus at the bargaining table: Promoting distributive and integrative success. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1087–1098. Gillespie, J. Z., & Greenberg, J. (2005). Are the goals of organizational justice selfinterested? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 179–213). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9–22. Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561–568. 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. George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 605–622. Higgins, E. T. (1989). Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self-beliefs cause people to suffer? In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 22, pp. 93–136). New York: Academic Press. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280– 1300. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 30, pp. 1–46). New York: Academic Press. Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217–1230. Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 3–23. Higgins, E. T., Shah, J. Y., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 515–525. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2005). Goal regulation across time: The effects of feedback and affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 453–467.

26

•

R. E. JOHNSON, K. LANAJ, J. A. TAN, & C.-H. CHANG

Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23, 531–46. Johnson, R. E. (2006). Uncovering the motivational processes underlying justice: The implicit cognitive, affective, and cognitive effects of experiencing (un)fairness. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Akron, OH. Johnson, R. E., & Chang, C.-H. (2008, April). Development and validation of a workbased regulatory focus scale. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, San Francisco, California. Johnson, R. E., Chang, C.-H., & Rosen, C. C. (2010). “Who I am depends on how fairly I’m treated”: Effects of justice on self-identity and regulatory focus. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 3020–3058. Johnson, R. E., & Lord, R. G. (2010). Implicit effects of justice on self-identity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 681–695. Johnson, R. E., & Saboe, K. (2011). Measuring implicit traits in organizational research: Development of an indirect measure of employee implicit self-concept. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 530–547. Johnson, R. E., Selenta, C., & Lord, R. G. (2006). When organizational justice and the self-concept meet: Consequences for the organization and its members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 175–201. Johnson, R. E., & Steinman, L. (2009). The use of implicit measures for organizational research: An empirical example. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 41, 202–212. Johnson, R. E., Tolentino, A. L., Rodopman, O. B., & Cho, E. (2010). We (sometimes) know not how we feel: Predicting work behaviors with an implicit measure of trait affectivity. Personnel Psychology, 63, 197–219. Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32,500–528. Kline, R. B. (2004). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford. Lanaj, K., Chang, C.-H., & Johnson, R. E. (in press). Regulatory focus and workrelated outcomes: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. Laurin, K., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Kay, A. C. (2011). Social disadvantage and the selfregulatory function of justice beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 149–171. Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 9, 91–93. Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56–88). San Francisco: New Lexington Press. Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 854–864.

Putting Our Trust in Fairness •

27

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., & 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. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59. Moss, S., Ritossa, D., & Ngu, S. (2006). The effect of follower regulatory focus and extraversion on leadership behavior. The role of emotional intelligence. Journal of Individual Differences, 27, 93–107. Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (2006). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén. Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson. D. S., & Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1220–1233. Scott, B. A, & Colquitt, J. A. (2007). Are organizational justice effects bounded by individual differences? An examination of equity sensitivity, exchange ideology, and the Big Five. Group and Organization Management, 32, 290–325. Shantz, A., & Latham, G. P. (2009). An exploratory field experiment on the effect of subconscious and conscious goals on employee performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making Processes, 109, 9–17. Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The death of justice theory is likely if theorists neglect the “wheels” already invented and the voices of the injustice victims. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 235–242. Shapiro, D. L., & Kirkman, B. L. (2001). Anticipatory injustice: The consequences of expecting injustice in the workplace. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 152–178). San Francisco, CA: Stanford University Press. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190. Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (2005). How can training be used to foster organizational justice? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 499–522). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Taylor, M. S., Tracy, K. B., Renard, M. K., Harrison, J. K., & Carroll, S. J. (1995). Due process in performance appraisal. A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 495–523. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tornblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (1999). An integrative perspective on social justice: Distributive and procedural fairness evaluations of positive and negative outcome allocations. Social Justice Research, 12, 39–64.

28

•

R. E. JOHNSON, K. LANAJ, J. A. TAN, & C.-H. CHANG

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361. Zapata-Phelan, C. P., Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Livingston, B. (2009). Procedural justice, interactional justice, and task performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 93–105.

CHAPTER 2

TASK-RELEVANT JUSTICE Receiving the Resources to Get the Job Done David L. Patient and Hayley German

In this chapter we introduce the concept of task-relevant justice (TRJ), defined as fairness perceptions resulting from employees receiving (or not) the resources they need to properly do their job. Whereas research has shown the importance to fairness judgments of rewards, procedures, and interpersonal treatment, organizational injustice specifically relating to receiving the resources to do one’s job has received little research attention. “Receiving the tools to do the job” is therefore proposed as an important source of employee fairness that addresses employee needs for competence and achievement. We investigate task-relevant justice in several studies, using qualitative, survey, and experimental approaches. Our findings suggest that task-relevant justice is indeed an important and distinct aspect of justice perceptions. After controlling for other facets of justice, task-relevant justice is found to predict a range of important outcomes, including employee overall justice perceptions, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and burnout. We also show how the relationship between task-relevant justice and important employee outcomes can depend on employees levels of conscientiousness. Research in Management: Perspectives on Justice and Trust in Organizations, pages 29–43 Copyright © 2012 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

29

30

•

DAVID L. PATIENT & HAYLEY GERMAN

Being able to properly do their jobs can be an important part of how employees experience work, view their organization, and derive work satisfaction. Yet without adequate tools and resources employees are less able to complete the work tasks that they are held responsible for—by managers, colleagues, clients, and themselves. We argue here that receiving the resources to properly do one’s job is an important and unexplored type of fairness. Research has shown the importance in organizations of efficiently distributing resources (Greenberg, 1981; Leventhal, 1976), and the importance to employee motivation of believing they have the resources to do their jobs (Eden, 2001; Eden, Ganzach, Flumin-Grant & Zigman, 2010). Although tasks (and individuals) will differ in the extent that they are dependent on external resources, when people believe that they have the internal resources combined with the externally-provided tools, they feel most efficacious and motivated (Eden, 2001). However, whereas the organizational justice literature has shown the importance of just rewards, procedures, and interpersonal treatment, the fair allocation of task-relevant resources has received almost no attention. We introduce the concept of task-relevant justice (TRJ), defined as fairness perceptions resulting from employees receiving (or not) the resources to properly do their job. There are at least two reasons why it may be important to consider task-relevant justice, in addition to the usual dimensions: distributive, procedural, and interactional. First, TRJ may explain additional variance in important perceptions, attitudes, and workplace outcomes. Second, TRJ may have different antecedents and consequences from other facets of justice. However, in order for TRJ to be accepted as an important type of justice, it is necessary to show that it is distinct from existing justice facets, explains additional variance in important outcomes, and has unique antecedents and consequences. We attempt to do so in this chapter and report findings from several preliminary studies. Organizational Justice Frameworks: Instrumental and Relational Two basic approaches underlie most organizational justice research (Blader & Tyler, 2003a): social exchange theory and social identity theory. Social exchange theory emphasizes the exchange of resources among individuals and organizations and is a framework underlying instrumental models of justice (Cropanzano, Rupp, Mohler, & Schminke, 2001b). In contrast, the social identity framework that underlies relational models of justice (e.g., Blader & Tyler, 2003a; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler and Blader, 2000) emphasizes the role that justice plays in identity-related judgments. According to this approach, employees care about fairness primarily because they are concerned with their long-term relationships with authorities and institutions (Lind & Tyler, 1988).

Task-Relevant Justice • 31

In terms of the justice dimensions emphasized and employee needs addressed, these can both be distinguished from the focus in the current research on task-relevant justice. Social exchange theories tend to focus on, as sources of fairness, what employees receive from their organization in terms of rewards to themselves (distributive justice). Social identity theories focus on procedures and treatment that enhance employee self-esteem and sense of group membership (procedural justice and interactional justice), such as status recognition (treated with dignity), trust in the motives of the authority, and neutrality of procedures (Blader & Tyler, 2003b; Lind & Tyler, 1988). However, neither social exchange nor social identity approaches address as sources of fairness the inputs employees receive to do their job. Self-Determination Theory and Justice Motives According to self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005), people are intrinsically motivated by three innate psychological needs: for autonomy, for relatedness, and for competence (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991). The need for autonomy (or self-determination) refers to the desire to have control over one’s actions and outcomes. The need for relatedness involves developing satisfying connections with others, while the need for competence refers to believing in one’s ability to perform the behaviors necessary to attain valued external and internal outcomes. To the extent that a social context does not satisfy these three basic psychological needs, employee motivation, development, and performance will be impaired (Deci et al., 1991). The need for autonomy is addressed by control models of procedural justice because fair procedures allow employees to manage and more accurately predict important interactions, including those resulting in economic outcomes (Cropanzano et al., 2001b). Relatedness needs are directly addressed by models of procedural and interactional justice that focus on aspects of procedures and interpersonal treatment that enhance an individual’s attachment to their group. However, we argue that competence as a basic psychological need has not directly been addressed within existing justice theories, or through the facets of distributive, procedural, or interactional justice. Task-Relevant Justice and Resources It is important to distinguish the rewards employees receive in return for doing their job from the resources employees receive in order to do their job. Although authors have often used the term “resources” to include outcomes that are in and of themselves valuable to employees (such as pay or bonuses), in this chapter we use the term resources more specifically: to refer to allocations to employees of the means to solve task-relevant problems.

32

•

DAVID L. PATIENT & HAYLEY GERMAN

In contrast, we use the term reward to refer to allocations that are of value in and of themselves to employees. Thus, an organizational resource (such as a pool of bonus money to be allocated to deserving employees) would constitute a reward to employees, unless it was going to be used to perform task-relevant duties. Rewards are in exchange for and used to reinforce recipient positive behaviors, and usually received following performance. In contrast, resources are required in advance of performance and are necessary for tasks to be performed. Martin and Harder (1994) make a similar distinction between allocations that address personal needs (such as an employee receiving time off to visit a sick relative) and allocations that address professional needs (such as a powerful computer for an engineer). Both rewards and resources can be used to motivate performance and to make group membership valuable to employees (Leventhal, 1976). However, organizational justice research has focused almost exclusively on employee receipt of rewards “which affect individual well-being” (Deutsch, 1975, p. 137) and procedures relating to these rewards, rather than on employee receipt of resources to do their work (c.f., Martin & Harder, 1994). For example, Colquitt (2001) gives as examples of distributive justice: “pay or promotions in a field study, a reward in a lab study, a grade in a university setting” (p. 389). Likewise, the procedures on which research has focused relate primarily to allocation of employee rewards. We introduce the construct of task-relevant justice to address the side of the equation relating to fairness resulting from the allocation of task-relevant resources to employees. Task-Relevant Justice As with other dimensions of justice, TRJ refers to subjective perceptions from the point of view of the employee. In this case, the perceptions are regarding the fairness of the provision of resources, rather than to the actual resources per se. The source of resources can be the organization, a supervisor, or a peer. Important resources are those that directly enable an employee to complete their tasks, and can include equipment, software, information, training, assistance from colleagues, direction and support from management, and sufficient time (see Lawrence & O’Connor, 1980). TRJ differs in several important respects from other dimensions of justice. First, TRJ goes considerably beyond distributive justice, as usually operationalized, in the range of material and non-material allocations. Second, TRJ is distinct from other justice dimensions in terms of why it arouses perceptions of unfairness. If a workplace event is seen as unfair primarily because it makes it more difficult (or impossible) for an employee to complete their work in a desired way or to a desired standard, we consider this to be task-relevant injustice. In contrast, if a workplace event is seen as unfair either because of its short- or long- term implications for gain or losses

Task-Relevant Justice • 33

(that are valuable to the employee in and of themselves), or because of implications for employee feelings of status and inclusion in the group, we do not consider this task-relevant injustice. Although the same event may be seen as unfair both in terms of task-relevant justice and in terms of another justice dimension, this is no different than with other justice dimensions, which often co-occur. Finally, TRJ can be distinguished from other justice dimensions in terms of the basic employee needs it addresses. Not receiving resources to do one’s job is unfair because it violates employee needs for achievement and competence. PRELIMINARY STUDIES AND FINDINGS In order to explore the TRJ construct, we conducted qualitative analysis of written responses, several questionnaires, and an online experiment using a scenario exercise. Preliminary findings from five studies are reported below. Our goal was to begin to show the distinctiveness of TRJ, and its importance as an aspect of workplace fairness. STUDY 1 We first examined employee descriptions of unfair events to see if, and what types of, TRJ events were spontaneously brought to mind. In this first study, 750 US-based employees were asked through an online questionnaire to describe in their own words an unfair event experienced at work. Participants’ attention was not in any way cued to TRJ, or to any other specific type of injustice. The broad range of workplace events described included not having enough time to complete work tasks, not receiving enough help or support, not receiving necessary training, and not receiving opportunities at work that could contribute to successful task performance (e.g., voice in meetings, being invited to work lunches). The unfair events reported were independently coded by the two authors, and coded as referring to TRJ when unfairness resulted specifically from an individual not receiving the resources to execute their work tasks. In order to take a conservative approach to gauging the importance of task-relevant justice, events that included distributive, procedural, or interactional justice as well as TRJ were not coded as TRJ events. The authors agreed on 85 percent of coding, and subsequent discussion led to full agreement. Of the 750 unfair event descriptions, 16 percent were coded as TRJ, and 84 percent were coded as not TRJ. Three broad categories of resources (not received) comprised the TRJ events: a) time, b) support from colleagues or from management, and c) the work environment. The first category refers to whether individuals have adequate time to properly do their work tasks. The second category includes both tangible and intangible support.

34

•

DAVID L. PATIENT & HAYLEY GERMAN

For example, not receiving training despite changes in work procedures. The third category refers to the equipment and other material resources employees receive to do their jobs, such as not receiving sufficient inventory to complete a customer delivery. As one out of six individuals gave an example of TRJ injustice when asked to describe an unjust workplace event, our Study 1 findings show that task-relevant justice is a salient category of unjust events for employees. However, it could be argued that the unfairness of the TRJ events, and the real reason they were brought to mind, might lie in personal consequences that could result from not properly doing one’s job (but were not stated in the event description). For example, a person might bring to mind as unfair a time that they lost an important team member very close to the deadline of a project. Although TRJ is mentioned, the unfairness could lie in the possible effect on future promotions, recognition, or bonuses awarded for successful completion of the project. A further limitation is that the TRJ event described was not directly associated with workplace outcomes. To address both of the above concerns, we conducted several additional studies to investigate whether TRJ predicts workplace perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors, beyond distributive and procedural justice. In addition, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis should confirm the distinctiveness of task-relevant justice from distributive and procedural justice facets when employees consider fairness at work. STUDY 2 Several hypotheses were investigated in our second study. First, because not receiving adequate resources will negatively impact satisfaction of an important employee need, task-relevant justice was expected to relate positively to overall fairness perceptions (H1). We also expect a positive relationship between task-relevant justice and organizational commitment (H2) and organizational citizenship behavior (H3), similar to that found between the existing justice facets and these positive organizational outcomes (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). When employees do not feel fairly treated in terms of the resources they receive we expect them to be less committed to the organization. Likewise, we expect that when an employee perceives task-relevant injustice, they will be less likely both to anticipate a long-term relationship with the organization, and to invest in the relationship by performing non-obligatory roles. In order to show the effect of TRJ, over and above the rewards they receive and the procedures determining those rewards, distributive justice and procedural justice were controlled. It is important that the distinctiveness of task-relevant justice from other organizational justice dimensions be reflected in how it is operationalized. First, items and instructions used to measure task-relevant justice need to clearly focus on the receipt by employees of the means to do their jobs.

Task-Relevant Justice • 35

Second, the measurement of task-relevant justice should capture a range of material and nonmaterial task-relevant resources, including equipment and other materials, time, direction from management, assistance from colleagues, information, and training. Third, it is essential that measurement of task-relevant justice focus on employee perceptions regarding the fairness of resources received, rather than on perceptions regarding the resources per se. We expect task-relevant justice to be assessed, at least in part, by social comparisons, i.e., with regard to the resources other people receive to complete similar tasks. However, it is difficult for employees to know what resources they “need” (i.e., feel they should receive) without comparison to what other employees are receiving. Once attention is paid to the means other employees are receiving to complete their tasks, especially similar tasks, we expect employees to also pay attention to what others are doing with the resources they receive. This is especially the case if the receipt of tools, direction, or assistance by one person means that these resources become less available to somebody else. Several alternative rules could be applied to evaluating the fairness of the distribution of resources, including equity, equality, and need (Deutsch, 1975). We propose two reasons why the equity rule is an appropriate one for employees to rely on in evaluating the fairness of the resources they receive. First, in organizational contexts in which economic productivity is a primary goal, equity is expected to be a more dominant justice value than equality or need (Blader, Rothman & Gonzalez, 2011; Martin & Harder, 1994). Performance-based allocation of resources directs resources to recipients whose behavior is most useful (Leventhal, 1976). Second, the appropriateness of an equity versus equality or need allocation rule can also depend on the nature of the good being provided to employees. Martin and Harder (1994) suggest that needs or equality based rules become more important for more socioemotional distributions, rather than for more material allocations such as “office space, company cars” (p. 241). Although task-relevant resources are not limited to material goods (and, in fact, can include assistance, direction, information, or time) they will tend not to be socioemotional distributions. Therefore, we use an equity approach to measuring TRJ. The following four items were used: “Do the resources you receive reflect the effort you put into your work?,” “Are the resources you receive appropriate for the work you complete?,” “Do the resources you receive reflect what you contribute to the organization?,” and “Are the resources you receive sufficient, given your performance?” Note that these items are based on the Colquitt (2001) distributive justice items, by replacing the word “outcomes” (received by employees) in the distributive justice items with the word “resources” (received by employees) in the task-relevant justice items. Participants were

36

•

DAVID L. PATIENT & HAYLEY GERMAN

given the following introduction to the task-relevant justice scale: “The following four questions relate to the resources you receive to do your job, such as the time, the help from others, the training, the information, the clear directions, and the materials you need to do a good job.” In Study 2, 199 US-based employees completed an online questionnaire, with scales measuring fairness (overall justice, TRJ, distributive justice, procedural justice), organizational commitment, and self-reported organization-directed OCBs. Before testing our hypotheses, we used exploratory factor analysis to confirm that distributive justice, procedural justice, and TRJ loaded onto separate factors. Next, we used confirmatory factor analysis in AMOS to confirm that the proposed three-factor model was a better fit across all indices to the data than alternative one- and two-factors models tested. In combination, our EFA and CFA results support our contention that task-relevant justice is distinct from distributive and procedural justice. Our hypotheses were tested using hierarchical multiple regression. Controlling for distributive justice and procedural justice, task-relevant justice related positively to overall justice perceptions, organizational commitment, and self-reported organizational citizenship behavior towards the organization. Thus, preliminary evidence was obtained for the distinctiveness of TRJ from distributive justice and procedural justice when employees assess fairness at work. After controlling for distributive and procedural justice, task-relevant justice related positively to three important employee outcomes: overall justice perceptions, organizational commitment, and self-reported OCBOs. STUDY 3 In our third study we build in important ways on previous findings. We attempted to replicate the factor structure of the justice items to confirm the distinctiveness of task-relevant justice. We also tested using another sample our findings from Study 2: that task-relevant justice relates positively to employee overall justice perceptions, organizational commitment, and OCBOs. Further, it is possible that the importance of task-relevant justice and its subsequent effect on attitudes and behaviors may vary among individuals. Accordingly, we examined the relationship between TRJ and employee behaviors of a relevant individual difference: conscientiousness. In Study 3, 397 US-based full-time employees completed an online questionnaire. Again, distributive and procedural justice, task-relevant justice, overall fairness perceptions, and organizational citizenship behavior were measured. In addition, participants were asked to self-report conscientiousness and quit intentions. Prior to testing our hypotheses, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis confirmed our proposed three-factor justice

Task-Relevant Justice • 37

model (distributive justice, procedural justice, TRJ). Using hierarchical multiple regression, and controlling for distributive and procedural justice, we again found that TRJ related positively to overall justice perceptions, organizational commitment, and self-reported organizational-directed citizenship behavior. Thus, our results from Study 2 were replicated. In addition, TRJ related negatively to quit intentions, though not when controlling for procedural and distributive justice. In addition, we investigated the possible moderating effect on the relationship between TRJ and workplace outcomes of employee level of conscientiousness. We hypothesized that the importance to fairness perceptions and other outcomes of receiving the workplace resources one deserves might not be equally important to individuals who are naturally inclined to work hard, versus those who are less inclined naturally to do a good job. Specifically, we expected level of employee conscientiousness to moderate the relationships between TRJ and employee behaviors, but not between TRJ and employee commitment or overall fairness perceptions. Whereas highly conscientious employees were expected to perceive a lack of equitable work-related resources as unfair, we expected this not to affect their performance of OCBs at work. In contrast, we expected the extra-role behaviors of less conscientious employees to be affected by perceptions of fairness regarding receipt of task-relevant resources. As predicted, the effect on self-reported OCBOs of receiving adequate resources was stronger for individuals who were less (versus more) conscientious by nature. Whereas highly conscientious individuals will work hard on behalf of the organization regardless of the resources they receive, less conscientious individuals will only go “beyond the call of duty” when they feel they are fairly treated in terms of resources. It is important to note, however, that both highly and less conscientious individuals reported less overall fairness and lower organizational commitment when they perceived low task-relevant justice. Conscientiousness also moderated the relationship between task-relevant justice and quit intentions, but not quite in the way hypothesized. As expected, highly conscientious individuals were more likely to intend to quit their organization if they reported receiving less task-relevant justice. Interestingly, less conscientious individuals were not indifferent to task-relevant justice, in terms of quit intentions. Rather, individuals who are less conscientious by nature are more likely to quit an organization that provides high levels of task-relevant justice. Note that task-relevant justice was measured in terms of employees receiving the resources should receive according to an equity rule. Thus, because less conscientious employees are likely to perform less well, it would make sense that they would want to leave a workplace that allocated resources according to effort and performance.

38

•

DAVID L. PATIENT & HAYLEY GERMAN

STUDY 4 We next used a scenario study to test the direct impact of having (or lacking) the resources needed to successfully perform one’s job. By manipulating task-relevant resources and performance pay provided to employees, we provide evidence regarding the direction of causality. Using a 2  2 design, 102 participants were randomly assigned to High/ Low Resource and High/Low Pay conditions. In all conditions, participants were asked to imagine that they were a Senior Editor at a consulting firm, whose pay was in part determined by the quality and number of client reports produced each month. Participants in the High Resource condition were told that they received all the resources they needed to be able to do a good job, whereas participants in the Low Resource condition were told that they lacked the resources needed to do a good job. As predicted, receiving the required resources related positively to perceptions of overall justice, organizational commitment, and willingness to perform organizational citizenship behaviors. Receiving low (versus high) task-relevant justice also related positively to reported intentions to quit the organization. Again, the positive effect of task-relevant justice on organizational commitment and OCBs was less strong for highly (versus less) conscientious individuals, and the negative effect of task-relevant justice on quit intentions was stronger for highly (versus less) conscientious individuals. STUDY 5 It is important to also show that TRJ is not only distinct from distributive and procedural justice, but also from interpersonal and informational justice. We do so in Study 5 by controlling for all four of the traditional justice facets. In addition, we consider the effects of TRJ on employee burnout. A key feature of burnout is emotional exhaustion, which signifies feelings of being emotionally overextended and exhausted by one’s work (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). We expect that a lack of resources and tools to do one’s job will amplify feelings of emotional exhaustion. One hundred and twenty-seven US-based full-time employees completed an online questionnaire in which all four justice facets were measured alongside perceptions of overall justice, quit intentions, loyalty, OCBs, burnout, and conscientiousness. Exploratory factor analysis confirmed the distinctiveness of TRJ from the four known justice facets (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational). Using hierarchical multiple regression, and controlling for age, gender, and distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational justice, we again find that TRJ related positively to perceptions of overall justice and that an individual’s level of conscientiousness moderated the effect of TRJ on workplace behaviors and attitudes. Specifi-

Task-Relevant Justice • 39

cally, we find a negative relationship for those high in conscientiousness, and a positive relationship for those low in conscientiousness, on intentions to quit the organization and level of burnout (emotional exhaustion). Furthermore, for those who are lower (versus high) in conscientiousness the perception of fair resource allocation significantly improves loyalty towards the organization and willingness to perform OCB behaviors. GENERAL DISCUSSION In this chapter we show that TRJ can predict important workplace outcomes and employee perceptions, over and above existing justice facets. The exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses conducted in Studies 2, 3, and 5 show that task-relevant justice is indeed a distinct construct. Studies 3, 4 and 5 showed that the positive relationship between task-relevant justice and self-reported organizational citizenship behaviors is greater for less conscientious employees. We also find in several of our studies that highly conscientious employees are less likely to quit the organization when they perceive higher TRJ. Findings regarding the importance and distinctiveness of TRJ were replicated and extended in several studies, using different methodologies, as is important in initial investigations of a new construct. This gives us confidence in our key findings. The fact that study participants were diverse in terms of age, occupations, and industry, also suggests that our results should be generalizable across different contexts and organizations. Why has fairness relating to the resources employees receive to do their jobs not attracted attention from scholars in organizational justice? We suggest two reasons. First, the social exchange and social identity theories underlying current organizational justice models emphasize material, control, and relational needs. The need for competence, however, has not been directly addressed, in spite of the fact that the psychological need to be effective has long been acknowledged in other theories of motivation, albeit under different names (e.g., Aldefer, 1972; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark & Lowell, 1953, Rokeach, 1973). Second, the emphasis to date on outcomes, procedures, and treatment primarily of more personal (versus professional) relevance may in part reflect some of the contexts in which influential research has been conducted. These have included contract/short-term employment settings for much of the research on equity theory, mock legal settings (e.g., Thibaut & Walker, 1975) for voice and control aspects of procedural justice, and job interview settings (Bies & Moag, 1986) for seminal work on interactional justice. Note that none of the above examines organizational justice in what is arguably its most usual setting: an ongoing employment relationship.

40

•

DAVID L. PATIENT & HAYLEY GERMAN

Although the fairness relating to receiving task-relevant resources has to our knowledge not been directly investigated, task-relevant justice need not be incompatible with current process and content models of organizational justice. For example, according to Fairness Theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001) the central topic in social justice is the assignment of blame. Whether blame leading to perceptions of unfairness can be established will depend on three counterfactual components: an unfavorable condition (that would have been better if the target had acted differently), discretionary behavior (the target could reasonably have exercised less harmful alternatives), and a moral infraction (the target should have acted in a way that did not violate an ethical standard). The unfavorable condition (relating to the would counterfactual) can, according to Fairness Theory, have a negative impact on either material or psychological well-being, and can include distributions, procedures, and interactions (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). There is no reason that the unfavorable condition can not also include the nonreceipt of task-relevant resources. For example, an employee could hold their manager or organization accountable for not providing the information necessary to satisfy a client request. The blame (or accountability) necessary to social injustice would be present if 1) the employee would have been materially or psychologically better off (e.g., by having their need for competence satisfied) had they been provided with the information, 2) the manager could have provided the information, and 3) the manager should have provided the information, given the employee’s contributions. Some scholars may argue that what we refer to as a separate task-relevant dimension of fairness could in fact be captured within our existing justice models and categories. We suggest, however, that there are several reasons to measure task-relevant justice separately from existing justice dimensions. First, the employee needs underlying task-relevant justice can be distinguished from those underlying distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Including in our justice models a dimension that addresses employee competence needs provides an additional argument for trying to enact just workplaces, and additional ways of doing so. Second, to extend current categories of fairness to include the resources employees receive to do work is inconsistent with the prior focus and operationalization of these constructs. For example, including task-relevant material allocations (such as information to complete a task, or clear directions) as a part of distributive justice would be inconsistent with how distributive justice has tended to be operationalized: as rewards that are valuable in and of themselves to employees. Distributive justice, and the models underlying its importance, would be substantially changed by moving away from its almost exclusive focus to date on (what we have called) the rewards received by employees for doing their job, versus the resources necessary to do so. Likewise, the focus to date in procedural justice has been on procedures leading to employee

Task-Relevant Justice • 41

rewards (of personal benefit) rather than to employee resources (of benefit in completing their tasks). Third, Cropanzano and colleagues (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001a) suggest that to the extent that different forms of justice account for unique variance, “there is conceptual utility in considering them separately” (p. 183). In this chapter, we have tried to show this to be the case for task-relevant justice. For these reasons, we believe that the advantages of a more parsimonious model of justice that does not include task-relevant justice as a separate dimension are outweighed by the benefits, to justice theory and to practice, of considering it as a distinct dimension. We measured task-relevant justice by adapting the items from Colquitt’s (2001) measure of distributive justice. A possible limitation in doing so is the possibility that we measured task-relevant justice in too restricted a fashion. In the instructions, participants were specifically asked to focus on “the resources you receive to do your job, such as the time, the help from others, the training, the information, the clear directions, and the materials you need to do a good job.” There could be important sources of taskrelevant justice that participants’ attention was not directed towards. Future research should more systematically test that our task-relevant justice items and instructions capture the important facets of the construct, and demonstrate suitable convergent and divergent validity from related constructs. Second, in measuring task-relevant justice we used a contribution/equity approach as a standard for fairness. Our reason for preferring an equity approach to measurement is that theory and research (e.g., Deutsch, 1975; Martin & Harder, 1994) suggest that an equity allocation rule will tend to predominate in contexts where the goal of resource distribution is to enhance productivity, whereas needs or equality based rules would be more important for more socioemotional distributions. Nonetheless future research should confirm that this is indeed the case when allocations relate to providing employees with task-relevant resources. From this research, it would appear that if employees are to maintain high levels of commitment and (especially in the case of less conscientious employees) demonstrate OCBs, the organization must provide them with adequate tools to be successful in their job, such as materials, training, information, help from other personnel, and the time to complete work tasks—and in a way that is regarded as fair by employees. Managers should also be careful not to overlook task-relevant injustice affecting their most conscientious employees. Although in the face of task-relevant injustice this group might continue to “go beyond the call of duty” in terms of their work professionalism, several of the studies reported suggest that when deprived of the resources they feel they deserve, highly conscientious employees are more likely to intend to quit the organization.

42

•

DAVID L. PATIENT & HAYLEY GERMAN

CONCLUSION There are calls among organizational justice scholars to pay greater attention to the experience of injustice from the perspective of the employee/ victim, which some authors suggest has been neglected or lost (Rupp, 2011; Taylor, 2001). An important aspect of the employee perspective of fairness is that employees are people who have jobs to do, responsibilities to meet, and tasks to execute. Therefore, organizational injustice relating specifically to receiving the resources to do one’s job merits our research attention. By introducing task-relevant justice, distinguishing it from current justice dimensions, and reporting the results of several preliminary studies, we hope to have taken an important step in that direction. REFERENCES Alderfer, C. (1972). Existence, relatedness, & growth. New York: Free Press. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. Lewicki, B. Sheppard, & M. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (vol. 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich, JAI Press. Blader, S. L., Rothman, N., & Gonzalez, C. (2011). Empathy, fairness, & preferential treatment: How the road to unfairness may be paved with good intentions. Working paper, accessed 20/10/2011, http://server1.tepper.cmu.edu/Seminars/docs/Blader_CMU_presentation.pdf. Blader, S. L. & Tyler, T. R. (2003a).The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and comparative behavior, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361. Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003b). What constitutes fairness in work settings? A four-component model of procedural justice, Human Resource Management Review, 13, 107–126. 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(3), 425–445. Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z.. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001a). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164–209. Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., Mohler, C. J., & Schminke, M. (2001b). Three roads to organizational justice. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (pp. 1–113). New York: Elsevier Science. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior, Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. The Educational Psychologist, 26, 325–346.

Task-Relevant Justice • 43 Deutsch, M. (1975). Inequity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149. Eden, D. (2001). Means efficacy: External sources of general and specific subjective efficacy. In M. Erez, U. Kleinbeck, & H. Thierry (Eds.), Work motivation in the context of a globalizing economy (pp. 65–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Eden, D., Ganzach, Y., Flumin-Grant, R., & Zigman, T. (2010). Augmenting means efficacy to boost performance: Two field experiments. Journal of Management, 36(3), 687–713. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 1–55). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362. Greenberg, J. (1981). The justice of distributing scarce and abundant resources. In M. J. Lerner, & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive, New York: Plenum. Lawrence, H. P., & O’Connor, E. J. (1980) Situational constraints and work outcomes: The influences of a frequently overlooked construct, The Academy of Management Review, 5(3), 391–397. Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In. L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 9, pp. 91–131). New York: Academic. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum. Martin, J., & Harder, J. W. (1994). Bread and roses: Justice and the distribution of financial and socioemotional rewards in organizations. Social Justice Research, 7, 241–264. Maslach, C. & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout, Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 2, 99–113. McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press. Rupp, D. E. (2011). An employee-centered model of organizational justice and social responsibility. Organizational Psychology Review, 1(1), 72–94. Taylor, M. S. (2001). Reflections on fairness: Continuing the progression of justice research and practice, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 243–253. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia, Pa.: Psychology Press.

CHAPTER 3

FAIRNESS IN A VIRTUAL WORLD The Implications of Communication Media on Employees’ Justice and Trust Perceptions Zinta S. Byrne, Suzanne S. Masterson, and Brian M. Hurd

Major changes in the nature of work, such as globalization and demands for alternative working arrangements, have resulted in the increased use of electronic media for a variety of communications in organizations. These new media bring with them numerous challenges, particularly in terms of developing trust and generating opportunities for perceived injustice. In this chapter, we review the literature examining communication media and its influence on fairness perceptions and trust in organizations, looking at the traditional management literature, as well as information systems and communication literatures, culminating in an integrative model and directions for future research.

Major changes in the nature of work have impacted the methods organizations use for communication. For example, interdependent employees, members of teams who must coordinate to accomplish the work of their organizations, have become more geographically dispersed than ever (e.g., Mohrman, 1999). Such geographic separation can occur for a number of Research in Management: Perspectives on Justice and Trust in Organizations, pages 45–75 Copyright © 2012 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

45

46

•

ZINTA S. BYRNE, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & BRIAN M. HURD

reasons, including organizations utilizing global talent to create teams of experts (e.g., Boh, Ren, Kiesler, & Bussjaeger, 2007), companies locating operations globally to be closer to resources and contingencies of customers (e.g., Mohrman, 1999), and employees seeking telework and other alternative working arrangements (e.g., ITAC, 2009) to accommodate a balance between work and family demands or because of local office closures. As workers become separated from each other and their supervisors by both distance and time, they often turn to electronic media as a means to bridge the gap in communication and coordination that such separation creates. For example, telephone and video conferencing are synchronous communication media that allow geographically separated employees to communicate in real-time, whereas email and voicemail are asynchronous media that allow communication across both physical and time distances. Voicemail has been shown to reduce communication barriers associated with time zone differences, geography, partner unavailability, and social/ organizational status (Culnan & Markus, 1987; Rice & Bair, 1984; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986). Though some employees may work side-by-side before moving to electronically-mediated relationships, other employees may never meet face-to-face (e.g., Ancona & Caldwell, 1990). Employees face a number of challenges when relying on electronic media for communication with their supervisors and other employees; challenges that present multiple hurdles to developing the deep relationships and trust that are often found in long-established teams or groups with co-located members (Zolin, Hinds, Fruchter, & Levin, 2004). First, as compared to face-to-face communication, some electronic communication methods lack verbal and nonverbal cues that enable senders to add depth and clarity to their messages. Without such cues, receivers can misunderstand the senders’ intended message, leading to miscommunication and potential work errors. This lack of understanding and miscommunication, as well as perceived injustice when supervisors’ messages to employees are misunderstood and/or misconstrued, ultimately results in a lack of trust between employees. Second, due to the lack of continuous or sustained face-to-face interactions that are common among co-located employees, employees using electronic media may take longer to develop trust in their coworkers or supervisors (e.g., Robert, Dennis, & Hung, 2009; Wilson, Straus, & McEvily, 2006), which can lead to lost time on work tasks due to the need to verify information and monitor others’ behaviors. Third, electronic media environments have communication delays and a potential for free-riding concerns, inconsistent procedures across worksites, and increased need for coordination (Boh et al., 2007), all of which raise concerns about coworker trustworthiness. Finally, electronic media may provoke fears about security risks or breaches (Walmsley, 2008), leading employees to be wary of using them for the exchange of personal or sensitive information. Unfortu-

Fairness in a Virtual World •

47

nately, personal or sensitive information is often key to developing trusting relationships between individuals, especially in online relationships (e.g., JinJuan Feng, Lazar, & Preece, 2004); thus, the use of or restricted use of electronic media may have negative implications for the work productivity and satisfaction of individuals. Given the potential significant consequences of communication media on employees and their work organizations, it is critical that we focus energy on the implications of such media for management research and practice. In this chapter, we review the literature examining communication media and its influence on fairness perceptions and trust in organizations, looking at both the traditional management as well as information systems literatures, culminating in an integrative model and directions for future research. First, we review changes in work, at the individual and team levels, that have led to the increased use in computer-mediated communication and its effects on trust and fairness perceptions. Second, we switch perspectives to review the multiple media-related theories that may explain these effects. Lastly, we develop an integrative model bridging these two perspectives, and conclude with suggestions for future research and practice. ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION CHANGES AT THE INDIVIDUAL AND TEAM LEVELS Organizations are increasingly becoming geographically dispersed, meaning that employees are working at different physical locations from one another that may also involve separation across time. Recently, the Pew Research Center recently estimated that 85% of American adults own a cell phone, 59% own a desktop computer, and 52% own a laptop, none of which includes the percentage of workers who are supplied with computers or phones for their jobs (Pew Research Center, 2010), or those workers outside of the United States. The Pew report further identified that in 2007, 51% of American adults 18 and over indicated using electronic media daily to perform their work. Such changes are occurring at both the individual level, in terms of individual employees engaging in flexible work arrangements such as telework, and at the team level, in terms of globallydistributed or virtual teams. Individual level At the individual level, there has been an increase in telework, or employees who are working away from the traditional on-site environment, such as at home or at another geographically-convenient worksite. Such work may be accomplished during traditional work hours but may also be done at non-traditional times, at the employees’ convenience, depending

48

•

ZINTA S. BYRNE, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & BRIAN M. HURD

on organizational needs. Studies suggest that the number of employees engaging in telework is increasing. For example, a recent report by the Dieringer Research Institute revealed that 33.7 million Americans telecommuted in 2009, an increase of 43% since 2005 (ITAC, 2009). Team level At the team level there are multiple forms of geographically-dispersed or virtual teams, whereby groups of interdependent employees work from multiple locations, across multiple time zones, and occasionally across organizational boundaries (e.g., DeRosa, Hantula, Kock, & D’Arcy, 2004). These teams typically rely on information technology or electronic media to communicate (e.g., O’Leary & Cummings, 2007; Robert et al., 2009). Furthermore, such teams often come together for a specific purpose and disband upon completion (e.g., Kristof, Brown, Sims, & Smith, 1995), but may also be a relatively permanent work team spread across an organization’s multiple geographic locations. For example, some organizations are taking advantage of having workers across time zones to create “software shift work” (Gorton & Motwani, 1996, p. 647), such that work is continuously passed from employee to another between their respective time zones and during their day shifts, effectively enabling organizations to move closer to a 24-hour work day and 24 7 work week. There are drawbacks associated specifically with the use of electronic communication within virtual work and geographically-dispersed teams. First, there are decreased opportunities for spontaneous conversation among employees and team members (e.g., Boh et al., 2007; Joshi, Lazarova, & Liao, 2009), which can hinder the development of a shared context within which the work occurs. Second, the lack of physical presence can result in a reduction of transmission of the verbal, social, and status cues that are generally embedded in face-to-face communication (DeRosa et al., 2004), potentially leading to increased misunderstandings among employees and team members. Lastly, the reliance on electronic communication may slow the development of personal relationships among employees and team members, potentially negatively affecting the development of trust (Robert et al., 2009). ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION EFFECTS ON TRUST AND FAIRNESS PERCEPTIONS The potential negative impact of virtual work and electronic communication on trust and other employee perceptions such as assessments of fairness deserves further attention. Research has shown that trust and fairness perceptions are important components of a functional and healthy workplace (Harvey, Kelloway, & Duncan-Leiper, 2003; Wahl, 2006), and substan-

Fairness in a Virtual World •

49

tial research has indicated that the lack of trust and perceived injustice can result in significant negative consequences for organizations (Cortina & Magley, 2003; Rousseau, Salek, Aubé, & Morin, 2009). Trust and Electronic Communication There are many different definitions of trust, each conceptualized to match the researcher and study purpose (see Bradach & Eccles, 1989; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). For example, trust can be conceptualized as an individual difference variable (i.e., propensity to trust), the result of several cues of trust (i.e., ability, benevolence, integrity of trustor), or a feature of the organization or supervisor. Trust is generally defined as the trustor’s willingness to be vulnerable to another person (the trustee) based on positive expectations of the trustee (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007). In their recent meta-analysis, Colquitt and his associates (2007) demonstrated that trust is positively related to task performance, organizational citizenship, and risk-taking behaviors, and negatively related to counterproductive work behaviors. Other research has demonstrated that trust is related to cooperation and coordination within organizations (Jarvenpaa, Shaw, & Staples, 2004), and that it enables individuals to exchange information and share knowledge freely (Robert et al., 2009). Beyond its potential relationship with performance, the presence of trust can influence employees’ satisfaction with the team, as well as their levels of absenteeism and intent to turnover (Costa, Roe, & Taillieu, 2001). Moreover, the lack of trust has been linked to increased monitoring, resulting in potentially higher time investment, costs, and diverted attention from task productivity (e.g., McAllister, 1995). The research suggests that trust is particularly important in virtual or geographically-dispersed teams where team members are generally unable to monitor one another due to their physical or time-based separation, and, therefore, must develop trust in order to operate efficiently and effectively (Wilson et al., 2006). As Sarker and colleagues (2011) noted, there are at least four dimensions of distributed teams that make trust a key issue: (1) lack of shared history; (2) geographic dispersion; (3) lack of shared social context; and (4) reliance on electronic media with limited to non-existent face-to-face interaction. Trust has been the focus of substantial research within the information sciences field, much of which has focused on antecedents of trust within globally-distributed teams (see Sarker, Ahuja, Sarker, & Kirkeby, 2011 for a summary). There are several bases for trust, and past research has examined many of these with respect to virtual teams. One basis for trust is an individual difference variable, propensity to trust, which refers to an individual’s generalized expectation that others’ words and promises can be relied upon, and generally reflects one’s disposition to trust others in the absence of trust-

50

•

ZINTA S. BYRNE, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & BRIAN M. HURD

related information (Colquitt et al., 2007). Robert and coauthors (2009) discussed propensity to trust as one of the factors that influences the formation of swift trust in virtual teams. Swift trust is the trusting behavior exhibited by members of new teams who have no past working experience with the other team members upon which to base trust judgments. Jarvenpaa and colleagues (2004) discussed a model whereby individuals use their own preexisting dispositions as a basis for making attributions about the trustworthiness of others, particularly relevant for the development of swift trust. Another basis for trust is social categorization (Jarvenpaa et al., 2004; Robert et al., 2009) or the characterization of team members based on attributes such as gender, organizational role, or position (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). Robert and colleagues (2009) referred to this basis of trust as role-based trust, and noted that individuals use simple heuristics based on these social categorizations to decide whether a person is trustworthy. Again, such judgments come into play in situations where team members do not yet have experience with one another. Once individuals have experience with the other team members, whether in person or via electronic communication, the basis for trust changes to a cognitive- or knowledge-based model. Most researchers adopt Mayer and colleagues’ (1995) model, which identifies ability, integrity, and benevolence as the trustworthiness factors that lead to assessments of trust. Ability refers to the assessment that the trustee is capable of doing what he/she is supposed to do; integrity refers to the assessment that the trustee shares important values with the trustor and adheres to those values; and benevolence refers to the assessment that the trustee has the trustor’s best interests at heart and will act in accordance with those interests (Mayer et al., 1995). Past research has shown that information exchange is an antecedent of trust (Williams, 2001), and thus the more information individuals obtain from their teammates, whether through face-to-face or electronic media, the more data they have upon which to base their assessments of these trustworthiness factors. Robert et al. (2009) found that once individuals accumulated sufficient knowledge to develop perceptions of ability, integrity, and benevolence, these factors directly influenced trust judgments, whereas role-based trust and disposition to trust became less influential. Time is implicit in Robert and colleagues’ (2009) model of accumulating sufficient knowledge to develop trustworthiness perceptions. In contrast, Wilson et al. (2006) looked at time explicitly with regard to virtual vs. face-to-face teams, and found that because face-to-face communication has embedded within its visual and nonverbal cues a high rate of social information exchange, face-to-face communication led to trust sooner than when using computer-mediated communication, such as email. However, given the passage of more time, teams using computer-mediated commu-

Fairness in a Virtual World •

51

nication caught up to and demonstrated equal levels of trust in team members as face-to-face teams. Thus, this research shows that, initially, face-toface communication surpasses computer-mediated communication in trust development among team members, but that after some passage of time, trust levels between team members are no longer different across media. Fairness Perceptions and Electronic Communication Based on the above review, it is clear that trust is a key concern for both traditional and virtual teams, and that the communication media utilized within teams has an impact on the development of trust within teams. Alongside trust, however, is employees’ fairness or justice perceptions that also play a key role in communication between employees, particularly with electronic communication. Researchers generally recognize four different dimensions of justice perceptions: distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational. Early justice research focused on distributive justice, or the fairness of the outcomes employees receive (e.g., pay raises or promotions; Deutsch, 1985). Based on the work of Thibaut and Walker (1975), Leventhal (1980) proposed that employees also evaluate the fairness of the procedures by which allocation decisions are made (e.g., performance appraisal processes), referred to as procedural justice. Shortly thereafter, Bies and Moag (1986) introduced the concept of interactional justice, or the fairness of the treatment received during the implementation of a procedure. Though some researchers still focus on interactional justice, later work demonstrated that interactional justice is comprised of two distinct subdimensions: interpersonal justice, the extent to which treatment is perceived as respectful and dignified, and informational justice, the extent to which honest and open communication is provided (Colquitt, 2001). Justice perceptions have been positively associated with a number of important organizational outcomes such as performance and organizational citizenship behaviors, and negatively associated with relevant outcomes including turnover and reactions such as theft and retaliatory behaviors (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Meta-analytic analyses further show positive relationships between the justices and several employee attitudes, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Colquitt et al., 2001). Justice and Trust Three different approaches have been taken for modeling the relationship between justice and trust. First, some researchers have examined trust as an antecedent of justice perceptions (e.g., Holtz & Harold, 2009), evolving more recently into examining elements of trustworthiness as indicators of fairness perceptions. Second, a subset of research has examined justice

52

•

ZINTA S. BYRNE, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & BRIAN M. HURD

and trust as having shared antecedents (e.g., Celani, Deutsch-Salamon, & Singh, 2008), thus examining the development of both variables without linking them causally. However, the majority of research focused on justicetrust relationships has examined perceptions of justice as antecedent to perceptions of trust (e.g., Camerman, Cropanzano, & Vandenberghe, 2007; Forret & Love, 2008; Frazier, Johnson, Gavin, Gooty, & Snow, 2010; Lewicki, Wiethoff, & Tomlinson, 2005). This framing of the justice-trust association has been supported in three meta-analytic studies. Namely, Colquitt and colleagues (2001) found that distributive, procedural, and informational justice significantly predicted trust (at that time, no studies had examined the relationship between interpersonal justice and trust). Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) showed that trust in organization and in supervisor were positively related to procedural, interactional, and distributive justice, and Dirks and Ferrin (2002) found that both procedural and interactional justice were significantly related to trust in organizational leadership. Beyond directly testing the relationship between justice and trust, several theories attempt to model this relationship within a broader context. For example, according to fairness heuristic theory (Lind, 2001), in the absence of specific trustworthiness information, individuals use their perceptions of justice as a decision heuristic to decide whether to trust individuals or leaders. In essence, Lind suggested that when people have to put themselves in positions where they might be vulnerable, such as to a work group or supervisor, if they do not have trust-related information (such as knowledge of the party’s ability, integrity, and benevolence), they will use fairness information as a proxy. In a 2009 test of the theory, Jones and Martens (2009) found support for such a relationship. Recently, Tangirala and Alge (2006) demonstrated that team members using computer-mediated communication tended to react more negatively to unfair events as compared to members of face-to-face groups, and they explained these findings by suggesting that computer-mediated groups suffered from informational uncertainty. Uncertainty management theory (Lind & Van den Bos, 2002; Van den Bos & Lind, 2002), an extension of fairness heuristic theory, suggests that people become more aware of fairness when facing uncertainty in their work environment; hence, they tend to react more to unfairness than in situations where procedures are more clear. Fairness and Trust in Geographically-Dispersed Contexts The literature reviewed above suggests that employees who work in geographically-dispersed or virtual work settings are likely to engage in more electronic or computer-mediated communication than employees who work in traditional work settings. It also suggests that such communication may slow down the development of trust between employees and supervisors or among teammates, due to the longer time and information ex-

Fairness in a Virtual World •

53

change necessary to develop cognitive-based cues for trust, such as ability, integrity, and benevolence indicators. Taking into consideration the justice literature, fairness heuristic theory suggests that in the absence of trust indicators, employees may look at fairness cues as heuristics in deciding whether others can be trusted. We propose that employees will look at the content of the communication message received from supervisors and/or team members, as well as actual treatment and outcomes, to develop fairness perceptions that may then serve as proxies for trust evaluations. Informational justice may be particularly important, as it relates to the openness, veracity, and amount of information received from others. Employees who receive incomplete information (i.e., they perceive that others are withholding information from them) or who perceive information to be dishonest may develop perceptions of informational injustice and use this as an indicator that others are not worthy of trust. Likewise, interpersonal justice may be particularly relevant, given that it deals with the perceived quality of treatment. Employees who perceive that the content of communication received is disrespectful (perhaps full of misspellings and incorrect grammar) or undignified (perhaps using slang or even profanity) may determine that their treatment is interpersonally unfair, and, likewise, report low trust in the message senders. Beyond the content of the message itself, the choice of communication medium is also likely to have an impact on employees’ trust and justice perceptions, and in the next section we review specific theories relating to the medium itself. EFFECTS OF MEDIA ON FAIRNESS AND TRUST The previous sections focused on theories and conceptual frameworks of organizational sciences. However, a few theories from the computer information science and communications literatures may provide additional insight into the effects of media on fairness perceptions and the development of trust in geographically-separated employees. Theories we review in this section include Media Richness Theory, Social Presence Theory, Cues-filtered Out and Cuelessness theories, Social Information Processing Theory, and Channel Expansion theory. Where theories and evidence exist that are directly relevant to trust and justice, we call specific attention to those. Media Richness Theory Arguably, the most dominant theory of media communication has been Daft and Lengel’s (1984) media richness theory (MRT). MRT proposes that communication media can be characterized and categorized based on their capacity to convey non-verbal cues, both visual (e.g., facial expression, posture, direction of gaze, hand gestures, etc.) and auditory (pitch, tone,

54

•

ZINTA S. BYRNE, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & BRIAN M. HURD

loudness, pauses, etc.). In its full form, the theory denotes four characteristics of media that determine their richness: ability to facilitate immediate feedback or synchrony, ability to transmit nonverbal cues, ability to convey language variety, and ability to convey and establish personal feelings and emotions (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987). Based on these characteristics, Lengel and Daft (1988) developed a hierarchy of communication. Specifically, face-to-face communication is the richest medium because communicators have the ability to send and receive verbal cues, as well as non-verbal auditory and visual cues. Telephone-based communication is the next most rich, because both verbal and non-verbal auditory cues can be communicated. In both face-to-face communication and voicemail or phone communication, emotions are conveyed via nonverbal signals (Whissell, 1989). Hence the receiver can perceive affective tone, urgency in voice, or anger; all information that goes beyond the literal meaning of the actual message content or text. By contrast, email or text messaging is considered lean because it only allows the conveyance of verbal messages; non-verbal cues, both auditory and visual, are lost. With email or text-messaging being a fast communication mechanism, faster than paper-based, most analysts rate email or texting as falling between telephone and written, non-electronic communication (Huber & Daft, 1987; Trevino, Daft, & Lengel, 1990). In addition to categorizing media based on richness, MRT also suggests that media should be selected depending on the ambiguity or complexity of the message and the desired level of certainty to be conveyed. MRT suggests that routine communications can be effectively transmitted using a lean medium (Daft, 1999; Lengel & Daft, 1988) because routine communications are simple and straightforward. They typically convey data, statistics, or broad company information, or serve as permanent documentation of official conversations. Written communications are also effective when the message recipients are geographically dispersed (Rice, 1994). However, when the message is complex or contains sensitive information, MRT suggests that a richer medium should be used. There has been considerable research contributing to a general acceptance of MRT (e.g., Byrne & LeMay, 2006; Daft & Lengel, 1984; Foertsch, 1995; Nohria & Eccles, 1992; Schegloff, 1987; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986). For example, Chapman, Uggerslev, and Webster (2003), using media richness to explain their results, found that face-to-face interviews were perceived by job applicants as more fair and led to higher job acceptance intentions than videoconferencing and telephone interviews. However, recent research has criticized the media choice predictions of Daft and Lengel (1984), as well as the static categorization of media. Specifically, researchers in computer-mediated communication (e.g., Carlson & Zmud, 1999; El-Shinnawy & Markus, 1997; Lee, 1994; Markus, 1994; Ngwenyama & Lee, 1997) have found that managers make different

Fairness in a Virtual World •

55

media choices than what MRT would suggest, concluding that the assessment of media richness relies on additional factors beyond static media properties, including social (e.g., relationship of sender and receiver) and contextual (e.g., situation, content of message) factors. Trust Findings Using MRT as their theoretical foundation for an elaborate lab study of teams, Alge, Wiethoff, and Klein (2003) examined the effects of face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication on the effectiveness of team decision-making. Their results showed that all face-to-face teams reported higher levels of trust and openness than computer-mediated teams (i.e., teams who communicated via chat room), except for teams with a working history prior to the decision-making task. Teams with a history of working via a computer-mediated environment for the decision-making task reported similar trust and openness as the teams with a history of working face-to-face. The authors concluded that knowledge-building experiences prior to working virtually built the necessary trust for effective exchanges when working virtually. Their findings are important in that they demonstrate that the development of trust may require face-to-face interactions, interactions the authors suggested convey values, attitudes, affect, and expectations that are required in negotiations and conflict resolution, which computer-mediated interactions simply cannot transmit due to their lean quality. Social Presence Theory Short and colleagues (1976) proposed social presence theory, which suggests that communication media is categorized by its capacity to convey the presence of communication partners through elements such as expressions, posture or standing, eye gaze, and other non-verbal cues. When combined, such elements or dimensions of communication convey interpersonal impressions and warmth. Additionally, researchers have shown that the greater the perceptions of social presence by the communication partner, the more likely that individual is to use that medium for interpersonal communication (Hinds & Kiesler, 1999; Waldeck, Seibold, & Flanagin, 2004). Unlike MRT, which says that richness is a static feature of a medium, social presence theory states that media characteristics are subjective and open to the interpretation of each communication partner (Short et al., 1976). Considerable research supports the premises of social presence theory (e.g., Daft & Lengel, 1984; Foertsch, 1995; Nohria & Eccles, 1992; Schegloff, 1987; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986). Justice Findings Across several studies, Byrne, Masterson and colleagues (Byrne & Masterson, 2003; Byrne, Masterson, & Rogers, 2004; Masterson & Byrne, 2004)

56

•

ZINTA S. BYRNE, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & BRIAN M. HURD

found mixed results for the effects of communication medium (email, voicemail, face-to-face) and performance feedback direction (positive, negative) on fairness perceptions, message accuracy, and supervisor credibility ratings of message recipients. Though main effect findings resulted for credibility and sometimes accuracy, in none of the studies was there a main effect for medium on fairness perceptions. However, they did find interaction effects in one study such that positive feedback was rated more positively when delivered via email or phone as compared to face-to-face, and negative face-to-face feedback was more acceptable than email. Anecdotal comments during and after the studies suggested that participants were reacting to the media, but not as expected or in the manner captured by the study questionnaires. Trust Findings A recent study by Aljukhadar, Senecal, and Ouellette (2010) demonstrated that trust in a retailer (measured using trust indicators proposed by Mayer et al., 1995) improved with the use of rich media applications (i.e., video) by enhancing social presence. Specifically, privacy messages shared via video, as opposed to text messages, enhanced the conveyance of nonverbal and social cues, facilitating the perception of social presence. However, Rockmann and Northcraft (2008) demonstrated that although video improves trust development between strangers by conveying information about intentions and minimizing attempts to deceive communication partners, it simply was not as effective as face-to-face interactions. They argued that video simply may not be able to convey all the cues necessary to accurately assess trust (e.g., intention to cooperate), as is conveyed via face-to-face interactions. Cues-filtered-out and Cuelessness Theory Although recent research suggests that richness depends on how the medium is used (e.g., Carlson & Zmud, 1999; Markus, 1994), approaches such as MRT and social presence theory have been called the cues-filteredout perspective (Culnan & Markus, 1987) to emphasize that regardless of how the medium is used, critical nonverbal and verbal cues are missing from communication that is not face-to-face. Cuelessness theory (Rutter, 1987) is similar to the cues-filtered-out perspective in suggesting that a paucity of cues is related to psychological distancing. From this view, the fewer nonverbal cues, the less effective the communication. Moreover, although emotions can be communicated via email (Rice & Love, 1987), such as using emoticons like a smiley face ‘:-)’, “paralanguage, which includes vocal characterizations (laughing, crying, yelling, whining, yawning), vocal qualifiers (volume, pitch, rhythm, tone, rate), and vocal segregates (uh-huh, shh, oooh, mmmh) may be communicated to limited degrees using emoti-

Fairness in a Virtual World •

57

cons or verbal equivalents (ha-ha, shh, etc.)” (Kahai & Cooper, 2003, p. 267). Therefore, although individuals may attempt to enhance electronic communication, such communication lacks the multiplicity of cues available via face-to-face. The lack of cues can be problematic because nonverbal cues have important functions (Duncan, 1969; Graham, Unruh, & Jennings, 1991; Mehrabian, 1972) like conveying doubt and uncertainty or displaying acceptance (Williams, 1977). Visual nonverbal cues, such as eye contact, smiling, and body position, express emotions and reactions like attraction or dominance (e.g., Argyle & Dean, 1965; Carnevale, Pruitt, & Seilheimer, 1981). Importantly, these expressions influence the development and maintenance of relationships (Byrne, 1971; Short et al., 1976), which have implications for trust development. Furthermore, the lack of cues imposes a higher cognitive cost on participants because they must work hard to understand the message and sift through the uncertainty of the exchange (Clark & Brennan, 1991). Uncertainty reduction theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) suggests that information exchanged between communication partners is critical because it reduces uncertainty by increasing predictability. Though the studies occurred some time ago, Mehrabian (1969) provided a comprehensive review of research that is still relevant today, identifying critical nonverbal cues (i.e., distance, eye contact, body orientation, and accessibility of body) that convey attitude and status in the relationship and contribute to the development of trust and fairness perceptions. The first cue is distance between speakers; when the norm for distance (usually determined by culture) is violated, it leads to embarrassment, confusion over the other’s intentions, rejection, and a perceived lack of responsiveness. The second cue is eye contact, which serves to initiate and terminate verbal exchanges and conveys attitudes and emotions through varying degrees of eye contact. Mehrabian’s review included studies demonstrating that more eye contact conveyed affiliation and intimacy while less indicated dislike. Furthermore, eye contact varied by status of the communicators, though findings did vary by gender. Eye contact tends to work in concert with the third cue, body orientation, such that body orientation (angle of shoulders and legs relative to addressee) only matters when eye contact is present. Body orientation does convey respect for hierarchical status, with higher status individuals receiving a direct (i.e., face-on) body orientation. Finally, accessibility of body, such as openness of arms and legs, communicates warmth or acceptance, and positive attitude. What is most significant about Mehrabian’s review is that substantial research has shown that whereas nonverbal cues are critical in communicating attitude and relationship position, their absence creates miscommunication, negative attitudes, dislike, and disrespect.

58

•

ZINTA S. BYRNE, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & BRIAN M. HURD

Recent work further supports the importance of face-to-face communication. Specifically, the multiplicity of cues found in face-to-face communication significantly affects communication clarity and perceived ability to identify others’ expertise (Kahai & Cooper, 2003). Researchers have suggested that a lack of contextual cues and consequential lost information makes email, for example, prone to misinterpretation (McKenney, Zack, & Doherty, 1992). Further, when verbal and nonverbal cues are removed from a message, fully understanding it can take longer and be more difficult (Dennis & Kinney, 1998). Trust Findings Burgoon, Buller, Hale, and De Turck (1984) found that high eye contact, close proximity, forward body positioning, and smiling all conveyed intimacy, attraction, and, importantly, trust. A more recent study confirms that nonverbal cues are essential in the establishment of trust. In particular, Wood (2006) demonstrated that specific nonverbal cues were influential in trustworthiness assessments, and that certain nonverbal cues convey candor, benevolence, and expertise—all critical in trust formation. He further demonstrated that such assessments can occur within the first meeting between strangers (in this case sales people). Potential Advantages of the Lack of Nonverbal Cues For the most part, the lack of nonverbal cues tends to be problematic and, as noted above, leads to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of communications. Cuelessness theory and the cues-filtered-out approach imply that communication containing both verbal and nonverbal cues is most effective. A lack of nonverbal cues, however, can sometimes be an advantage by focusing attention upon the content of the message only (Neher, 1997). According to Ambady and Rosenthal (1992), individuals indirectly and effectively communicate with others through unintended and unconscious nonverbal behavior such as tone of voice and body language cues (Ekman, 1985). When verbal and nonverbal information are viewed as inconsistent, nonverbal behaviors may often be seen as reflecting the true message (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992; Graham et al., 1991). An advantage of lean media, therefore, is that they focus attention on the message content. Social Information Processing Theory Fulk, Steinfield, Schmitz, and Power (1987) proposed that people perceive media and communication through a social information processing lens (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), formulating resulting attitudes about the media. Specifically, attitudes regarding communication media systematically vary as a function of the social context and organizational norms sur-

Fairness in a Virtual World •

59

rounding the communication medium (Fulk, Schmitz, & Steinfield, 1990). Fulk and colleagues (1987) applied social information processing (Salancik & Pfeiffer, 1978) and social learning theory (Bandura, 1986) to suggest that media perceptions are socially constructed, determined not only by objective features of the medium (such as Daft & Lengel’s conceptualization of richness) but also by the attitudes, behaviors, and usage norms of a communication medium held by others in the communication network (Chang & Johnson, 2001; Fulk, 1993; Fulk & Boyd, 1991). Four factors contribute to the social construction of attitudes about communication media, including perceived media and task characteristics, attitudes toward communication media use, individual differences (including personality and experiences with a medium), and social information (e.g., Turner, Grube, Tinsley, Lee, & O’Pell, 2006). In support, Schmitz and Fulk (1991) examined the effects of perceived media richness and social influences on organizational members’ perceptions and use of email. They found that perceptions of email richness varied across employees, and that these perceptions covaried with relational social influences (i.e., coworker and supervisor assessments and use of a medium) and media experience (i.e., their own personal experience using the communication medium). As a result, the authors argued that media richness is not a stable property of the media itself, but rather a perceptual variable. Schmitz and Fulk (1991) argue that this reconceptualization of media richness as a perceptual variable “has the potential to increase our explanatory and predictive power for media behavior in organizations” (p. 513). Justice Findings Retaining the richness classification of MRT, but applying social information processing theory and channel expansion theory to frame hypotheses, Hurd (2007) proposed that the richness perceptions of communication media users would influence (as a moderator) their fairness ratings of performance feedback messages (positive or negative) delivered face-to-face or through email. Using a laboratory study, he found main effects for communication medium, as well as an interaction between feedback sign and medium. Specifically, those receiving negative feedback face-to-face rated distributive justice and procedural justice higher than those receiving negative feedback via email; there was no difference between those receiving positive feedback face-to-face or through email on ratings of distributive and procedural justice. Additionally, those receiving both positive and negative feedback face-to-face rated interactional justice higher than those receiving the same feedback through email. Hurd did not find moderating effects for perceptions of media richness on fairness perceptions, though he did for other reactions to feedback messages (e.g., satisfaction, supervisor credibility). Hurd’s overall findings for the influence of media on fairness

60

•

ZINTA S. BYRNE, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & BRIAN M. HURD

perceptions demonstrate consistency with established findings in feedback sign (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979), and support for the propositions of MRT, social information processing theory, and social presence theory. Another example of justice research combining MRT, social information processing theory, and social presence theory is a lab study conducted by Tangirala and Alge (2006). In their study, the authors proposed that lean media limit the social information and cues transmitted, creating uncertainty in the communication recipients. Thus, using uncertainty management theory (Lind & Van den Bos, 2002) and the tenets of MRT, social presence theory, and social information processing theory, they proposed and found that team members of face-to-face groups reported higher procedural fairness perceptions than those in computer-mediated teams when presented with unfair events. Trust Findings Researchers studying the development of trust in teams have indirectly relied on MRT, social information processing theory, and the cues-filteredout perspective. Specifically, researchers have proposed that computer-mediated communication is slower than face-to-face, by nature of its synchronous transmission, which constrains the amount of information transmitted at any one time (e.g., Walther & Burgoon, 1992). That is, it takes longer to type than speak, and takes longer to establish context and interpersonal connection since visual cues are absent, resulting in computer-mediated communications taking up to four times longer than face-to-face communications (Dubrovky, Kiesler, & Sethna, 1991; Weisband, 1992). Additionally, such communication leads to depersonalization due to the nonverbals being filtered out and the inability to see behaviors or expressions, causing members of the group to focus on themselves rather than on each other (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984). Lastly, the filtering out of cues reduces team members’ ability to assess each other’s intentions, which are conveyed through vocal qualifiers and non-verbal cues. Researchers hypothesize that the development of trust is inhibited by all these factors. Though their study focused on a more complex model than just trust in computer-mediated settings, Hill, Bartol, Tesluk, and Langa (2009) provided evidence that trust building in computer-mediated teams was slower and less effective than in face-to-face only teams, and these differences continued over time. In contrast, Walther and Bunz (2005), relying on social information processing theory, found that when rules and norms for communicating electronically were established, uncertainty was reduced and trust was enhanced in distributed work teams. Therefore, issues of time may be limited if rules are established at the onset of team formation. Extending the research on trust in teams, Wilson et al. (2006) proposed that trust in distributed teams develops similarly as in face-to-face teams,

Fairness in a Virtual World •

61

but takes longer because of the constrained ability of lean media to convey social exchange information. Thus, team members must meet for a longer period of time before they develop the same trust levels as face-to-face teams, and prior research paradigms have failed to study teams over extensive periods (e.g., many study them across time but only for one-time meetings). Wilson and colleagues relied on the tenets of social information processing theory (Fulk et al., 1987; Walther, 1992) and cues-filtered-out perspective to derive their hypotheses. In an elaborate, 3-week study manipulating medium, time, and ordering of whether and when team members met face-to-face, the authors found that, if given enough time, teams that met via computer-mediation reported comparable levels of trust to those who met face-to-face. They concluded that their findings could not be explained by either cues-filtered-out or social information processing theory alone, since both would suggest that computer-mediated team members simply cannot share all the cues and information necessary to match faceto-face environments and, therefore, comparable levels of trust should not be achieved. Their study findings seem consistent with channel expansion theory, which we review next. Channel Expansion Theory Like social information processing theory (Fulk et al., 1997), channel expansion theory proposes that richness is not a property of communication media, but instead it is a perception held by the media user (Carlson, 1995; Carlson & Zmud, 1994, 1999). Thus, lean medium as categorized using MRT can be perceived as rich if the medium user experiences it as such when interacting with established communication partners. According to Carlson and Zmud (1999), as users gain experience with a medium (e.g., email), their familiarity and comfort with it allows them to extract more information and meaning than would otherwise be expected using MRT as a guide. Importantly, though, for this supposition to hold one must have established a history communicating with a specific partner using that medium since it is the relationship that allows for the transference of richer meaning and not the medium itself. That is, through patterns of communication established via a particular exchange medium, partners learn how to infer tone or pitch using paralanguage and jargon from each other. Another supposition of the theory is that as people become experienced conversing about certain topics within an organizational context, they develop a foundation of knowledge that enables them to decode specific language within the message that those outside of the context cannot readily interpret. Stated simply, Carlson and Zmud’s propositions are that once people know each other well, communicate with each other frequently using a particular medium to establish patterns and potentially private language or symbols, and communicate about a topic consistently within the

62

•

ZINTA S. BYRNE, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & BRIAN M. HURD

same organizational context, they can expand their understanding of the information transmitted via the medium because of their shared history, language, and patterns. Thus, it is not the medium, per se, that is altered; it is the user’s understanding of the information transmitted via the medium that is expanded. Calson and Zmud call this the channel expansion effect. Several researchers have demonstrated support for channel expansion theory (e.g., Lee, 1994; Maruping & Agarwal, 2004). For example, Maruping and Agarwal (2004) found that perceptions of email richness changed as group members developed familiarity in communicating with one another and developed a shared language over email. Similarly, researchers showed that participants improved their ability to detect deception in messages as their experience with email communication increased (Burgoon, Barett, & Blair, 2004; Carlson & George, 2004; Carlson, George, Burgoon, Adkins, & White, 2004). As noted previously, Alge and colleagues (2003) showed that virtual teams with experience (i.e., more time together) communicated as effectively via computer-mediation as face-to-face teams and that trust levels were comparable. However, close relations between team members (as assessed via team-member exchange) were still stronger in face-to-face teams than virtual and was associated with greater levels of interdependent efficiency. They argued that their findings were consistent with channel expansion theory, however, they did not actually assess the expansion of the channel—that is, they did not first assess the team members communications via computer-mediation a the start of the team and then track them longitudinally to see how communication patterns changed. None-the-less, their findings provide insight into experienced communication through electronic media in comparison to face-to-face communications. Summary The accumulated research on fairness and trust in computer- or electronic-mediated settings suggests that there are differences between face-toface communication and electronic-mediated communication, in particular with regards to the verbal and non-verbal cues that are conveyed. The findings are somewhat complex, in that some issues with communication are minimized with time or familiarity, and various moderators to the communication exists (e.g., uncertainty, favorability of the message). Specifically, we can conclude from the above review that when communicating via electronic media, it takes time to develop the trust levels that are found in face-to-face communication. Some aspects of face-to-face communication cannot be replicated or conveyed in computer-mediated environments, regardless of the passage of time, due to the lack of non face-to-face mechanisms conveying non-verbal cues. The more the message relies on conveying emotion, connection, intentions, respect, and other visual or auditory cues, the more the communication relies on face-to-face interactions. The

Fairness in a Virtual World •

63

more communicators can remove the uncertainty of their work environment in computer-mediated environments, the less workers will seek out and react to fairness indicators. Establishing a working history face-to-face before communicating via computer-mediation seems to facilitate the computer-mediated communication and trust levels. Finally, hierarchical or status differentials complicate electronically mediated communication, as it is difficult to convey respect for status without using non-verbal cues such as extensiveness of eye contact or body positioning. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? Our review of the literature brings us to a conceptual model of the implications of communication media on fairness and trust perceptions (see Figure 1). Namely, we propose that the work environment establishes the context and setting for communication. Features of the work environment, such as whether employees are members of an existing team or members of one that is newly forming, whether members are part of an autonomous team or one with clear hierarchical structure where status matters, or environments fraught with certainty or uncertainty, determine the content and messaging for communications that occur between communication partners. All communication, regardless of context, must go through a layer of medium—be it face-to-face or electronic. We propose that it is at this point where verbal and nonverbal cues are either passed through or filtered out. As discussed in depth above, the presence or absence of cues, given the work context, determine fairness perceptions and trustworthiness. Fairness perceptions themselves also contribute to perceptions of trustworthiness, which determines levels of trust. Both fairness and trust lead to outcomes such as overall well-being, performance (including citizenship behaviors or task performance), and commitment, to name a few. Our model offers a number of propositions that can be tested via laboratory studies and field studies. By focusing attention on the work context as a key critical starting point, we believe that clarity to some of our own early attempts to study the effects of medium on fairness perceptions may arise. Namely, efforts to consider the aspects of the work context may be critical in accurately assessing whether the medium has a main effect on fairness and trust. Additionally, work context, as we describe here, takes into account contradictory findings about the change in trust levels as a function of time. Perhaps it is not time, per se, that is the critical component here, but rather the nature of the work context. For example, time is not a factor for experienced teams, but it may be for newly-forming teams. Further, theories such as channel expansion that suggest that the medium can be made rich with experienced and familiar communicators ignores the findings from research that certain components of intimacy and trust simply cannot be achieved with computer-mediated relationships. That is,

64

•

ZINTA S. BYRNE, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & BRIAN M. HURD

FIGURE 1.

linguistic and communication researchers suggest that certain aspects of communication, such as co-presence (seeing what one’s partner is doing or looking at) just cannot be conveyed via electronic media (Clark & Brennan, 1991). Thus, our model places channel expansion theory at the work context level, where familiarity of members and experience communicating establish the context for how medium is used. Nonverbal cues are still filtered out in electronic communication—at the layer of the medium. Our model further suggests that once you take into consideration what cues have been transmitted or conveyed via relationships, determining fairness perceptions and trust development relies on the existing theories such as fairness heuristic theory, uncertainty management theory, and the indicators of trust: benevolence, ability, and integrity. However, since the medi-

Fairness in a Virtual World •

65

um can complicate the work environment by removing information about the certainty of leaders, information about intentions, and cues of trust, the development of fairness perceptions and trust must be assessed and considered given that complexity. Simply using the existing theories without recognizing that they were developed without consideration for what is missing or confounded in the work environment due to the medium may result in erroneous hypotheses or explanations. Hence, researchers should retest trust and justice theories in situations with different media and different work contexts. Implications for Practice Based on the extant literature, there are several approaches that managers and virtual team members can take to convey fairness and trust in their technology-mediated communications. Communication is tough, even within face-to-face settings. As we move through the developmental lifecycle, we are socialized in our respective cultures and learn how to communicate; we learn sender/receiver patterns, we learn to acknowledge what was said, and we learn to recognize nonverbal cues. Thus, by the time people enter the workplace, there is an assumption that we all understand the unspoken rules of how to communicate. Even then, there are miscommunications as many are not taught well, cultures differ, and other issues arise (e.g., fear of rejection, inability to clearly say what is felt, etc). Computer mediation adds yet another level of complexity, increasing the opportunity for further ambiguity and uncertainty. Although this paper is not about how to communicate effectively, there are some strategies that we believe, based on the literature reviewed above, may facilitate computer or electronically mediated communication, enhancing the likelihood conveyance of fairness and trust building. First, we recommend that a concerted effort be made to send strong signals about one’s benevolence, integrity, and potentially ability to convey trust. Specifically, in electronically-mediated communication, communicators must be explicit about these trust components and directly communicate their values, previous experiences, and interactions that exhibit integrity. More direct communication with the intent to focus on relational content versus just task content is required. Managers specifically may want to solicit the help of their supervisors or team members may wish to recruit supportive coworkers to share previous exchanges about them that provide evidence of benevolence, integrity, and ability. Such stories from credible sources help communicate to other team members the trustworthiness of the communicator. Second, it may be beneficial for managers to develop a value statement at the start of their computer-mediated communication—a statement that shares their philosophy, their fairness policies, and their commitment to

66

•

ZINTA S. BYRNE, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & BRIAN M. HURD

fairness and ethical standards. Managers must then follow-up and hold themselves accountable to their statements. We note from the extant literature that communicators in computer-mediated settings cannot assume that others will understand their values as emerging from exposure to each other, and there is less chance in computer-mediated settings for such values to surface naturally. Rather, making values, intentions, and abilities explicit rather than implicit is critical for successful trust and fairness conveyance. Third, we recommend that managers and members of virtual teams establish the rules/guidelines for how the electronic communication mechanism should be used. More specifically, they should make the cues for trust development and justice explicit and build them into the agreement of how the electronic medium will be used. Because sense-making is reduced by the lack of ability to see communication partners, to see the contextual environment surrounding them, and the lack of spontaneous facial expressions or sharing of thoughts that may typically occur in co-located work environments, such exchanges must be made explicit. That is, members of computer-mediated or virtual teams must express their thoughts “aloud” via text, video-conferencing, or other mechanisms to which everyone agrees. Fourth, within computer mediated work environments, attention to the specific behaviors that are required for conveying trustworthiness, benevolence, integrity, and fairness is critical. For example, extra information that clarifies context, expression, and content is necessary for stating one’s intended message. Anticipating potential confusion or misunderstandings may also help. For example, one can state outright—“I realize that this may come across as harsh and that is not my intention. My intention is to be very clear and that requires me to be very explicit.” Additionally, anticipating that building relations takes time could alleviate concerns and misunderstandings over the time delay in establishing intimacy or feelings of closeness. Importantly, as noted in our review above, justice perceptions have frequently been modeled and shown to be antecedents to the development of trust (e.g., Frazier et al., 2010). Focusing on promoting fairness is therefore important. Development of positive fairness perceptions can be facilitated by clarifying procedures and making sure they are consistent across worksites and people, communicating them consistently, asking for information from everyone in a transparent forum before making decisions, and reporting back on what decisions were made. With regards to conveying distributive justice, explicit sharing of accomplishments helps members of a virtual environment understand what referent others have contributed, thus making input/output ratio comparisons more salient. Behaviors that convey interactional justice (e.g., respect), such as making expectations clear regarding communications, scheduling time to engage in chat and casual e-conver-

Fairness in a Virtual World •

67

sations or supplementing virtual communication with regular face-to-face communication, recognizing explicit and potentially implicit emotions in others, conveying empathy or a recognition of what others’ may be experiencing, making assumptions explicit, refraining from inappropriate or disrespectful statements and ensuring to provide context and clarification around statements that could be misunderstood, and owning miscommunications through apology and efforts to clarify. Finally, as noted in the extant literature above, timeliness of communication is important as it suggests that there is a respect for other’s time, therefore, efforts to be timely can go a long way towards conveying respect. Rules or guidelines about timeliness can help in this regard; that is, having a guideline about what is timely, such as 24-hour response time or 1-hour response time, clarifies that such a time delay is not an intended signal of disrespect. These suggestions will help managers and organizations better convey trust and fairness in technologymediated work environments. Conclusion Much of what we know about trust and organizational fairness in organizations is based on face-to-face interactions. As organizations continue to adopt new communication technologies so that individuals can work remotely and with other employees across the globe, it is critical to understand what effect this work context has on organizational communication, fairness, and trust. The evidence provided in this review, along with theories and current models of communication suggest that the effect is most likely negative for employer-employee relations, as well as within teams. The model presented here gives researchers and practitioners a framework to understand how the development of trust and fairness may be different in virtual work environments, by focusing attention on the work context and on how the medium itself affects communication. Although researchers have already started to investigate technology-mediated communication, more work is needed to understand what is required to establish and build trust and fairness in a virtual world REFERENCES Alge, B. J., Wiethoff, C., & Klein, H. J. (2003). When does the medium matter? Knowledge-building experiences and opportunities in decision-making teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(1), 26–37. Aljukhadar, M., Senecal, S., & Ouellette, D. (2010). Can the media richness of a privacy disclosure enhance outcome? A multifaceted view of trust in rich media environments. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 14(4), 103–126.

68

•

ZINTA S. BYRNE, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & BRIAN M. HURD

Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256–274. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. (1990). Improving the performance of new product teams. Research Technology Management, 35(2), 25–29. Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance, and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289–304. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria for fairness. In B. Sheppard (Ed.), Research on negotiation in organizations (vol. 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Boh, W. F., Ren, Y., Kiesler, S., & Bussjaeger, R. (2007). Expertise and collaboration in the geographically dispersed organization. Organization Science, 18, 595–612. Bradach, J. L., & Eccles, R. G. (1989). Price, authority, and trust: From ideal types to plural forms. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 97–118. Burgoon, J. K., Barett, L, K., & Blair, J. P. (2004). Detecting deception in computermediated communication. In J. F. George (Ed.), Computers in society: Privacy, ethics, and the Internet (pp. 154–166). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Hale, J. L., & DeTurck, M. A. (1984). Relational messages associated with nonverbal behaviors. Human Communication Research, 10(3), 351–378. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Byrne, Z. S., & LeMay, E. (2006). Different media for organizational communication: Perceptions of quality and satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21, 149–173. Byrne, Z. S., & Masterson, S.S. (2003, April). Effects of communication medium and feedback direction on fairness perceptions. Presented as a poster at the 18th annual conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL. Byrne, Z. S., Masterson, S. S., & Rogers, D. A. (2004, April). Communication medium and message: Effects on fairness perceptions and reactions. Presented as a symposium at the 19th annual conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL. Camerman, J., Cropanzano, R., & Vandenberghe, C. (2007). The benefits of justice for temporary employees. Group & Organization Management, 32(2), 176–207. Carlson, J. R. (1995) Channel expansion theory: A dynamic view of media and information richness perceptions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Carlson, J. R., & George, J. F. (2004). Media appropriateness in the conduct and discovery of deceptive communication: The relative influence of richness and synchronicity. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 191–210.

Fairness in a Virtual World •

69

Carlson, J. R., George, J. F., Burgoon, J. K, Adkins, M., & White, C. H. (2004). Deception in computer-mediated communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 5–28. Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1994). Channel expansion theory: A dynamic view of media and information richness perceptions. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 280–284. Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 153–170. Carnevale, P. J. D., Pruitt, D. G., & Seilheimer, S. (1981). Looking and competing: Accountability and visual access in integrative bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 111–120. Celani, A., Deutsch-Salamon, S., & Singh, P. (2008). In justice we trust: A model of the role of trust in the organization in applicant reactions to the selection process. Human Resource Management Review, 18(2), 63–76. Chang, H., & Johnson, J. D. (2001). Communication networks as predictors of organizational members’ media choices. Western Journal of Communication, 65, 349–369. Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., & Webster, J. (2003). Applicant reactions to faceto-face and technology-mediated interviews: A field investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 944–953. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278– 321. Costa, A. C., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. C. B. (2001). Trust implications for performance and effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(3), 225–244. Clark, H., & Brennan, S. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition, (pp. 127– 149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 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-analysis of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445. 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. Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4), 247–265. Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies, In F. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 420–443). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Daft, R. L. (1999). Leadership: Theory and practice. New York, NY: The Dryden Press.

70

•

ZINTA S. BYRNE, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & BRIAN M. HURD

Daft, R. L. & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial information processing and organization design. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 6, pp. 191–233). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11, 355–366. Dennis, A. R., & Kinney, S. T. (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research, 9, 256–274. DeRosa, D.M., Hantula, D.A., Kock, N., & D’Arcy, J. (2004). Trust and leadership in virtual teamwork: A media naturalness perspective. Human Resource Management, 43, 219–232. Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive Justice: A Social-Psychological Perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611– 628. Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 119–146. Duncan, S., Jr. (1969). Nonverbal communication. Psychological Bulletin, 72, 118– 137. Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies. New York: W.W. Norton. El-Shinnawy, M. M., & Markus, M. L. (1997). The poverty of media richness theory: explaining people’s choice of electronic mail vs. voice mail. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46, 443–467. Foertsch, J. (1995). The impact of electronic networks on scholarly communication: avenues for research. Discourse Processes,19, 301–328. Forret, M., & Love, M.S. (2008). Employee justice perceptions and coworker relationships. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29(3), 248–260. Frazier, M. L., Johnson, P. D., Gavin, M., Gooty, J., & Snow, D. B. (2010). Organizational justice, trustworthiness, and trust: A multifoci examination. Group & Organization Management, 35(1), 39–76. Fulk, J. (1993). Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 921–950. Fulk, J., & Boyd, B. (1991). Emerging theories of communication in organizations. Journal of Management, 17, 407–446. Fulk, J., Schmitz, J., & Steinfield, C. (1990). A social influence model of technology use. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 117–142). Newbury Park: Sage. Fulk, J., Steinfield, C. W., Schmitz, J., & Power, J. G. (1987). A social information processing model of media use in organizations. Communication Research, 14, 529–552. Gorton, I., & Motwani, S. (1996). Issues in co-operative software engineering when using globally distributed teams. Information and Software Technology, 38, 647– 655.

Fairness in a Virtual World •

71

Graham, G. H., Unruh, J., & Jennings, P. (1991). The impact of nonverbal communication in organizations: A survey of perceptions. The Journal of Business Communication, 28, 45–61. Harvey, S., Kelloway, E., & Duncan-Leiper, L. (2003). Trust in management as a buffer of the relationships between overload and strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4), 306–315. Hill, N., Bartol, K. M., Tesluk, P. E., & Langa, G. A. (2009). Organizational context and face-to-face interaction: Influences on the development of trust and collaborative behaviors in computer-mediated groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 187–201. Hinds, P., & Kiesler, S. (1999). Communication across boundaries: Work, structure, and use of communication technologies in a large organization. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp. 211–246). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Holtz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. (2009). Fair today, fair tomorrow? A longitudinal investigation of overall justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1185–1199. Huber, G. P., & Daft, R. L. (1987). The information environments of organizations. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 130–164). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Hurd, B. M. (2007). The medium matters: The effect of communication medium on subordinate reactions to task feedback. Unpublished master’s thesis. Colorado State University. Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349–371. International Telework Association and Council (ITAC). (2009). Telework Trendlines 2009. http://www.workingfromanywhere.org/news/Trendlines_2009.pdf Jarvenpaa, S. L., Shaw, T R., & Staples, D. S. (2004). Toward contextualized theories of trust: The role of trust in global virtual teams. Information Systems Research, 15, 250–267. JinJuan Feng, P., Lazar, J., & Preece, J. (2004). Empathy and online interpersonal trust: A fragile relationship. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(2), 97–106. Jones, D. A., & Martens, M. L. (2009). The mediating role of overall fairness and the moderating role of trust certainty in justice–criteria relationships: the formation and use of fairness heuristics in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 1025–1051. Joshi, A., Lazarova, M. B., Liao, H. (2009). Getting everyone on board: The role of inspirational leadership in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science, 20, 240–252. Kahai, S. S., & Cooper, R. B. (2003). Exploring the core concepts of media richness theory: The impact of cue multiplicity and feedback immediacy on decision quality. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20, 263–299. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134. Kristof, A. L., Brown, K. G., Sims, H. P. Jr., Smith, K. A. (1995). The virtual team: A case study and inductive model. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T.

72

•

ZINTA S. BYRNE, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & BRIAN M. HURD

Beyerlein (Eds)., Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Knowledge work in teams (vol. 2, pp. 229–253). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Lee, A. S. (1994). Electronic mail as a medium for rich communication: An empirical investigation using hermeneutic interpretation. MIS Quarterly, 18, 143–157. Lengel, R. H., & Daft, R. L. (1988). The selection of communication media as an executive skill, Academy of Management Review, 2, 225–232. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchanges: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum. Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lewicki, R. J., Wiethoff, C., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2005). What is the role of trust in organizational justice? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 247–270). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56–88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Lind, B., & Van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24,181–223. Markus, M. L. (1994). Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. Organization Science, 5, 502–527. Maruping, L. M., & Agarwal, R. (2004). Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: A task-technology fit perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 975–990. Masterson, S. S. & Byrne, Z. S. (2004, April). Communication channels, fairness perceptions, and employee reactions: identifying the links. Presented as a symposium at the 19th annual conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734. McAllister, D. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59. McKenney, J. L, Zack, M. H., & Doherty, V.S. (1992). Complementary communication media: A comparison of electronic mail and face-to-face communication in a programming team in Networks and organizations: structure, form, and action. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp. 262–287). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Mehrabian, A. (1969). Significance of posture and position in the communication of attitude and status relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 71(5), 359–372. Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. Mohrman, S. A. (1999). The contexts for geographically dispersed teams and networks. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 6): The virtual organization (pp. 63–80). New York: Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Neher, W. W. (1997). Organizational communication: Challenges of change, diversity, and continuity. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Fairness in a Virtual World •

73

Ngwenyama, O. K., & Lee, A. S. (1997). Communication richness in electronic mail: Critical social theory and the contextuality of meaning. MIS Quarterly, 21, 145–167. Nohria, N., & Eccles, R. (1992). Face-to-face: Making network organizations work. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp. 288–308). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. O’Leary, M. B., & Cummings, J. N. (2007). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly, 31, 433–452. Pew Research Center (2010). Pew internet & american life project Retrieved March 26, 2011, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Static-Pages/Trend-Data.aspx Rice, R. E. (1994). Task analyzability, use of new media, and effectiveness: A multisite exploration of media richness. Organizational Science, 3, 502–527. Rice, R. E., & Bair, J. H. (1984). New organizational media and productivity. In R. E. Rice and associates (Eds.), The new media: Communication, research, and technology (pp. 185–216). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Rice, R. E., & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotions: Socioemotional content in a computer-mediated network. Communication Research, 14, 85–108. Robert, L. P., Jr., Dennis, A. R., & Hung, Y. C. (2009). Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to-face and virtual team members. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26, 241–270. Rockmann, K. W., & Northcraft, G. B. (2008). To be or not to be trusted: The influence of media richness on defection and deception. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 107(2), 106–122. Rousseau, V., Salek, S., Aubé, C., & Morin, E. M. (2009). Distributive justice, procedural justice, and psychological distress: The moderating effect of coworker support and work autonomy. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(3), 305–317. Rutter, D. R. (1987). Communicating by telephone. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Salancik, G., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–252. Sarker, S., Ahuja, M., Sarker, S., & Kirkeby, S. (2011). The role of communication and trust in global virtual teams: A social network perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28, 273–309. Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interactions: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 101–114. Schmitz, J., & Fulk, J. (1991). Organizational colleagues, media richness, and electronic mail. Communication Research, 18, 487–523. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London, England: Wiley & Sons. Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing Social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492–1512. Tangirala, S., & Alge, B. J. (2006). Reactions to unfair events in computer-mediated groups: A test of uncertainty management theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 1–20. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

74

•

ZINTA S. BYRNE, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & BRIAN M. HURD

Trevino, L. K., Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1990). Understanding manager’s media choices: A symbolic interactionist perspective. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology, (pp. 71–94). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M.S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Turner, J. W., Grube, J. A., Tinsley, C. H., Lee, C., & O’Pell, C. (2006). Exploring the dominant media: How does media use reflect organizational norms and affect performance? Journal of Business Communication, 43, 220–250. Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 34 (pp. 1–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Wahl, A. (2006). Universal appeal. Canadian Business, 79(8), 89. Waldeck, J. H., Seibold, D. R., & Flanagin, A. J. (2004). Organizational assimilation and communication technology use. Communication Monographs, 71, 161–183. Walmsley, A. (2008). It’s not paranoia they’re out to get me. Marketing (00253650), 15. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90 Walther, J. B., & Bunz, U. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: Trust, liking, and performance in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 828–846. Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computermediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19(1), 50–88. Weisband, S. P. (1992). Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computermediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 352–380. Whissell, C. M. (1989). The dictionary of affect in language. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion-Theory, research and experience, Vol 4: The measurement of emotions. (pp. 113–131). New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc. Williams, E. (1977). Experimental comparisons of face-to-face and mediated communication: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 963–976. Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective context for trust development. Academy of Management Review, 26, 377–396. Wilson, J. M., Straus, S. G., & McEvily, B. (2006). All in due time: The development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 16–33. Wood, J. (2006). NLP revisited: Nonverbal communications and signals of trustworthiness. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 26(2), 197–204. Zolin, R., Hinds, P. J., Fruchter, R., & Levitt, R. E. (2004). Interpersonal trust in cross-functional, geographically distributed work: A longitudinal study. Information and Organization, 14, 1–26.

Fairness in a Virtual World •

75

ADDITIONAL READINGS Anderson, W. D., & Patterson, M. (2010). The role of psychological distance in the formation of fairness judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 2888–2903. Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Dillman, L., & Walther, J. B. (1995). Interpersonal deception: IV. Effects of suspicion on perceived communication and nonverbal behavior dynamics. Human Communication Research, 22(2), 163–196. Hancock, J. T., & Dunham, P. J. (2001). Impression formation in computer-mediated communication revisited: An analysis of the breadth and intensity of impressions. Communication Research, 28(3), 325–347. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26(3), 341–371. Ramirez, J., Walther, J. B., Burgoon, J. K., & Sunnafrank, M. (2002). Informationseeking strategies, uncertainty, and computer-mediated communication toward a conceptual model. Human Communication Research, 28(2), 213–228. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. (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 US: Academic Press. Walther, J. B. (1994). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 20(4), 473–501. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. Walther, J. B., & Bazarova, N. N. (2008). Validation and application of electronic propinquity theory to computer-mediated communication in groups. Communication Research, 35(5), 622–645.

CHAPTER 4

THE IMPACT OF A VICTIM’S REACTION TO UNFAIR TREATMENT ON THIRD PARTIES’ EMOTION AND RETRIBUTION A Moral Perspective Daniel Skarlicki, Graham Brown, and Brian Bemmels

Although victims of workplace unfairness report feelings of moral outrage, little research has explored the consequences of employees revealing their emotions on others around them. Following the moral perspective of justice, the authors tested how an unfairly treated employee’s negative reaction (i.e., whether he or she was visibly upset) affects third parties’ emotion and retributive tendencies. Results of a scenario study (Study 1) show that the stronger the victim’s negative reaction, the stronger the retributive reactions among third parties, and that third parties’ negative emotion mediated these relationships. In survey research (Study 2), perceptions of unfairness severity mediated the relationship between the victim’s negative reaction and third parties’ negative emotion. Research in Management: Perspectives on Justice and Trust in Organizations, pages 77–105 Copyright © 2012 by Information Age Publishing 77 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

78

•

DANIEL SKARLICKI, GRAHAM BROWN, & BRIAN BEMMELS

Organizational justice refers to individuals’ perceptions of fair treatment in the workplace. Most organizational justice research has explored the causes and consequences of unfairness from the victim’s (i.e., the employee’s) perspective. Growing research, however, reveals that unfair treatment can impact third parties (e.g., co-workers, customers, investors, and members of the general public), who can react negatively to both the wrongdoer and the organization in which the transgression occurred. Brockner and colleagues (Brockner, DeWitt, Grover, & Reed, 1990; Brockner & Greenberg, 1990; Brockner, Grover, Reed, DeWitt, & O’Malley, 1987), for instance, showed that the way in which a company managed its layoffs reduced coworkers’ (i.e., layoff survivors’) organizational commitment and increased their intent to leave. Skarlicki, Ellard, and Kelln (1998) found that how employees were treated in a layoff lowered third parties’ intentions to buy the company’s products and to apply for jobs at the company in which the layoff occurred. The third party perspective is important to consider because for every victim, there can exist several third parties and many different kinds of audiences. Moreover, the competition for third parties such as customers, investors, and employees is increasing (Porter, 1998). Third parties make resource allocation decisions based not only on economic concerns, but also on certain fairness rules (Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1986). For example, reports that sporting goods giant Nike mistreated employees in third world countries resulted in a significant drop in 1998 third quarter sales (Bies & Greenberg, 2002; Saporito, 1998). From the organization’s perspective, it is important that the firm’s policies and procedures be seen as ethical and fair by third parties. From the victim’s perspective, gaining sympathy and support from third parties can be an important factor in garnering public support for curtailing further unfairness or seeking a remedy for past unfair treatment (Leung, Chiu, & Au, 1993). To date, research shows that third party reactions to unfair treatment are affected by a company’s and its authority figures’ actions (DeCremer & van Hiel, 2006; see Skarlicki & Kulik, 2005, for a review) and other observers’ reactions (Lind, Kray & Thompson, 1998). In the present article, we explored a third factor: how the victim’s reaction affects third parties’ reactions. By victim’s reaction we mean whether the victim visibly demonstrates that he or she is upset by the unfair treatment. This is an important issue because although research shows that victims of workplace unfairness experience negative emotions (Bies, 1987; Bies & Tripp, 1996; 2002), little research has explored the consequences of them revealing their unfairness emotions on others around them. Second, a victim’s reaction can be influenced by a variety of non-treatment factors, including non-work and family events (Hersey 1932; Watson 2000), personality factors (Brief, Butcher, & Roberson 1995; Watson, 2000), gender (Kring & Gordon, 1998), and ethnic culture (Erez

The Impact of a Victim’s Reaction to Unfair Treatment • 79

& Earley, 1993). If third party reactions are indeed affected by a victim’s reaction, then insofar as a victim’s reaction is rooted in factors unrelated to their treatment, third party reactions could be influenced by irrelevant (or less directly relevant) information. In one of the few theories to explicitly consider third parties’ reactions to unfair treatment, Folger (2001) proposed a moral perspective in which individuals who are not directly affected can experience strong negative emotions in reaction to workplace unfair treatment seen as violating norms about moral and social conduct. These emotions have been described as moral outrage, resembling a cluster of negative emotions that unfairness victims experience (Bies, 1987; Folger, Cropanzano, & Goldman, 2005). These negative emotions are often associated with the inclination for third parties to punish the rule breaker for the unfair treatment. We test and extend the moral perspective by exploring (a) the effect of the victim’s reaction on third party retribution, and (b) the role of the third party’s negative emotions in that process. Although studies have explored third party emotions associated with others’ treatment (e.g., DeCremer & van Hiel, 2006), little to no research has explored the link between a victim’s emotional reactions and third party emotions and retribution. In doing so we provide insight into the perils of employee unfair treatment that go beyond the victim’s experience to third party’s experience. From a practical perspective, to the degree that organizations wish to provide a positive and ethical image to their many stakeholders, managers must be aware of the factors that can affect third parties’ reactions. In Study 1 we conducted an experiment where we held the employee unfair treatment constant and varied the degree to which the mistreated employee reacted to the unfairness. In Study 2, we administered a survey in which we asked third parties to recall a situation in which they personally observed someone being mistreated at work and we measured specific aspects of the event and their reactions. As we describe below, across two different samples and methods, the victim’s reaction significantly affected third party emotional and retribution reactions. THE MORAL PERSPECTIVE OF JUSTICE Folger (2001) coined the term deontic reactions to reference a psychological state yielding emotionally charged reactions to events seen as violating or infringing on moral norms about social conduct. The Greek term deon refers to one’s obligation or duty, as expressed by terms such as should, must, or ought not do. Deontic emotions derive from individuals’ moral assumptions regarding how human beings should be treated and people can be motivated toward fair treatment because it is the “right thing to do”—as an end

80

•

DANIEL SKARLICKI, GRAHAM BROWN, & BRIAN BEMMELS

in itself (Folger, 2001). When someone willingly violates moral principles, it is as though “the transgressor has placed him or herself above them as if superior to moral authority” (Folger, Cropanzano, & Goldman, 2005, p. 217). As Rawls (1971) noted, by reason of their humanity, individuals have the right to be treated in a way that fosters dignity and allows for positive self-regard. Individuals’ are motivated to take steps to prevent the transgressor from making future violations of the rights of human dignity. Following these rules has symbolic value by validating the moral and ethical standards that regulate interpersonal conduct (Tyler, 1990). The moral perspective proposes that negative emotions and feelings of moral outrage motivate both victims and third parties to engage in retributive responses (Folger et al., 2005). Moral outrage has been defined as a constellation of thoughts and feelings, including feeling upset, disgusted and angry in response to a moral violation (Skitka, Bauman, & Mullen, 2004). These negative emotions can serve as an “alarm system” that sets off the need to respond (Soloman, 1990). Moreover, one’s own emotion is used as information when reacting to unfair treatment (van den Bos, 2003). Negative emotions predict behavioral reactions in a variety of social situations (see Clark and Isen, 1982, for a review), and once experienced, play a significant role in guiding people’s actions (Tice, Baumeister, & Zang, 2004). For example, criminology research has found that statements or testimonies by victims of crimes impact sentencing outcomes and other judicial decisions (Erez & Tontodonato, 1990; Tsoudis & Smith-Lovin, 1998). Specifically, jurors presented with victim’s emotional suffering are influenced by the victim’s emotional responses (also see Bandes, 1996). In a review of this literature, Myers and Green (2004) concluded those who witness or become aware of a victim’s emotion become emotionally aroused themselves. Although these studies took place in non-workplace contexts, we expected that emotional displays by unfairness victims could have similar effects on third parties in workplace settings. We first predicted that an unfairly treated victim’s negative emotion impacts third party reactions for at least two reasons. First, the victim’s reaction is likely to increase the level of the third party’s attention paid to the unfair treatment. This is because observing emotion in others can spotlight issues as urgent and important (Lerner & Tiedens, 2006). Second, the victim’s reaction serves as a source of social information: negative reaction is viewed as evidence of unfairness severity. The more severe the unfair treatment the more it violates moral and social norms (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998), which in turn elicits stronger negative emotions and retribution tendencies. What retributive options exist for third parties in their desire to restore moral and social norms? We propose that third parties can withdraw from or avoid an organization where the unfairness occurred in hopes that their

The Impact of a Victim’s Reaction to Unfair Treatment • 81

avoidance will somehow “punish” it and restore moral and social order. In the current study, we focused on retribution that would be of particular concern to organizations and their leaders. As noted earlier in the Nike example (Bies & Greenberg, 2002; Saporito, 1998), third parties consider organization practices when making consumer choices (Kahneman et al., 1986) and employment and investment decisions (Skarlicki et al., 1998). Taken together with the previous hypothesis, we predicted that the victim’s reaction triggers third party retributive intentions, and this effect is mediated by the third party’s negative emotion. Hypothesis 1: The victim’s negative reaction retribution tendencies in third parties and this effect is mediated by the third party’s negative emotions.

STUDY 1 Method Participants and Procedure A news story, questionnaire, and prepaid return envelope were mailed to 750 randomly selected U.S. households. Names and addresses were drawn from InfoUSA, an online directory (compiled from over 5,200 paper directories) containing contact information on over 210 million people in the United States. Usable questionnaires were returned from 120 respondents (17% response rate). Respondents came from a variety of occupations including teachers, professors, students, sales people, computer programmers, construction workers, and trades people. Of the total respondents, 44% were women, the average education was two years of college, and a majority (70%) was between 45 and 60 years of age. The news story was adapted from an article in a popular news magazine, describing a manager who verbally mistreated an employee at work (FieldsMeyer & Sweeney, 1998). We used this as our stimuli for two reasons. First, information regarding employee unfairness is widely available to third parties from sources such as newspapers and newsmagazines. Thus, presenting the scenario as a news story is realistic and reflects the way that many people learn about unfair treatment. Second, research on the effects of media have shown that people have emotional reactions to news stories they watch on TV and read in the newspaper (See Cantor, 2002; Gross & D’Ambrosio, 2004; Grabe et al., 2000). Research by Robinson and Clore (2001) concluded that vignettes and scenarios elicit real emotional responses in participants, and are thus commonly used in emotion research. Robinson and Clore (2001), for instance, found that subjects reporting emotions after viewing a series of emotional slides did not differ in level or pattern from what subjects reported after reading short descriptions of the same slides.

82

•

DANIEL SKARLICKI, GRAHAM BROWN, & BRIAN BEMMELS

In short, the news story was deemed to be an appropriate stimulus for our research. Participants were randomly assigned to the victim’s condition (high versus low upset). We presented the scenario as a news story that was adapted from a news magazine article (concealing the name of the company). We added one sentence to the text to manipulate the victim’s negative reaction. The high victim emotional reaction condition included: “The employee was visibly upset. In fact she left that day and did not come back until the end of the week.” In the low emotional reaction condition, the scenario stated: “The employee did not seem upset. She continued working as usual right through the week.” All other information was held constant across conditions. The news story is provided in Appendix 1. Measures With the exception of the demographic variables, responses to the measures consisted of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items were averaged to form the measure. Manipulation check. The manipulation check for the victim’s emotional reaction consisted of one item: “The employee was visibly upset by the supervisor’s treatment.” Third party negative emotions. Consistent with the moral perspective, we operationalized third party negative emotions in terms of moral outrage. As noted above, moral outrage consists of a constellation of thoughts and feelings in response to a specific wrongdoing, including feelings of upset, anger, disgust, and frustration (e.g., Okimoto & Brescoll, 2010; Skitka et al., 2004). Consistent with these authors, we developed a five-item measure of negative emotions for this study using the following items: “I feel disgusted by this story”; “This story makes me angry”; “I feel frustrated by the events in this story”; “I feel upset by this story”; and “This story affects me emotionally” (alpha = .88). Retribution tendencies. Following Skarlicki et al. (1998), we measured three types of retributive intentions. Intentions to be a customer included three items (alpha = .82; all reverse coded): “Because of how his company treats its employees I would prefer to do my business elsewhere”; “I would discourage people I know from doing business with this company”; “If I discovered that this event occurred where I normally do my business I would consider switching companies.” Employee intentions included three items (alpha = .86): “I would not hesitate to work for this company if I were offered a position that I was looking for”; “I would look for other companies before applying to this company” (reverse coded); “I would have no problem recommending a friend to work for this company.” Investment intentions included three items (alpha = .82): “I would consider investing in this company”; “If this company had good investment potential I would invest in this company”;

The Impact of a Victim’s Reaction to Unfair Treatment • 83

“If given a choice and the resources I would choose not to invest in this company” (reverse coded). Control variables. Silver and Wortman (1980) found that if third parties believe the victim over-reacted, they can deem that the victim deserved the treatment, reducing their moral concerns. Thus, we controlled for victim’s overreaction using three items (alpha = .68) from Silver and Wortman’s (1980) measure: “I believe the employee in this story overreacted”; “The employee should have been more upset given the situation” (reverse coded); and “The employee reacted too strongly given the situation.” We also measured and controlled for the third party’s identification with the victim because identification can lead one to see an event as more unfair (Brockner & Greenberg, 1990). We measured identification with the victim with two items: “I can relate to the victim in the story” and “In the scenario I can relate to the victim’s predicament.” We also controlled for age and gender because several studies have shown different attitudes towards fairness based on age and gender (Lee, Pillutla & Law, 2000; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993). Gender was coded 1 and 2 for males and females, respectively. Age was assessed by asking respondents to indicate their age in one of three groupings with 1 = 20 to 35; 2 = 36 to 45; 3 = 46 and older. RESULTS The results showed that the manipulation was effective and in the intended direction. Respondents who read the scenario in which the victim was upset rated the manipulation check higher (M = 4.83, SD = .52) than the respondents who read that the victim was not upset (M = 1.58 SD = .75), F(1, 225) = 1425.89, p < .001. Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations. Hypothesis 1 stated that the victim’s reaction relates negatively to third party intentions to support the company by being a customer, employee, and investor, and that the third party’s negative emotion mediates these relationships. We conducted mediation analyses following the procedures outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986). First, as shown in Table 2, the victim’s negative reaction was negatively related to third parties’ intentions to be a customer ( = –.25, p < .001), employee ( = –.26, p < .001), investor ( = –.20, p < .001) (Condition 1). As shown in Table 2, third parties’ negative emotion was related to the victim’s reaction ( = .30, p < .001) (Condition 2). When both the victim’s emotional reaction and the third party’s negative emotion were included in the regression equation, third parties’ negative emotion was related to intentions to be a customer ( = –.56, p < .001), employee ( = –.30, p < .001), and investor ( = –.42, p < .001) (Condition 3). When we regressed intentions to be a customer on both the victim’s emotional

Third party’s negative emotion

Customer intentions

Employment intentions

Investor intentions

2.

3.

4.

5.

Age3

Victim’s overreaction

Identification with victim

7.

8.

8.

Mean

3.56

2.49

2.70

1.37

2.84

2.34

2.70

2.85

0.54

SD

0.91

0.90

0.63

0.48

1.01

1.01

1.10

1.01

0.50

.02

.33**

–.02

–.03

–.04

–.11

–.09

.19**

1

Note. Victim’s reaction is coded not visibly upset = 0, visibly upset = 1. 2 Gender is coded male = 1, female = 2. 3 Age is coded 1 = 20 to 35; 2 = 36 to 45; 3 = 46 and older. * p < .05. ** p < .01. (two-tailed).

1

Gender

6.

2

Victim’s reaction1

1.

Variable

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations (Study 1)

.31**

–.36**

–.07

.24**

–.52**

–.46**

–.66**

2

–.26**

.46**

.16*

–.30**

.74**

.63**

3

–.23**

.40**

.17*

–.27**

.58**

4

–.23**

.39**

.07

–.26**

5

.07

–.20**

–.22**

6

.03

.17*

7

–.27**

8

•

TABLE 1.

84 DANIEL SKARLICKI, GRAHAM BROWN, & BRIAN BEMMELS

Identification with victim

Victim’s negative reaction3

Total R2

Step 1

.49

.001

38.90

–.59**

.10

.27**

–.03

–.02

.28

.001

15.70

–.25**

.00

.53**

–.02

–.10

Step 2

Customer Step 3

.50

.001

33.03

–.56**

–.09

.11

.32**

.04

–.02

Step 1

.27

.001

15.07

–.37**

.06

.27**

–.08

–.09

.23

.001

12.14

–.26**

.02

.47**

–.07

–.14*

Step 2

Employee

.30

.001

13.99

–.30**

–.17*

.08

.35**

–.08

–.09

Step 3

Third Party’s Retributive Intentions

Notes. Standardized regression coefficients are reported. 1 Gender is coded male = 1, female = 2. 2 Age is coded 1 = 20 to 35; 2 = 36 to 45; 3 = 46 and older. 3 Victim’s reaction is coded not visibly upset = 0, visibly upset = 1. * p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed). Step 1 shows the DV regressed on the controls and mediator. Step 2 shows the DV regressed on the controls and the independent variable Step 3 shows the DV regressed on the controls and both the mediator and the independent variable

.001 .27

P

F

16.09

.19** .30**

Victim’s overreaction

Third party’s negative emotion

.03 –.37**

Age2

.15*

Variable

Gender1

Third party negative emotion Step 1

.34

.001

20.27

–.45**

.10

.28**

–.12

–.06

.22

.001

11.24

–.20**

.02

.47**

–.11

–.12

Step 2

Investor

.35

.001

17.24

–.42**

–.09

.11

.32**

–.13

–.06

Step 3

TABLE 2. Regression Results for Victim’s Reaction Predicting Third Party Negative Emotion and Third Party’s Negative Emotion as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Victim’s Reaction and Third Party’s Retributive Intentions(Study 1)

The Impact of a Victim’s Reaction to Unfair Treatment • 85

86

•

DANIEL SKARLICKI, GRAHAM BROWN, & BRIAN BEMMELS

reaction and the third parties’ negative emotions, the third party’s negative emotions remained significant while the victim’s reaction was no longer significantly related to customer intentions ( = –.09, p > .10). Following the guidelines set out by Preacher and Hayes (2004) we calculated bootstrapped estimates of the mediation effect and found that the drop in beta was significant (z = 2.61, p < .001) (Condition 4). The bootstrapped estimate of the indirect effect showed that the true indirect effect fell between .01 and .55 with 99% confidence. Because zero is not in the confidence interval, we concluded that the indirect effect was significantly different from zero at p < .01. Similarly for intentions to be an employee, the victim’s reaction remained significant ( = –.17, p < .05), but the drop in its beta was significant (z = 2.51, p < .01). Again, a bootstrapped estimate of the indirect effect showed that the true indirect effect was observed between .01 and .36 with 99% confidence. Because zero was not in the confidence interval, we concluded that the indirect effect is significantly different from zero at p < .01. Last, for intentions to be an investor, the victim’s reaction was no longer significantly related to investor intentions ( = –.09, p > .10), and the drop in beta was significant (z = 2.54, p < .01). The bootstrapped estimate of the indirect effect found that the true indirect effect fell between .01 and .40 with 99% confidence, and zero was not in the confidence interval. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was fully supported. DISCUSSION The results of Study 1 show that higher levels of victim’s reaction triggered higher levels of retribution tendencies among third parties. This finding is important given the fact that the actual unfair treatment was held constant across conditions. This finding has important practical implications since a victim’s emotional reaction may be influenced by many factors that have little or nothing to do with the nature and severity of the unfairness. Moreover, we found that this effect was mediated by the third party’s negative emotions. This means that the victim’s reaction triggered negative emotions in the third party, triggering a retributive response. Although the findings were significant, Study 1 has several potential limitations. First, the response rate was low and we have no way of knowing whether the respondents completed the questionnaire in ways that differed from non-respondents. To reduce the potential threats to the internal validity of our findings, we controlled for several demographic and psychological factors in our analyses. Nonetheless, the possibility of response bias cannot be completely ruled out. Second, our outcomes were third parties’ behavioral intentions to be a customer, employee, and investor of the target work organization. Although the single best predictor of actual behavior is the intention to perform the behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), we felt we could complement our findings by behavioral responses. Third, our theory

The Impact of a Victim’s Reaction to Unfair Treatment • 87

in Study 1 was that the victim’s negative reaction causes the third party to view the unfair treatment as more severe, resulting in stronger emotional and retributive reactions. Perceived severity, however, was not measured. This is an important issue because in the stimuli, the employee either returned to work right away or did not return until later in the week. Missing wages, for example, could confound emotions and outcome severity. Thus it would be important to assess third party severity directly. Fourth, the third party negative emotions scale was developed for this study. Although our measure was based on previous research on moral outrage, using an alternative moral outrage measure would provide greater confidence in the study findings. Fifth, although the same information (except the manipulation) is provided for all participants, their interpretations of deservingness could vary when the victim displayed emotion or not. It may be that this deservingness is partially driving the results rather than just emotion. Thus there was a need to somehow address issues related to deservingness. Finally, we manipulated the victim’s reaction using a scenario study. Although considerable research shows that scenarios can be an effective means to cue emotions, we considered it prudent to complement this research using an alternative methodology. Study 2 was conducted to address these concerns. STUDY 2 Whereas in Study 1 we varied a single form of unfair treatment, in Study 2 we allowed employee unfairness to vary. We also explored different retributive outcomes including punishment intentions and a behavior, namely, voluntary turnover. Quitting an organization because of the unfair treatment of others provides a way for third parties to distance themselves from a transgressor, and is a meaningful way to punish the organization for its misdeeds. This is because voluntary turnover can be costly in terms of recruitment and training costs and the loss of productive employees (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). Finally, we controlled for participants’ deservingness, and we tested whether severity accounts for the relationship between an unfair treatment victim’s reaction and third party negative emotion. Consistent with the theorizing described above, we expected that the victim’s reaction relates to negative emotion in the third party, which triggers third party retributive reactions. Hypothesis 2: Third party’s negative emotion mediates the relationship between a victim’s negative reaction and the third party intentions to punish the transgressor (2a) and voluntary turnover (2b).

We then tested whether unfair treatment severity mediated the relationship between victim’s reaction and third party reactions. As argued above,

88

•

DANIEL SKARLICKI, GRAHAM BROWN, & BRIAN BEMMELS

observing strong emotional reactions in others can result in perceptions of higher levels of unfair treatment severity (Lerner & Tiedens, 2006). The victim’s reaction serves as a source of social information: the negative reaction is viewed as evidence of unfairness severity. Also noted above, the more severe an act, the stronger the negative emotion (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). Thus we predicted the link between a victim’s reaction and the observer’s felt emotion is explained by the third party’s assessment of the unfair treatment’s severity. Hypothesis 3: The relationship between the victim’s negative reaction and third party negative emotions is mediated by severity.

METHOD Participants and Procedure To test our hypotheses, we conducted an on-line survey in which we asked participants to report on an incident of unfair treatment they had personally observed at work. Survey participants were drawn from a participant pool operated by Market Tools Inc., which maintains a participant pool of over 2.5 million people across the United States who have signed up to be survey respondents. In return for completing surveys, survey participants earned points from the survey company that could be accumulated and applied to various prizes. We specified that our participant pool include only working adults, and that the participants’ gender and geographical distribution be representative of the US population. Surveys were emailed to 250 individuals and 154 of them provided usable responses (62% response rate). Fifteen respondents were excluded because they incorrectly described a unfair treatment that had occurred to themselves (rather than to another person), for a final sample size of 139. Their average age was 44.71 (SD = 15.73). Sixty percent of the final sample respondents were female, 88% were white, 37% had a college degree or higher, and 66% were non-management. The participants came from a wide range of industries and professions with the largest groups being service (25%), manufacturing (17%), and education (14%). Participants were asked to describe in writing a supervisory unfair treatment incident that they had personally observed at work (see Table 3 for examples of unfair treatment incidents). The majority of the incidents involved favoritism (31%), followed by yelling (26%), and inconsideration (24%). After describing the incident, participants responded to our measures.

The Impact of a Victim’s Reaction to Unfair Treatment • 89 TABLE 3. Types of Incidents Described in Study 2 Types of Incidents

Frequency

Example

1—general yelling, verbal abuse, being reprimanded in front of others

18

She was sitting at her desk and the assistant office manager comes out and starts yelling at her for something that was not her fault. The AOM also made sure that there were other people around to see this (r106)

2—discrimination

12

A senior was constantly reminded by co– workers that he was “old” and not equal to the job (far from the truth). (r21)

3—inconsideration (not being considerate for others feelings); being rude, (insults); being picked on

34

A guy that I work with likes to sing. He sings quite a bit and has a pretty nice voice. One day another co-worker started picking on him and told him to shut up. It was extremely hurtful and rude. (r148)

4—unfair allocation of work/ duties/ being given poor assignments/ favoritism (reverse favoritism); being passed over for promotion

43

A man on my team at work put in his bid for a better job in my company. He was the best person for the job with his experience, education, and work ethic. Everyone thought he was a shoe-in until the day the position was filled by another associate from a different team who had almost no seniority or experience. Everyone was shocked and angry but not too surprised because it was well known that the associate who was hired had been having an affair with the boss for some time. (r32)

5—sexual harassment

2

I have seen an employee sexually harassed by an employer. [he] Made unsavory sexual comments and gestures. (r25)

6—physical harassment (non sexual)

3

Management shook someone by the shoulders and nothing was done by other management. (r41)

7—deceit (lying, misrepresenting things), taking credit for someone else’s work

6

A coworker initiated a confrontation, then ran to the foreman and lied. The other person got fired (r55)

21

A coworker’s office space was accessed without permission, meetings were interrupted, procedures disregarded (r27)

8—Other

Total

139

90

•

DANIEL SKARLICKI, GRAHAM BROWN, & BRIAN BEMMELS

Measures Except where noted, responses to all measures consisted of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Items were averaged to form the measure. Victim’s negative reaction. The survey instructions asked participants to describe in writing how upset the victim was in response to the unfairness. Two coders who were blind to the hypotheses independently rated how upset the victim was as described in the incident using the following anchors: low (1), medium (2), or high (3). This strategy provided a benefit of reducing common method variance among the measures. The inter-coder agreement as indicated by Cohen’s kappa (Cohen, 1960) was .70, reflecting good agreement (Altman, 1991). Through discussion, the coders were able to resolve all instances of disagreement. We used this three-level upset rating to test our hypotheses. Examples of the three different levels are indicated in the following quotes: (low) [The person] “didn’t do much, apologized and stated it would be corrected immediately” (R100) (medium) “She was stunned and embarrassed, sat quietly at a meeting” (R51) (high) “She left work early. She was embarrassed to the point of tears.” (R75) Unfair treatment Severity. Unfair treatment severity was measured with three items based on Colquitt and Shaw (2005): “I would consider this incident to be an example of severe mistreatment”; “The victim was severely mistreated”; and “This mistreatment was more than minor” (alpha = .96). Third party negative emotions. Following Thomas and McCarty (2009) we assessed third party negative emotions to reflect moral outrage using a discrete emotions scale. Respondents were asked to indicate how they felt at the time they observed the unfair treatment using eight items: “Anger,” “Annoyed,” “Bitter,” “Displeased,” “Furious,” “Irritated,” “Mad,” and “Resentful” (alpha = .91). Retributive intentions. After describing the incident, the respondents were asked to think about the incident and indicate the extent they agreed with the following six questions based on Jones and Skarlicki (2005): “I would be willing to sign an e-mail stating that the transgressor be reprimanded”; “I think the transgressor should be fired”; “The transgressor should be punished”; “If I were a senior executive in this company, the transgressor would be fired”; “I think the transgressor should be reprimanded” and “The company should take action to punish the transgressor for his or her behavior” (alpha = .93).

The Impact of a Victim’s Reaction to Unfair Treatment • 91

Voluntary Turnover. Participants were asked whether they had “quit the organization as a direct result of the unfair treatment event.” We coded their response as 0 = stay and 1 = quit. Control variables. As in Study 1, we controlled for gender, age, and victim’s overreaction using the scale described in Study 1 (alpha = .74). To address the Study 1 concerns regarding deservingness as a potential confound, in Study 2 we controlled for Belief in a Just World. Lerner (1980) proposed that third parties engage in victim derogation as a way to maintain the belief that individuals get what they deserve and deserve what they get. Lerner found that Belief in a Just World is positively related to victim derogation. Prior to describing the unfair treatment incident, respondents completed a four-item scale from Lerner and Simmons (1966): “I believe that the world tends to treat people in a just way”; “I believe that people get what they deserve and they deserve what they get”; “I believe that when people meet with misfortune, they have brought it upon themselves” and “I believe that the world is a just and fair place to live” (alpha = .73). RESULTS Table 4 provides the means, standard deviations, and correlations for Study 2. First, we tested whether the victim’s negative reaction was related to the third parties’ retributive intentions and whether third party negative emotions mediated this relationship. We followed the procedure for mediation testing described in Study 1. First, we confirmed that the victim’s negative reaction was related to third parties’ retributive intentions ( = .32, p < .001) (Condition 1). The victim’s negative reaction was associated with third parties’ negative emotion ( = .23 p < .001) (Condition 2). When we regressed retributive intentions on both the victim’s reaction and third party’s negative emotion, the beta for the third party negative emotion remained significant ( = .52, p < .001) (Condition 3), and the beta for victim’s reaction was reduced ( = .19, p < .01). Following the guidelines set out by Preacher and Hayes (2004) we calculated bootstrapped estimates to the mediation effect and found that the drop in beta for victim’s reaction was significant (z = 3.39, p < .001) (Condition 4). The bootstrapped estimate of the indirect effect showed that the true indirect effect fell between .08 and .50 with 99% confidence. The results support 2a (see Table 5). To test Hypothesis 2b that victim’s reaction predicts third party turnover and that third party negative emotions mediate this relationship, we followed guidelines described by MacKinnon and Dwyer (1993) and Kenny (2008) for testing mediation in logistic regression. We first confirmed that the victim’s negative reaction was related to third party turnover (b = .62, SE = .32 p < .05) (Condition 1). The victim’s negative reaction was associated

Unfairness severity

Voluntary Turnover

Retributive intentions

3.

4.

5.

Age

Victim’s overreaction

Belief in a Just World

7.

8.

9.

3.31

1.92

44.71

1.62

5.07

.15

4.85

5.32

2.34

Mean

1.09

1.27

15.73

0.49

1.60

.36

1.75

1.36

.77

SD

Note. 1Voluntary turnover is coded 0 = stay, 1 = quit. 2 Gender is coded male = 1, female = 2. * p < .05. ** p < .01. (two-tailed).

Gender

6.

2

Third party’s negative emotion

2.

1

Victim’s negative reaction

1.

Variable

–.11

.12

–.10

.09

.32**

.27**

.28**

.21**

1

–.17*

–.29**

.17*

.07

.67**

.21**

.54**

2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations (Study 2)

–.17*

–.28**

.18*

.00

.27**

.60**

3

–.17*

–.02

–.01

–.01

.26**

4

–.22**

–.34**

.06

.00

5

–.09

.02

–.35**

6

–.02

–.17*

7

.14

8

•

TABLE 4.

92 DANIEL SKARLICKI, GRAHAM BROWN, & BRIAN BEMMELS

–0.14* –0.10

Victim’s Overreaction

Belief in a Just World

.26

.001

8.67

0.35**

–0.14

–0.36**

0.01

–0.03

.53

.001

22.94

0.57**

0.22**

–0.08

–0.19**

–0.04

–0.08

Step 3

.32

.001

11.36

0.48**

–0.06

–0.14*

0.02

0.07

Step 1

Notes. Standardized regression coefficients are reported. 1 Gender is coded male = 1, female = 2. * p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed). Step 1 shows the DV regressed on the controls and mediator. Step 2 shows the DV regressed on the controls and the independent variable Step 3 shows the DV regressed on the controls and both the mediator and the independent variable

.001 .49

Total R2

23.22

P

F

Unfairness Severity

Third party’s negative emotion

0.62**

–0.05

Victim’s negative reaction

–0.07

Gender1

Step 2

Third Party Retribution Intentions Step 1

Age

Variable

.17

.001

4.98

0.23**

–0.11

–0.29**

0.10

0.09

Step 2

Third Party Negative Emotion

.33

.001

9.71

0.45**

0.09

–0.06

–0.17*

0.02

0.07

Step 3

TABLE 5. Regression Results Showing Third Party’s Negative Emotion as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Victim’s Reaction and Third Party’s Retributive Intentions (Study 2) and Severity as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Victim’s Reaction and Third Party’s Negative Emotion.

The Impact of a Victim’s Reaction to Unfair Treatment • 93

94

•

DANIEL SKARLICKI, GRAHAM BROWN, & BRIAN BEMMELS

with third parties’ negative emotion (b = .26, SE = .06 p < .01) (Condition 2; not shown in Table 6). When we regressed turnover on both the victim’s reaction and third party’s negative emotion, the beta for victim’s reaction was reduced (b = .40, SE = .33 p > .05), while the beta for the third party negative emotion remained significant (b = .87, SE = .36 p < .01) (Condition 3). Sobel’s (1988) test indicated that the drop in the beta for the victim’s reaction was significant (z = 2.08, p < .05) (Condition 4). Thus, Hypothesis 2b was supported (see Table 6). We then tested whether severity mediated the relationship between the victim’s negative reaction and third party negative emotion (Hypothesis 3). Following Baron and Kenny (1986), the victim’s negative reaction was related to third parties’ emotions ( = .23, p < .01) (Condition 1). The victim’s negative reaction was associated with severity ( = .31, p < .001) (Condition TABLE 6. Hierarchical Logistic Regression Analysis of Turnover on Victim’s Reaction and Third Party Negative Emotion (Study 2) Regression Steps

B

SE

Wald

Gender1

–.26

.55

.22

Age

Step 1

–.04

.04

.69

Victim’s Overreaction

.04

.20

.04

Belief in a Just World

–.42

.25

2.79

Step 2 Gender1

–.62

.60

1.06

Age

–.06

.05

1.45

Victim’s Overreaction

.05

.19

.08

Belief in a Just World

–.38

.25

2.36

.62

.32

3.80*

Gender1

–.63

.62

1.04

Age

Victim’s Reaction Step 3

–.07

.05

1.99

Victim’s Overreaction

.19

.21

.81

Belief in a Just World

–.35

.25

1.88

Victim’s Reaction

.40

.33

1.51

Third party negative emotion

.87

.36

5.85**

Note. Wald coefficient is Z2 1 Gender is coded male = 1, female = 2. * p < .05. ** p < .01. (two-tailed).

The Impact of a Victim’s Reaction to Unfair Treatment • 95

2). When we regressed third party negative emotion on both the victim’s reaction and severity, the beta for severity remained significant ( = .45, p < .001) (Condition 3), and the beta for victim’s reaction was reduced and no longer significant ( = .09, p > .05). Following Preacher and Hayes (2004), we calculated bootstrapped estimates to the mediation effect and found that the drop in beta for victim’s reaction was significant (z = 3.02, p < .001) (Condition 4). The bootstrapped estimate of the indirect effect found that the true indirect effect was estimated to lie between .07 and .51 with 99% confidence. The results support Hypothesis 3 (see Table 5). DISCUSSION The significance of Study 2 is twofold. First, the results from Study 1 were replicated using a different methodology and different measures. Consistent with our predictions, the third party’s retribution, in terms of both punishment intentions and turnover, were positively related to the victim’s reaction and third party negative emotions mediated these relationships. Second, we extended Study 1 by testing the role of unfairness severity in this relationship. The results showed that severity mediates the relationship between the victim’s reaction and the third party’s emotion. One potential limitation of Study 2 is that the results could be affected by recall bias. However, given that the Study 2 results replicated our findings from Study 1, this does not appear to have adversely affected our overall conclusions. GENERAL DISCUSSION Our research fills an important gap in our understanding of third party observer’s reactions to unfair treatment. To date most studies have explored unfairness from the employee’s (i.e., the victim’s) perspective; relatively less is known about how third parties react to employee unfair treatment. Third parties are important to study because attracting and retaining them as customers, employees, and investors is critical for an organization’s success. Moreover, although unfair treatment victims are likely to experience negative emotion, little is known regarding the consequences of revealing their negative emotion on others’ reactions. Two sources of third party reactions to employee unfair treatment have been studied to date: (a) the manner in which an organization mistreated its employees (e.g., Brockner, Weisenfeld, Stephan, Hurley, Grover, Reed, & DeWitt, 1997), and (b) other observers’ reactions to unfairness (De Cremer & van Hiel, 2006; Lind, Kray & Thompson, 1998). Our study shows that third party reactions can be influenced by a third factor: the victim’s negative reaction. Specifically, the victim’s reaction arising from unfair treatment affects third parties’ emotional and retributive reactions. Moreover,

96

•

DANIEL SKARLICKI, GRAHAM BROWN, & BRIAN BEMMELS

whereas unfair treatment research to date has emphasized the cognitive aspects of unfair treatment (e.g., perceptions of fairness), our research highlights the important role of third parties’ emotion in their unfairness reactions, echoing pleas for researchers to incorporate emotion into their theorizing (De Cremer, 2007; Weiss, Suckow, & Cropanzano, 1999). These findings are important because, consistent with the moral perspective of justice, they provide evidence that third parties who are not directly affected by the unfairness can experience strong negative emotions in reaction to workplace unfair treatment and that these emotions relate to their retributive reactions. Insofar as the victim’s reaction can be determined by factors not related to the manager’s behavior (e.g., culture, gender, family stressors), the victim’s reaction is a potential source of distortion in third party reactions. Taken to an extreme, there might not be a unfair treatment, but if the victim still reacts strongly, a third party might perceive that mistreatment did occur and be moved to action. Second, the results show that severity mediates the relationship between victim’s reaction and third party negative emotion. From a theoretical standpoint, this means that one reason that third parties experience negative emotion in response to the victim’s negative reaction is that the victim’s negative reaction gives rise to perceived unfairness severity, which can upset third parties and trigger a retributive response. The findings are bolstered by the complementary methodologies we used in the two studies. The experimental design (Study 1) provided control for various extraneous factors. Although this approach can potentially suffer from low external validity, Study 2 addresses this concern by gathering data on observations of actual unfair treatment experiences at work. The experimental design of Study 1 and use of coders to evaluate victim’s reaction helps reduce the common method bias that could be problematic in Study 2. Across the two studies, we also considered the perspective of third parties who were external (Study 1) and internal (Study 2) to the work organization and found that both groups were similarly affected by the victim’s reaction. We also considered two different ways that third parties can learn about an unfair event, including media/news report (Study 1), and personal observation (Study 2). Again, the results were consistent in both approaches. Our intent in having respondents describe the observed unfair treatment incident in Study 2 was to make the event salient to them as they answered the subsequent questions. Reading through their incidents gave us confidence in the importance of focusing on interpersonal unfair treatment in our research and the realism of our manipulation in Study 1. Some examples of the incidents are given below:

The Impact of a Victim’s Reaction to Unfair Treatment • 97 “A coworker of mine was reprimanded for a poorly done job in front of the rest of the crew... I was upset. I didn’t work for him much longer...and I never shopped there after I left.” (R4) “I have seen a ‘big boss’ belittle, scream at and swear at a former co-worker just because she made one little mistake in collating a manual. The manual was stapled in two places instead of three. The poor girl sat there and cried, then went out to lunch and we never saw her again.” (R14) “The supervisor berated a female worker in front of others. He could have given the same message in private without being nasty…She was upset and embarrassed.” (R24) “A transgressor yelled at subordinate. It is never acceptable to yell at another (unless there is a fire or other emergency)...She went to the bathroom and cried.” (R61)

These quotes illustrate that violations of interpersonal justice—failing to treat another person with dignity and respect—were at the core of third party retribution, a notion that has been expressed in many writings on the moral perspective of justice (Folger et al., 2005). The ease with which they could derive incidents to write about reveals that interpersonal unfair treatment was a highly salient and memorable event in the minds of third parties, a finding that has been primarily shown in studies of victims (Bies, 2001; Mikula, 1986). Moreover, these quotes are consistent with the content of the unfairness manipulation used in Study 1, and help validate our experimental manipulation and the core findings. Theoretical and Practical Implications In addition to the theoretical implications discussed above, our research shows that observing a transgressor’s (such as a supervisor) unjust behavior may not fully account for third parties’ perceptions of injustice. Although the observed behavior might be perceived as unjust, the victim’s emotional reaction is likely to explain incremental variance in the perceived severity of the injustice. This finding broadens the factors that third parties use to assess fair treatment and potentially helps to better predict how third parties’ react to unfairness. Second, consistent with the moral perspective of justice, the negative emotions felt by the third party determined their reaction to the perceived injustice. Although previous literature shows that moral outrage plays an important part in motivating victims to retaliate, our study suggests that moral outrage is also relevant for third party reactions. Our results also broaden the perspective of emotion as information (e.g., van den Bos, 2003), in that another party’s emotion can serve as information to determine fairness reactions. This research also has implications for studying the role of emotional contagion in third party justice reactions. Third,

98

•

DANIEL SKARLICKI, GRAHAM BROWN, & BRIAN BEMMELS

our findings highlight the potential benefits of integrating organizational justice and social learning theories (e.g., Bandura, 1986). In particular, social learning theory proposes that individuals learn vicariously about their environment without the benefit (or suffering) of personal experience. From a practical perspective, our research suggests that an employee’s negative reactions to unfairness can motivate third parties’ retribution tendencies. The results of this and previous research suggest that at least part of a company’s success in terms of attracting and retaining customers, employees, and investors is explained by the way the company treats its employees. First, managers would benefit from ensuring that employees are not mistreated in the first place, through such program as managerial training (e.g., Skarlicki & Latham, 1996). Second, managers would benefit from knowing that third parties remember and react to day-to-day interpersonal (mis)treatment of their fellow employees. This is important because, in the current information age, isolated accounts of workplace unfair treatment can spread quickly and widely to third parties both inside and outside the organization (through e-mail, blogs, websites, etc.). For example, many younger workers participate in social networking (such as Facebook) and can quickly share their work experiences with friends around the world who can contribute comments and provide support. Thus, a company’s “dirty laundry” in terms of how it treats employees can spread quickly. The speed at which stories of unfairness can be spread should make managers highly vigilant about mistreating their employees. On a related note, our research also suggests that the idea of “making an example of someone” could actually backfire. Instead, managers may wish to reprimand poor performance in private to reduce the impact of the potential reaction on observers. Although many of the unfair treatment incidents from Study 2 pertained to unfairness by superiors, there were also examples of unfair treatment by coworkers (see Table 3 for some examples). Consequently, our results also highlight the importance of employers maintaining a workplace free of discrimination, bullying, harassment or other unfairness from coworkers. From the employee’s perspective, by making suffering salient, the unfairness victim can influence third parties’ reactions. This suggests that employees who experience unfair treatment and feel upset should display their feelings to help “make their case” and get wider support from coworkers or other third parties. Being “tough” and “sucking it up,” in addition to causing internal distress for themselves, can work against attempts they make to garner support and attain restitution. Limitations and Future Research The two different methods help offset some potential limitations inherent in each approach. Nonetheless limitations, questions, and opportunities for future research remain. For example, in Study 2 we did not measure

The Impact of a Victim’s Reaction to Unfair Treatment • 99

how much time elapsed between the initial event and when the respondents responded to our survey. Robinson and Gore (2002) argued that individuals can respond to surveys by indicating their beliefs about the emotions rather than the emotions themselves. In Study 1, however, we captured their immediate emotions as they read the news story. Thus, because similar results emerged across both studies, the timing of the measures does not appear to detract from our findings. A second potential limitation concerns our third party negative emotions measure. In Study 1, we developed a measure to reflect a cluster of negative emotions arising from reading a news article. In Study 2 we used a discreet emotions measure previously used by Thomas and McCarty, (2009). In both studies we aimed to reflect moral outrage in our emotions measure. Batson et al. (2007) has argued, however, that moral outrage should be distinct from personal anger and empathic anger. Specifically, these authors assessed how much emotion (in their case anger) resulted from a moral violation when the effects of personal anger and empathetic anger were controlled. In hindsight, this approach would have given us the ability to claim we were capturing moral outrage rather than negative emotions. As it is, however, we refer in our study to negative emotions that reflect moral outrage rather than moral outrage itself. Third, although our Market Tools Inc search in Study 2 was directed to select participants who were representative of the US population, our sample was 85% white. Thus the results should be interpreted with this in mind. Fourth, our research focused on interpersonal unfair treatment. Future research needs to test whether the findings generalize to unfair treatment attributed to the organization or other forms of unfairness (sexual abuse, child labor, racial discrimination). Research needs to explore, for instance, whether different types of retribution arises from different types of unfair treatment. Although in the previous section we concluded that potential benefits exist for victims displaying their negative reactions, future research needs to investigate when these displays might have negative consequences for the mistreated employee. For example, employees who file grievances can experience subsequent retaliation (such as, fewer promotions or lowered performance appraisals) from their supervisors (Klass & DeNisi, 1989; Lewin & Peterson, 1988), leading to a downward spiral in their work relationship. In short, some of our observed effects could be curvilinear. Although our post hoc analysis did not find curvilinear effects, this issue warrants future study. Future research might also explore the role of the transgressor’s emotion in third party reactions. For example, the same words spoken as a reprimand may be perceived as just or unjust depending on whether they are spoken in a calm rational manner versus spoken as an emotional outburst where the transgressor is emotionally upset. An emotional reprimand may lead to a similarly more emotional reaction by the third party. In short,

100

•

DANIEL SKARLICKI, GRAHAM BROWN, & BRIAN BEMMELS

there is likely a role for emotions in justice theory for each party involved (transgressor, victim, and third parties). Additional research is also needed to consider factors that could moderate third party reactions to the victim’s reaction. For instance, the results show that Belief in a Just World and the perception that the victim overreacted related to our dependent variables. We did not provide explicit hypotheses regarding these factors because they were not our research focus. Future research should explore the implications of these and other factors to third party reactions. Conclusion Taken together, the findings show that the victim’s reaction is an important issue for third parties, and needs to be considered when attempting to understand third party reactions to workplace unfair treatment. These studies lend support for the moral perspective of justice, which states that third parties to unfairness can experience negative emotions that are associated with the inclination to engage in retribution to punish the rule breaker for the unfair treatment. APPENDIX 1: SCENARIO USED IN STUDY 1 CITY - XXXX is a financial services company with over 100 employees located in several branches in the local area. The company’s shares are publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Bryan Drapp was working on his computer at XXXX when the incident started. As he tells it, Jim Walker (his boss) harshly reprimanded an employee in front of some staff and customers. Walker threatened the employee with dismissal if the problem reoccurred. The employee was a 28-year-old woman who had worked for the company for 5 years. The error involved a misplaced file that Walker needed immediately. This was the first time that the employee had lost a file. She located the file on her workstation soon afterward. Drapp did not consider the error to be a serious one. However, the employee was scolded again after reporting to her boss that the file had been found. *The worker did not seem very upset. She continued working as usual right through the week. (victim not upset condition) VERSUS *The worker was visibly upset. In fact, she left the organization that day and did not come back until the end of the week. (victim upset condition). A corporate executive, who asked not to be identified, said of Walker, “Our hands are tied when it comes to him. His track record with employees is about average, but his branch almost always out-performs all of the other

The Impact of a Victim’s Reaction to Unfair Treatment •

101

branches. This is not really a big deal. The only reason that is incident has become a big deal is because the media got a hold of it.” News Source Note. This excerpt was written as a news report. REFERENCES Altman, D. G. (1991). Practical statistics for medical research. New York: Chapman and Hall. Bandes, S. (1996). Empathy, narrative, and victim impact statements. The University of Chicago Law Review, 63, 361–412. Bandura, A. (1986). Fearful expectations and avoidant actions as co-effects of perceived self-efficacy. American Psychologist, 41, 1389. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. Batson, C. D., Kennedy, C. L., Nord, L. A., Stocks, E. L., Fleming, D. A., Marzette, C. M., Lishner, D. A., Hayes, R. E., Kolchinsky, L. M., & Zerger, T. (2007). Anger at unfairness: Is it moral outrage? European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1272–1285. Bies, R. J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 289–319). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational behavior (pp. 89–118). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bies, R. J., & Greenberg, J. (2002). Justice, culture, and corporate image: The swoosh, the sweatshops, and the sway of public opinion. In M. J. Gannon & K. L, Newman (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural management (pp. 320–334). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond distrust: “Getting even” and the need for revenge. In R. M. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations. (pp. 246–260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brief, A. P., Butcher, A. H., & Roberson, L. (1995). Cookies, disposition, and job attitudes: the effects of positive mood-inducing events and negative affectivity on job satisfaction in a field experiment. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 62, 55–62. Brockner, J., DeWitt, R. L., Grover, S., & Reed, T. (1990). When it is especially important to explain why: Factors affecting the relationship between manager’s explanations of a layoff and survivor’s reactions to the layoff. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 389–407. Brockner, J., & Greenberg, J. (1990). The impact of layoffs on survivors: An organizational justice perspective. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 45–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

102

•

DANIEL SKARLICKI, GRAHAM BROWN, & BRIAN BEMMELS

Brockner, J., Grover, S., Reed, T., Dewitt, R.L., & O’Malley, M. (1987). Survivors’ reactions to layoffs: We get by with a little help for our friends. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 526–541. Brockner, J., Wiesenfeld, B. M., Stephan, J., Hurley, R., Grover, S., Reed, T., & DeWitt, R. L. (1997). The effects of layoff survivors on their fellow survivors’ reactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 835–863. Cantor, J. (2002). Fright reactions to mass media. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 287–306). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Clark, M. S., & Isen, A. M. (1982). Toward understanding the relationship between feeling states and social behavior. In A. Hastorf & A. M. Isen (Eds.), Cognitive social psychology (pp. 73–108). New York: Elsevier. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. Colquitt, J. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2005). How should organizational justice be measured? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 113–152). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. De Cremer, D. Advances in the psychology of justice and affect. New York: Information Age Publishing. De Cremer, D., & van Hiel, A. (2006). Effects of another person’s fair treatment on one’s own emotions and behaviors: The moderating role of how much the other cares for you. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 231–249. Erez, E., & Tontodonato, P. (1990). The effect of victim participation in sentencing on sentence outcome. Criminology, 28, 451–474. Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. Oxford University Press. Fields-Meyer, T., & Sweeney, S. (1998). McHoffa. People, May 18 (49), 137. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Folger, R. (2001). Fairness as deonance. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in management (vol. 1, pp. 3–33). New York: Information Age Publishing. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Folger, R., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. (2005). What is the relationship between justice and morality. In J. Greenberg & J. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice. (pp. 215—246). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grabe, M. E., Zhou, A. L., & Bolls, P. D. (2000). Packaging television news: The effects of tabloid on information processing and evaluative responses. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44, 581–98. Gross, K., & D’Ambrosio, L. (2004). Framing emotional response. Political Psychology, 25, 1–29. Hersey, R. B. (1932). Workers’ emotions in shop and home: A study of individual workers from the psychological and physiological standpoint. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press.

The Impact of a Victim’s Reaction to Unfair Treatment •

103

Jones, D. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2005). The effects of overhearing peers discuss an authority’s fairness reputation on reactions to subsequent treatment. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 363–372. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1986). Fairness and the assumptions of economics. Journal of Business, 59, 101–116. Kenny, D. A. (2008). Mediation with dichotomous outcomes. Mediation. Retrieved 22 March 2009 from http://davidakenny.net/doc/dichmed.doc Klaas, B., & DeNisi, A. (1989). Managerial reactions to employee dissent: The impact of grievance activity on performance ratings. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 705–717. Kring, A. M., & Gordon, A. H. (1998). Sex differences in emotion: Expression, experience, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 686–703. Lee, C., Pillutla, M., & Law., K. (2000). Power-distance, gender and organizational justice. Journal of Management, 26, 685–704 Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum. Lerner, M. J., & Simmons, C. H. (1966). Observer’s reaction to the “innocent victim”: Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 203–210. Lerner, J. S., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2006). Portrait of the angry decision maker: How appraisal tendencies shape anger’s influence on cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 402–414. Leung, K., Chiu, W-H., & Au, Y-F. (1993). Sympathy and support for industrial actions: A justice analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 781–87. Lewin, D., & Peterson, R. (1988). The modern grievance procedure in the United States. New York: Quorum Books. Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. (1998). The social construction of injustice: Fairness judgments in response to own and others’ unfair treatment by authorities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 1–22. MacKinnon, D. P., & Dwyer, J. H. (1993). Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Evaluation Review, 17, 144–158. Mikula G. (1986). The experience of injustice: toward a better understanding of its phenomenology. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 103–124). New York: Plenum. Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Employee organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press. Mullen, E., Bauman, C. W., & Skitka, L. J. (2004). Political tolerance and coming to psychological closure following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks: An integrative approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(6), 743–756. Myers, B., & Greene, E. (2004). The prejudicial nature of victim impact statements: Implications for capital sentencing policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 492–515. Okimoto, T. G., & Brescoll, V. L. (2010). The price of power: Power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 923 –936. Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 76.

104

•

DANIEL SKARLICKI, GRAHAM BROWN, & BRIAN BEMMELS

Preacher, K. J., & A. F. Hayes. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers. 36 717–731. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2001). Simulation, scenarios, and emotional appraisal: Testing the convergence of real and imagined reactions to emotional stimuli. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1520–32. Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: Evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report: Evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6), 934–960. Saporito, B. (1998). Can Nike get unstuck? Time, March 30(151), 48–54. Silver, R. L., & Wortman, C. B. (1980). Coping with undesirable life events. In J. Gerber & M. Seligman (Eds.), Human helplessness (pp. 279–340). New York: Academic Press. Skarlicki, D. P., Ellard, J. H., & Kelln, B. R. C. (1998). Third-party perceptions of a layoff: Procedural, derogation, and retributive aspects of justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 119–127. Skarlicki, D. P., & Kulik, C. (2005). Third party’s reactions to employee mistreatment: A justice perspective. In B. Staw & R. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, (pp. 183–230) Oxford UK: Elsevier. Skitka, L., Bauman, C., & Mullen, E. (2001). Political tolerance and coming to psychological closure following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks: An integrative approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 743–756. Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Mullen, E. (2004). Political tolerance and coming to psychological closure following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 743–756. Sobel, M. E. (1988). Direct and indirect effects in linear structural equation models. In J. S. Long (Ed.), Common problems/ proper solutions: Avoiding error in quantitative research (pp. 46–64). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Soloman, R. C. (1990). A passion for justice: Emotions and the origins of social contract. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Sweeney, P. D. and McFarlin, D . B. (1993). Workers’ evaluations of the “ends” and the “means”: An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 23–40. Thomas, E. F., & McGarty, C. (2009). The role of efficacy and moral outrage norms in creating the potential for international development activism through group-based interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 115–134. Tice, D. M., Baumeister, R. F., & Zhang, L. (2004). The role of emotion in selfregulation: Differing role of positive and negative emotions. In P. Philippot & R. S. Feldman (Eds.), The regulation of emotion (pp. 213–226). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tsoudis, O. & Smith-Lovin, L. (1998). How bad is it? The effects of victim and perpetrator emotion on responses to criminal court vignettes. Social Forces, 77, 695–722. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

The Impact of a Victim’s Reaction to Unfair Treatment •

105

van den Bos, K. (2003). On the subjective quality of social justice: The role of affect as information in the psychology of justice judgments Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 482–498 Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament. New York: Guilford Press. Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 786–794.

CHAPTER 5

WAS I UNFAIR? Antecedents and Consequences of Managerial Perspective Taking in a Predicament of Injustice Cecily D. Cooper and Terri A. Scandura

The justice literature describes how managers may resolve a predicament of injustice with social accounts. Yet, this offers an incomplete description of the dynamic interactions between managers and subordinates and the variety of responses (other than social accounts) a manager may actually choose in these situations. We propose a paradigmatic shift for justice research from impression management to identity negotiation theory. Additionally, the perspective taking process is introduced as a complement to identity negotiation.

Consider the following scenario: Professor Sharon Davis is the chair of the management department at a small mid-western university. The management department she oversees includes faculty representing the three related specialty areas of organizational behavior, strategy, and organization theory. There are only nine faculty in the department and these nine are dispersed equally across the three sub-groups. Professor Davis is one of the three faculty members with a background in organizational behavior, generally, however her expertise Research in Management: Perspectives on Justice and Trust in Organizations, pages 107–138 Copyright © 2012 by Information Age Publishing 107 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

108

•

CECILY D. COOPER & TERRI A. SCANDURA

lies specifically within the topic area of leadership. Although she is quite well-published, her interests (and expertise) fall narrowly within this area. Davis was recently promoted to full professor and this is her first year serving as chair. A few days after faculty had been given their merit increases, one of the assistant professors in the strategy area, Professor Robert Turner, entered her office and requested to meet with her. During this meeting Professor Turner explained that he was unhappy with the merit increase he had received. Although he had thought it was sufficient initially, he later found out that one of the other junior faculty members in the strategy area had received a merit increase equal to his. The problem with this, as Turner saw it, was that the other faculty member had not been as productive as he had in the past year. Turner lamented that although the other professor had published the same number of articles, these articles appeared in journals that were not considered to be as reputable as the journals which featured Turner’s work. Turner then went on to say that he was now disappointed with his merit increase in light of this new information. He concluded by saying that he felt he should openly discuss this with Davis, since he thought this may have simply been an oversight on her part. He politely speculated whether she was aware of the differences in the reputations of these journals since they were in the area of strategy (rather than organizational behavior or leadership). Turner concluded by mentioning some of the acceptance rates and citation indexes of the various journals. Professor Davis knew that she had spent an inordinate amount of trying to fairly allocate these merit increases. For this reason, she was somewhat disconcerted as she listened to Turner’s concerns and discussion of the journals. A PREDICAMENT OF INJUSTICE In the scenario we have just presented, the chair of the department has found herself in a predicament of injustice. Social predicaments are situations in which events cause “undesired aspersions on the lineage, character, conduct, skills, or motives of an actor” (Schlenker, 1980, p. 125). As noted by Bies (1987), a predicament of injustice is a social predicament which involves a violation (or perceived violation) of fairness norms. For the purpose of this paper, we define a predicament of injustice more specifically as an occurrence in which one party believes he or she is being fair, however the other party does not perceive the transaction or interactions as such. Our conceptualization thus differs from that of Bies (1987) who describes predicaments as inherently involving “moral outrage” from the “victimized” party. The term “moral outrage” denotes a degree of severity in reaction to the perceived injustice (i.e., a reaction which includes emotions such as anger and resentment) (Bies, 1987). By describing predicaments in this manner, Bies (1987) combines the cause of with the reaction to the

Was I Unfair?

• 109

predicament. We agree that predicaments of injustice may sometimes elicit such reactions. However, reactions should vary depending upon the circumstances. At its core, however, the cause of a predicament stems from contrasting perceptions of the subordinate and the manager. Perceptions are not explicitly mentioned by Bies (1987), however this principle is implicit in his definition. Even the most well-intentioned managers may face these occasional predicaments. Being in such predicaments is problematic for the manager because subordinates react negatively to the perception of unfairness (Greenberg, 1987). The literature on organizational justice notes a variety of undesirable outcomes which can result from employees perceiving they are treated unfairly. For example, aggrieved employees may stop engaging in organizational citizenship behaviors, retaliate against their employer, and may ultimately quit (Greenberg & Lind, 2000). Therefore, if managers find themselves in a predicament of injustice, it is important for them to resolve it (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005). The situation denoted in the Davis-Turner scenario is considered a predicament because Professor Davis thought that she was being fair due to her decision heuristics used in allocating merit increases to the faculty. These decision heuristics were based upon her perceptions of the quality of journals in which her faculty were publishing. Yet, allocations of rewards or resources can occasionally result in subordinate perceptions of deprivation (Adams, 1965) as they did in this case. When Professor Turner pointed out that he was disappointed with his merit increase because he perceived her allocation as unfair, it made Davis aware that she may have acted unfairly (thus creating a predicament of injustice). So what will she say or do in response to Turner’s inquiry and accusation of injustice? The way Davis responds to this incident will likely impact Turner’s job satisfaction, organizational commitment and, perhaps, even his intentions to quit. Also, her relationship with Turner from this point on will likely be affected by how she handles this situation. Thus, it is important to understand how a manager, such as Professor Davis, may react to a predicament of injustice and identify the factors which will influence her reaction. Although the literature on organizational justice has previously addressed this issue in the extensive discussion of social accounts (e.g., Greenberg, 1990), we argue that because of the limitations inherent in the theoretical paradigm in which this work is grounded (i.e., impression management theory) this literature offers only an incomplete description of the many ways in which managers may respond to a predicament of injustice. Specifically, guided by the impression management framework, the justice literature has conceptualized the process through which managers deal with predicaments of injustice as a single-loop process in which a manager justifies his behavior. Rather than viewing predicaments of injustice in this

110

•

CECILY D. COOPER & TERRI A. SCANDURA

manner, we posit that it is more accurate to understand these occurrences as an identity negotiation process. The identity negotiation paradigm (e.g., Swann, 1987; Swann & Ely, 1984) acknowledges the interplay between other-perceptions and self-perceptions and, as such, provides a more appropriate theoretical grounding for understanding manager-subordinate predicaments. The efficacy of conceptualizing these situations through the lens of identity negotiation is further supported by the leadership literature which also acknowledges double-loop processes in which subordinates and managers may reciprocally influence one another (Greene, 1975). The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the validity of conceptualizing predicaments as inherently dyadic-level phenomena. In so doing, we are also taking a dynamic view of justice-related issues. Since the majority of extant research in the area of justice focuses on employee judgments of fairness, the dynamic perspective proposed here represents a shift in orientation for this literature. To our knowledge, almost no existing research in the area of justice employs such an orientation [one notable exception is Korsgaard, Roberson, & Rymph (1998)]. Hence, this discussion is timely and necessary for advancing knowledge on the topic of fairness. By changing paradigms within this program of research, scholars will be able to identify valuable new areas for study. The Organizational Justice Explanation Drawing from impression management theory, existing literature in the area of organizational justice implies that managers are often more concerned about looking fair than actually being fair (Greenberg, 1988). Therefore, according to this framework, Davis (in our scenario) will be motivated to correct the perception of inequity primarily in order to alleviate the identity-threatening situation this perception creates for her. To do so, she will likely provide a rationale for her decisions (i.e., a social account) (Schlenker & Darby, 1981). Social accounts are explanations offered for actions that are called into question because they are unexpected or untoward (Scott & Lyman, 1968). According to Bies (1987, p. 294) “the purpose of a social account is to allow the harmdoer to defend his or her social identity.” The relevant identity in this case is the self as a fair person—and prior research has shown that most people think of themselves as being more fair than others (Messick, Bloom, Boldizar, & Samuelson, 1985). The justice literature implicitly assumes that managers are not likely to change self-perceptions when faced with a predicament of injustice. Rather, when information is presented that is incongruent with the manager’s selfimage (in this instance, that she is a fair person), it is expected that he or she will be inclined to defend this image to avoid looking unfair (in keeping with impression management theory). The literature on social accounts describes how managers may defend their positions by employing excuses

Was I Unfair?

• 111

and justifications (Greenberg, 1990; Schlenker, 1980; Schlenker & Darby, 1981; Scott & Lyman, 1968).1 Limitations of the Organizational Justice Explanation We make a different fundamental assumption than prior frameworks of social accounts: Perceptions of both managers and subordinates may be malleable. We posit that in being confronted with a subordinate’s divergent perception, a manager sometimes changes their self-perceptions to accept the other’s point of view (for example, “Hmm…. perhaps I was unfair in this situation…”). The manager may maintain a perception that they are fair in general, but may come to see that they were unfair in one discrete situation. In sum, depending on certain factors the accusation of unfairness may cause the manager to enact perspective taking and may ultimately result in a manager taking the subordinates’ perspective (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Assuming this is true, we further suggest that if a manager accepts a subordinates’ perspective they may take actions that move beyond simply defending their position (i.e., trying to look fair) to correcting the situation (i.e., being fair). Hence, a predicament of injustice may result in managers’ responding by offering something other than (or in addition to) a social account. The conceptual model proposed in this paper will delineate the conditions under which a manager will be inclined to accept a subordinate’s perspective, the processes through which this perspective taking occurs, and the subsequent behaviors which may result from such a cognitive shift. In building the current framework, we draw from literature on identity negotiation, empathy, and leader-member exchange (LMX). This approach has advantages over the current perspective in the justice literature in that it offers a more dynamic view of justice-related issues and emphasizes a broader range of motives (i.e., being fair as well as looking fair). As stated by Meindl, “An image of managers as interested in justice and the fair treatment of subordinate others in the execution of their roles is one that should be but often is not represented or taken very seriously” (1989, p. 272). The current model also highlights the possibility that managers may offer a variety of responses. This is beneficial since research indicates that consistently relying on social accounts can be a very risky strategy for managers. A manager who regularly offers excuses may compromise perceptions of their credibility or character in the eyes of others, ultimately seeming deceptive or ineffectual (Schlenker, Pontari, & Christopher, 2001). Hence, it is important for justice researchers to consider a broader range of responses (such as those discussed here), not only to more accurately describe the phenomenon in question, but also to ultimately provide practicing managers with improved prescriptions for effectively responding to predicaments.

112

•

CECILY D. COOPER & TERRI A. SCANDURA

We will begin by discussing the level of analysis for our framework, which is the dyad. Predicaments as Dyadic-Level Perceptual Phenomena Predicaments are clearly rooted in perceptions of two parties, managers and subordinates. Hence, the perceptions of both parties are relevant in understanding how such predicaments are created and how they may be resolved. In the scenario at the beginning of this paper, Turner’s perceptions of his own contributions differed from those of his department chair. Specifically, these differences were based on perceptions and knowledge of certain scholarly journals in which Turner published and resulted in differing perceptions regarding the fairness of the chair’s allocation to Turner. Davis, like most people, believes that she is a fair person and, hence, acts in a fair manner. In this situation, she put effort into allocating merit increases fairly and believed her allocation was fair. Turner, however, disagrees with Davis’ self-conception (i.e., that she always acts fairly) and has expressed this by confronting her. In doing so, Davis is emphasizing his own self-conception that he is an accomplished researcher. What will happen between Turner and Davis at this point? Identity Negotiation within Dyads. As implied above, this predicament of injustice has made certain aspects of Turner’s and Davis’ self-concepts salient (i.e., that he is an accomplished researcher and that she is a fair department chair, respectively). When self-perceptions and other-perceptions differ between two parties, these parties are likely to enact an identity negotiation process (Swann, 1987). Through this process perceivers and targets can resolve conflicting perceptions or agendas. Research on identity negotiation describes this resolution as occurring through two possible competing processes: behavioral confirmation and self-verification. Behavioral confirmation is the process whereby the expectancies of perceivers channel social interaction so as to cause the behavior of targets to confirm perceivers’ expectancies (i.e., the perceiver prevails). Alternatively, through the process of self-verification, targets take active steps to ensure that perceivers view them in a manner that is consistent with their self-conceptions (i.e., the target prevails). These two processes are pitted against one another when it is clear that there is one “perceiver” and one “target” within the situation, as is often the case in a carefully-controlled laboratory experiment (e.g., Swann & Ely, 1984). In the case of a predicament of injustice, however, both managers and subordinates simultaneously act as “targets” of the other parties’ perceptions which conflict with their own self-perception. Hence, both managers and subordinates will square-off to self-verify. Moreover, managers may not always “win” (i.e., their self-concept as a fair actor may be damaged).

Was I Unfair?

• 113

One may question, however, whether it is realistic to assume that this process of identity negotiation would occur during a predicament of injustice in an organizational setting, since this context dictates that the parties involved have clearly defined roles (i.e., manager, subordinate) which are characterized by an inequality in legitimate power. In this situation, wouldn’t the manager always “win”? Management research suggests no. Granted, sometimes managers’ perceptions of subordinates prevail. For example, research on the Pygmalion effect (i.e., self-fulfilling prophecy) clearly demonstrates that supervisors’ perceptions can begin a cycle in which their expectations and behaviors result in changes in subordinates’ performance on the job (Eden, 2003; Eden & Shani, 1982). However, other research shows that subordinates’ efforts at self-verification can overcome managers’ expectations. For example, in the literature on leader-member exchange, Scandura and Graen (1984) reported results of a field experiment in which subordinates that were initially in lower quality relationships with their supervisors were able to change the perceptions of supervisors. This perceptual change was concomitant with increased productivity by those subordinates who were initially viewed as non-contributors. Even discussions of Pygmalion have implied that subordinates have the ability to reverse manager expectations if they attempt to do so (Eden, 1990). In sum, the supervisor-subordinate relationship is an interactive process, in which the perceptions of one party can influence the perceptions of the other (Graen & Scandura, 1987). Perspective taking within dyads. Further, it is important to remember that when considering dynamics between managers and subordinates that these two parties are embedded in on-going sometimes long-term relationships. As such, there are a variety of factors which can exist in these types of relationships which can increase the likelihood that one or both parties may empathize with the other (i.e., make an effort to step outside of the self and into the experiences of the other) (Davis, 1994). Specifically, since the subordinate is the “injured” party in a predicament of injustice, upon becoming aware of the subordinate’s distress a manager may be inclined to actively imagine the subordinate’s perspective, a process referred to in the empathy literature as perspective taking (Hoffman, 1984). The process of perspective taking then results in attributions or judgments regarding the target’s (i.e., the subordinate’s) behaviors (Davis, 1994; Redmond, 1989). These resulting judgments may or may not be in favor of the subordinate. For example, if Professor Davis enacts perspective taking, looking at the situation through Turner’s eyes, she may ultimately decide she was unfair (a judgment in Turner’s favor). Alternatively, she may conclude that her actions were, in fact, fair and that Turner’s perception is incorrect. If the former occurs, Davis may choose to cease self-verification activities and take on Turner’s perception as her own (i.e., Turner’s perception prevails). If

114

•

CECILY D. COOPER & TERRI A. SCANDURA

the latter occurs, however, she will likely continue in attempts to convince Turner of her perception (i.e., that she was fair). To clarify, this additional process of perspective taking as discussed in the empathy literature does not necessarily contradict the process of identity negotiation nor does it serve as a substitute for this process. Rather, considering both of these interpersonal processes (identity negotiation and perspective taking) in conjunction can help us better understand why managers and subordinates may square-off during a predicament of injustice but also why managers might be inclined to step into the subordinate’s shoes and look at the situation through his eyes. The perspective taking process complements the identity negotiation process as managers and subordinates try to resolve a predicament of injustice. Accordingly, perspective taking is a key component of the model proposed in this paper. Before presenting this model, we will briefly review the types of organizational justice predicaments in which managers may find themselves. These predicaments take several forms. Types of Predicaments: The Four Dimensions of Organizational Justice Currently, research on organizational justice conceptualizes this construct as having four distinct dimensions: distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational (Colquitt, 2001). We view these forms of organizational justice as different types of social predicaments (depending on the type of injustice the subordinate perceives). Normative expectations about social exchange guide perceptions of injustice (Homans, 1961). Satisfaction with the exchange is thus dependent upon what is received relative to the expectations of what should be received (Blau, 1964). A manager may, thus, find themselves in a predicament if they are perceived to violate the expectations related to any of these four types. Distributive justice (or equity) is defined as employee perceptions of the fairness of outcomes received, such as pay (Pritchard, Dunnette, & Jorgenson, 1972). Procedural justice, alternatively, is the application of fair rules in decisions regarding resource allocation (Leventhal, 1980). Greenberg (1986) reported factor analytic results suggesting that procedural justice and distributive justice are distinct, and that both are important to employees, although their relative importance may differ depending on the situation (Brockner, 2002). The scenario at the beginning of the paper illustrates elements of a distributive justice concern: Turner is dissatisfied with his raise. Additionally, the scenario touches upon procedural justice concerns as well since it appears that Davis may have violated Leventhal’s (1980) accuracy rule. Originally, Bies and Moag (1986) proposed a third dimension of justice termed “interactional” justice, which they defined as the interpersonal

Was I Unfair?

• 115

treatment people receive as procedures are enacted. In testing the dimensionality of the organizational justice construct, however, Colquitt (2001) found that the notion of interactional justice was more accurately represented as two separate dimensions: interpersonal justice and informational justice. Interpersonal justice focuses on whether employees are treated with dignity and respect by authority figures. In comparison, informational justice refers to the degree to which a manager is candid, explains procedures and communicates details in a timely manner, and tailors communication to individuals’ specific needs (Colquitt, 2001). We will refer back to these different types of predicaments later in the discussion. Certain responses (i.e., interpersonal outcomes) we identify are not possible for all four types of predicaments. In addition, the type of justice norm which is violated may influence the manager’s choice of response. The model does not directly address the latter issue but response choice is discussed as an avenue for future research. ANTECEDENTS INFLUENCING MANAGERIAL PERSPECTIVE TAKING In Figure 1, we present a model of the antecedents of supervisor perspective taking in the face of a predicament of injustice as well as intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes. Notice that this conceptualization subsumes the notion of social accounts existing in the justice literature but builds upon this by acknowledging that managers may also choose a variety of other responses. This figure also indicates moderators between the intrapersonal and interpersonal reactions of the supervisor. Even if a manager realizes he has been unfair, there may be constraints to admitting culpability. We will discuss the four components of this model (antecedents, intrapersonal reactions of the manager, interpersonal responses of the manager, and the moderators) in the following sections. Before continuing, however, we would like to point out that a boundary condition of the model is that we are only considering how a manager would deal with a single predicament of injustice and one in which the employee makes his or her grievances known. A manager will not react if no incongruent information has been presented. Thus, we see the subordinate’s accusation of unfairness (i.e., expressed orally, in writing, or through a third party and using any variety of media) as the trigger mechanism which will jumpstart the processes of identity negotiation and perspective taking and can (but may not always) result in acceptance of the subordinate’s perspective. The antecedents in the model include constructs related to characteristics of the manager as well as the nature of the accusation, itself, the

116

•

CECILY D. COOPER & TERRI A. SCANDURA

FIGURE 1.

Managerial Responses to a Predicament of Injustice

subordinate, and their relationship (both personal and work-related aspects of the relationship). As we proceed to discuss the various antecedents in this section, it is important to keep in mind that these factors should interact simultaneously to affect managerial perspective taking processes. To clearly explicate these variables in a manageable, systematic way, we will discuss each separately. Outcomes will be addressed in a later section. Dispositional Empathy Empathy “in the broadest sense refers to the reactions of one individual to the observed experiences of another” (Davis, 1983a, 113). In essence, empathizing is the act of one person attempting to take on the cognitive and/or emotional perspective of another. It contributes to “the ability to understand another more completely and accurately” (Redmond, 1989, p. 595) and enables people to more effectively form and maintain relationships through its effect on social behaviors. Yet, empathy is a trait as well as a state (Davis, 1994). Hence, even though empathetic processes may be primed in a manager when confronted by a subordinate with a justice concern (i.e., refer to intrapersonal reactions in Figure 1), this would be an empathetic state which would recede over time. Managers will also differ in their level of dispositional empathy and this trait is a relevant antecedent in the model since those individuals who are higher in trait empathy are more likely to experience empathetic states (Davis,

Was I Unfair?

• 117

1994). Research has demonstrated that individual differences in empathy can influence empathetic reactions above and beyond the influence of situational factors (Davis, 1983b). Managers who are generally more empathetic to others (i.e., possess greater dispositional empathy) should be more open to hearing and accepting a subordinate’s perspective when faced with a predicament of injustice (i.e., more likely to enter an empathetic state when reacting to the subordinate). Vulnerability of the Manager The second construct is the vulnerability of the manager. A variety of contextual factors may be relevant here. For example, managers may be more vulnerable when 360° performance appraisals are used in which employees rate the performance of the manager (Bailey & Fletcher, 2002). Such appraisals make the manager vulnerable because her acts of unfairness might be exposed when performance is rated by direct reports. Another possible source of vulnerability may stem from historical problems with subordinate perceptions of unfairness if these issues have previously been brought to the attention of senior management. Within this context, managers should be more concerned about predicaments of injustice because their actions may be scrutinized. There may also be a legal risk to the manager, for example, if the employee is a member of a protected category. Another factor determining vulnerability may be the manager’s degree of power and influence within the organization. Some managers may be in a weak position of power and thus they will be more concerned about the detriment that accusations might cause to their bases of power (French & Raven, 1959). On the other hand, a manager in a very strong position of power might show less concern for the well-being of subordinates and view them as objects of manipulation (Kipnis, 1972). Thus, the degree of position power is expected to be inversely related to the manager’s vulnerability. If the context is such that the resolution of the predicament may pose significant ramifications for the manager then the manager will be motivated to use a more analytic strategy in processing the information from the subordinate (McAllister, Mitchell, & Beach, 1979). Previous research has consistently demonstrated that if an argument or issue has high personal relevance, then a perceiver will be more motivated to think elaborately about the message rather than rely on cognitive cues or heuristics (e.g., personal impressions of the source) (Chaiken, 1980; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). This tendency is relevant to the current model because research suggests that better comprehension of an argument is more likely to facilitate opinion change (Chaiken & Eagly, 1976). In the Turner-Davis case, if Davis has been previously accused of acting unfairly (perhaps an accusation that has been brought to the attention of the Dean of her school), then her current situation with Turner will be

118

•

CECILY D. COOPER & TERRI A. SCANDURA

more personally relevant and she will be inclined to process the information presented to her more carefully. Granted, this does not mean the merits of Turner’s argument will pass muster (the nature of the accusation is relevant and is discussed in more detail shortly), however, under these conditions she would not be inclined to haphazardly dismiss Turner without carefully considering his perspective. Nature of the Accusation The third relevant antecedent is the nature of the accusation. The information or arguments presented to the manager regarding the predicament of injustice will affect the likelihood of this manager taking the subordinate’s perspective. Specifically, the manager’s reaction will be influenced by the framing of the accusation, the quality of the information provided, and how well this information is presented. First, the way in which the subordinate frames the accusation will affect how receptive the manager is to hearing it. If the subordinate openly infers what caused the manager to create this (perceived) unfair act, this motive accusation will play a significant role in the dialogue regarding the predicament. As discussed previously, the accusation as framed by the subordinate will become the basis for the identity negotiation between the manager and the subordinate. Both the manager and employee will be trying to verify their self-view to the other (Swann, 1987). The further the subordinate’s accusation of the manager is from what the manager views as their own true character, the more likely the manager will concentrate on trying to refute this accusation (i.e., attempt to self-verify) rather than empathize with the subordinate (i.e., enact perspective taking processes). One motive would be the perception that the manager was intentionally unfair. Such motives are based upon attributions which have been shown to affect the development of relationships between leaders and members (Green & Mitchell, 1979). Such attributions may be false, and are therefore malleable as the two members of a dyad create a dialogue regarding the issue (Martinko & Gardner, 1987). In the scenario presented at the beginning of the paper, Turner openly inferred a motive for Davis’ actions: “He politely speculated whether she was aware of the differences in the reputations of these journals since they were in the area of strategy.” He implied that the cause of her actions stemmed from a competence—rather than an integrity-related issue (i.e., lack of knowledge versus intentions to harm). Assuming this type of accusation is less of an aspersion to Davis, Davis might be more open to Turner’s points. Of course, there may also be cases in which subordinates do not openly imply motives to the manager (i.e., they may simply state their feelings of being treated unfairly), if this is the case motives will not play a role in the dialogue. However, the quality of the information and arguments presented will still play a role.

Was I Unfair?

• 119

Subordinates’ viewpoints will be more compelling if they present relevant, credible facts to support their position. The use of such logic and persuasion within work relationships has been shown to be an important influence tactic (Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980). The eloquence or assertiveness with which subordinates present these facts will contribute to the likelihood of a manager taking a subordinate’s perspective. Subordinates who enact a more assertive communication style typically receive greater consideration from their superiors (Korsgaard et al., 1998). In the scenario presented at the beginning of this paper, Turner provides information about journals in his area in an attempt to present a credible argument so that Davis considers his accusation of unfairness to be a serious one. His success in persuading Davis to take his perspective should be related to how well he presents logical arguments and facts to back up his arguments. Instrumental Concerns Managers’ instrumental motives should also affect their likelihood of taking a subordinate’s perspective. In order for managers to be considered effective, they must be able to maintain the performance of the employees they supervise. Hence, individuals in a supervisory role should be motivated to do those things which will best enable them to attain valued outputs from those they oversee. Assuming a manager is aware of how detrimental perceived unfairness can be for employee retention and productivity, he will be attuned to justice concerns expressed by an employee. Specifically, a manager should be more attentive to an employee’s justice concerns if the employee with the grievance is particularly valuable, if sustaining that employee’s performance is a concern, and/or if there is concern that the situation with this one individual may affect the remainder of the workgroup. Value of Employee. When an employee voices a justice concern to a manager, the value of that employee to the work unit will be a factor impacting the manager’s receptiveness to the arguments presented. If the employee with the justice concern is a valued contributor, he or she may have more influence over the supervisor and, therefore, the supervisor’s perspective of the situation (Yukl & Tracey, 1992). Some subordinates have more value to the leader and the work group than others (Graen & Scandura, 1987). In the Davis-Turner scenario, Turner’s value as a faculty member is causing Davis to pay attention to his concerns. He is publishing, and is also a fine teacher. Managers will be more attuned to confrontations coming from such employees (even if managers do not ultimately take the valued employee’s perspective) and will put more cognitive effort into their judgment process in these situations since they are more dependent on these employees. Outcome dependency motivates perceivers, in this case managers, to devote more effort in understanding and forming impressions of another

120

•

CECILY D. COOPER & TERRI A. SCANDURA

on whom they are more dependent (Erber & Fiske, 1984; Neuberg & Fiske, 1987). In sum, Turner’s value to the group (Lind & Tyler, 1988) will affect Davis’ willingness to process the information he is presenting and, as a result, may lead her to take his perspective in the situation. Sustaining Employee Performance. Justice concerns can affect employee performance (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). If managers are aware of the ramifications of acting unfairly and want to optimize employee performance, they may try to be responsive to a predicament of injustice to maintain the contribution from the focal employee. Social exchange theory and equity theory describe why it is critical for managers to maintain a fair relationship with subordinates (Adams, 1965; Blau, 1964). For an exchange to be in balance, the inputs of each party (i.e., contributions to the relationship) must equal the outcomes of each party (i.e., benefits derived from the relationship) (Adams, 1965). If one party perceives the other is not contributing fairly, they will take action to re-balance the exchange. For example, if a manager does not compensate an employee sufficiently for work they have completed (i.e., does not provide adequate outcomes), the employee will decrease their contributions by not working as hard, showing up late for work, or the like. Simons and Roberson (2003) demonstrated that perceptions of injustice of hotel employees were related to lower organizational commitment, higher turnover, and lower customer satisfaction ratings. Thus, assuming the manager is aware of the potential negative ramifications of acting unfairly, from a rational (or instrumental) perspective the manager will take this into consideration and try to maintain a productive working relationship with direct reports. Considering the Davis-Turner scenario, Davis may be concerned with Turner’s assertion that she has been unfair in part because his motivation to publish in the future may be affected by not receiving the raise he expected. Sustaining Workgroup Performance. The desire to maintain authority may be a major reason why a manager would carefully consider a predicament of unfairness: Unfair behavior to one employee may affect the entire workgroup. Sias and Jablin (1995) found that group members discuss instances of unfairness by authority figures with one another. When one member is treated unfairly by a manager, workgroup members often know about it. For example, performance appraisal systems often require supervisors to rank employees. Managers must allow equal access to the system and follow procedures that are fair in outcome distribution (Brockner & Weisenfeld, 1996). If managers do not attend to fundamental aspects of fairness, leadership cannot occur, since the followers will reject the leader’s authority (Tyler & Caine, 1981; Scandura, 1999). Outside of traditional job requirements, justice perceptions can also affect the tendency for group

Was I Unfair?

• 121

members to engage in discretionary cooperative behaviors and helping behaviors (Naumann & Bennett, 2000; Tyler & Blader, 2003). In the Davis-Turner situation, Davis would be concerned about who Turner may have spoken to about this matter before coming to her with the problem. Others in the department may begin to see her as unfair and question compensation decisions (as well as other decisions) she makes in the role as chair. Lind and Tyler (1988) suggest that status and security are universal group values and the situation of injustice to one member of the group may be seen as a threat to the security of all members. Realizing this, a manager may be more motivated to carefully consider a subordinate’s perspective and, perhaps, take that perspective. Relational Considerations The final antecedent to consider is the quality of the relationship between the manager and the subordinate in the predicament. Leader-follower relationships are inextricably intertwined (Graen & Scandura, 1987). Each communication and behavior between a manager and a subordinate reinforces prior actions, and builds to a high quality relationship or a lower quality one. High quality relationships are characterized by a greater degree of affect, loyalty, contributions, mutual respect, and trust (Brower, Schoorman, & Tan, 2000; Dienesch & Liden, 1986). When a high-quality relationship exists between two parties it facilitates perspective taking because as relationship closeness increases, empathetic responding increases as well (Cialdini, Brown, Lewis, Luce, & Neuberg, 1997). If a manager and subordinate perceive that they are similar to each other, this increases the likelihood and/or intensity of perspective taking between the two (Davis, 1994). Hence, if a manager feels she has a high quality relationship with a subordinate or feels similar to that subordinate, she should be more likely engage in perspective taking when faced with a predicament of injustice from that subordinate. Furthermore, certain research indicates that relationship quality may encourage empathetic responding through its effect on the manager’s causal attributions. Relationship quality will influence a manager’s perceptions of the subordinate and the subordinate’s motives for making the accusation (Lewicki, Weithoff, & Tomlinson, 2005). In a high quality relationship “the leader will tend to make attributions which would potentially benefit the member” (Green & Mitchell, 1979, p. 441). In a dyad where relationship quality is low the leader will be more likely to make attributions “which are potentially harmful to the member” (Green & Mitchell, 1979, p. 441). In the case of a predicament of injustice, it is most beneficial for the subordinate if the manager attributes their behavior (i.e., confronting the manager) to an external cause (i.e., an unfair context). It is detrimental to the subordinate if the leader attributes their behavior to internal causes (e.g., the

122

•

CECILY D. COOPER & TERRI A. SCANDURA

subordinate is trying to achieve gain or discredit the manager). As Hoffman describes, blaming the other person (i.e., making an internal attribution) is not compatible with an empathetic response because the other person will no longer appear to be a victim. Moreover, “this attribution should … operate to neutralize the observer’s empathetic distress, and the observer may end up feeling indifferent or even derogating the victim” (Hoffman, 1984, p. 122). Hence, within trusted dyads, supervisors will be more likely to believe that an external cause is driving subordinates to confront them and will subsequently be more likely to engage in perspective taking processes. Referring back to the faculty scenario, the prior relationship between Davis and Turner would impact the degree to which Davis would attribute positive motives to Turner and would be likely to consider Turner’s perspective. If they had a good relationship prior to the accusation, Davis should be more motivated to listen and (perhaps) take his perspective. INTRAPERSONAL REACTIONS The antecedents discussed in the previous section will combine to influence the manager’s intrapersonal reaction when confronted with a predicament of injustice. Specifically, these factors will determine the degree to which the manager will empathize with the employee expressing the justice concern. “Empathy can have an important impact on decisions which involve people with whom the decision-maker empathizes [and]…affects decisions made during an interaction” (Redmond, 1989, 596). The important role that managerial empathy plays in justice-related interactions has been previously noted in the literature (Masterson, Byrne, & Mao, 2005; Patient & Skarlicki, 2005). Empathic feelings and reactions possess both cognitive and emotional components (Davis, 1980; Hogan, 1969). We propose that the manager’s perspective taking activities (also referred to in the empathy literature as role taking) are the most pertinent aspect of this intrapersonal reaction: Perspective taking is the cognitive component of empathy which reflects the act of an individual trying to assume another person’s opinions or viewpoint. When enacting perspective taking an individual (in this case the manager) steps into the other person’s shoes (the employee’s) and looks at the situation from that person’s perspective (Davis, 1994). Referring back to the scenario, if Professor Davis engages in perspective taking she will think about whether the journals Turner is discussing actually are more reputable than she previously thought and speculate on what Turner might consider a fair merit increase for himself given this opinion of the journals. This cognitive aspect of empathy will ultimately drive a manager’s judgments of the situation, through its impact on the manager’s attributions (Redmond, 1989), and determine whether a manager accepts a subordinate’s viewpoint as her own.

Was I Unfair?

• 123

However, during the confrontation, emotional reactions may also stem from the cognitive reaction (Davis, 1994; Hoffman, 1984).2 If the manager is inclined to empathize with the subordinate’s situation, this can elicit feelings of empathic concern and/or personal distress (i.e., also referred to as guilt in the empathy literature) (Davis, 1994; Hoffman, 1984; Rawls, 1971). Empathetic concern is the feeling of sympathy for another’s unfortunate situation (Davis, 1983a), whereas personal distress is the feeling of discomfort or anxiety in response to another’s situation (Davis, 1994). Feelings of personal distress are especially likely to be elicited from an observer if the observer believes that they are the cause of the target’s distress (Hoffman, 1984). Hence, if a manager empathizes with a subordinate it is quite likely that they may feel personal distress since they are, supposedly, the cause of the subordinate’s plight in this situation. And although cognitive perspective taking activities are primary (since they determine the manager’s judgment of the employee), some research indicates that a manager’s emotional reaction may also play a role in motivating him or her to act. Specifically, guilt has been shown to present a moral dilemma for the guilty party which is linked to the need to take action towards resolution (Greenspan, 1995). As noted by Greenspan, the “… characteristic desire for reparation may be said to move the agent toward others insofar as it prompts him to make up for any harm done them” (1995, p. 127). In sum, managers faced with a predicament of injustice will be more likely to engage in perspective taking if they possess greater amounts of dispositional empathy, are vulnerable to the employees’ accusation, if the accusation is well-presented, and if they are concerned with maintaining the productivity of that employee (and workgroup) and/or their relationship with that employee. Managers will be less likely to engage in perspective taking if these conditions are not present. Ultimately, however, even if a manager engages in perspective taking they may or may not accept the subordinate’s perspective that they acted unfairly. Yet, it is important to acknowledge that managers faced with a predicament of injustice may be inclined to empathize, because it explains how a manager may come to agree with an employee, a reaction which cannot be explained by impression management theory. INTERPERSONAL OUTCOMES In the previous section, we described the processes involved in a manager’s intrapersonal reaction when confronted by an employee. As mentioned, the manager may not empathize with the subordinate at all and, hence, not enact perspective taking processes. Alternatively, the manager may engage in perspective taking but this may or may not result in them ultimately taking the subordinate’s perspective. Either way, after being confronted by a subordinate and engaging in dialogue with him or her, this exchange will

124

•

CECILY D. COOPER & TERRI A. SCANDURA

result in one of two outcomes: The manager will either accept the subordinate’s perspective or they will not. This judgment will then determine the supervisor’s interpersonal response to the predicament of injustice. The interpersonal response may be verbal, substantive, or a combination of both. Specifically, we propose that managers’ responses will fall into one of two categories: verbal responses and substantive acts. Before continuing, however, we must note the boundary conditions relating to the responses we have proposed. First, our model describes two different categories of responses. However, it does not attempt to delineate when a manager will enact a response from either category or when various responses may be used in conjunction (e.g., admission of culpability + alternative recompense). Such an analysis is beyond the scope of this chapter. Second, this model does not speak to the effectiveness of these tactics: It merely highlights that managers will sometimes be motivated to use tactics other than social accounts. Granted, it is important to understand how effective each of these tactics might be, but specifying the model to that level of detail is also beyond the scope of this chapter. We do, however, propose some ideas for future research on these issues later in the discussion. Moderators Linking Intrapersonal Reactions and Interpersonal Outcomes Assuming managers view themselves as fair in general, they should desire to adjust their behaviors to align with this identity in order to be able to maintain the identity (Swann, 1987). Hence, if a manager accepts a subordinate’s perspective, this should drive him to repair the situation. The empathetic response should direct managerial actions since empathy serves a motivational function in addition to its informational function (Batson, Turk, Shaw, & Klein, 1995). However, it is also well-established that contextual factors can impede (or prevent) the correspondence between attitudes and behaviors (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). Vulnerability of the Manager. There are times when a manager will accept a subordinate’s perspective as accurate, but still not admit to acting unfairly. There may be a risk to the manager in admitting the injustice. Managers often run into a “justice paradox” when making decisions (Sitkin & Bies, 1993). Concerns regarding the legal liability of the manager or the organization become primary to humanistic concerns, such as fairness. However, there are a number of other factors which may also make a manager vulnerable and, hence, discourage the admission of wrongdoing (e.g., 360° performance appraisals, historical problems with senior management, damage to their reputation within the firm). Managerial vulnerability is an antecedent of the model, because it is a factor which will cause a manager to think elaborately about a subordinate’s message (rather than using cognitive cues or heuristics). However, this variable should also function as

Was I Unfair?

• 125

a moderator between managerial cognitions and behaviors. Regardless of whether a manager agrees with an employee’s grievance, if admitting guilt entails too much risk he will not be likely to do so. This moderator helps explain why managers may choose to deny responsibility or use social accounts even if they know they have done wrong. Instrumental Concerns. Conversely, there are also times when a manager may disagree with a subordinate’s perspective, but still act upon the employee’s grievance. For example, if the employee in question is an extremely valuable contributor and dismissing the issue may cause her to leave the firm, it may be in the manager’s best interest to concede to the employee’s request even if he does not agree. Instrumental concerns will motivate managers to maintain the productivity of their reports. Accordingly, this variable must also be included as a moderator between intrapersonal and interpersonal reactions. Similar to the vulnerability factor, instrumental concerns should also function as an antecedent in the model as stated previously. As an antecedent this factor will motivate the manager to attend to the information given. However, after the manager makes a judgment, this moderator will function to predict whether the manager’s beliefs and actions will correspond. Verbal Responses Verbal responses have been the focus of the majority of justice research on repairing employee fairness perceptions. There has been considerable research on social accounts as well as apologies. Other possible responses exist, however. A manager may simply admit they were unfair but offer no explanation or apology, deny they were unfair, or avoid commenting on the accusation. Granted, some of these responses should not alleviate the employee’s justice concerns (and some may even escalate the situation) but in creating a descriptive model, these possibilities must be acknoweldged. Denial. The manager may choose to respond to the subordinate by simply denying the accusation. A denial is a statement whereby an allegation is explicitly declared untrue (Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, & Dirks, 2004). The manager may either deny that the situation was unfair or deny their involvement in creating the situation in question. The justice literature has not given much consideration to denials as a possible response to predicaments of injustice, since most of this work has focused on tactics such as social accounts which might mitigate negative reactions from employees. However, aside from questions regarding the appropriateness of responses, any descriptive model must acknowledge that it is possible that a manager might choose to simply deny an accusation outright. Research on relationship repair acknowledges the prevalence of denials as a response to a (perceived) transgression (Bottom, Gibson, Daniels, Murnighan, 2002; Ferrin, Kim, Cooper, & Dirks, 2007; Kim et al., 2004; Sigal, Hsu, Foodim, & Betman, 1988).

126

•

CECILY D. COOPER & TERRI A. SCANDURA

Reticence. A manager faced with a predicament of injustice may also choose to simply not respond to an allegation, that is, be reticent. A manager may be reticent by simply remaining silent in response to the allegation or by explaining that he or she cannot or will not confirm or disconfirm the veracity of the allegation (Ferrin et al., 2007). Referring back to the initial scenario, it may be difficult for Professor Davis to remain reticent in her situation with Professor Turner. He is a faculty member in her department and may be inclined to express further grievance if ignored. However, if a student had emailed Professor Davis regarding the fairness of a grade, she may indeed choose to be reticent in that situation (i.e., not respond to the student). In the face of an accusation, an individual may choose to be reticent for a variety of reasons. They might want to avoid implicating someone else who is involved in the situation. Alternatively, the situation may be so complex that a response may not be fully understood by the accuser or there may be legal implications associated with the situation in question. To date, there has been little discussion of reticence in the organizational literature (for an exception see Ferrin et al., 2007) and much less in the literature on justice. However, it is possible that a manager may choose to simply not respond to a subordinate’s allegation. Admission of culpability. A manager may also choose to simply agree with the employee’s accusation and admit she acted unfairly. That is, a manager may admit guilt but not express remorse as with an apology. This verbal response may be used on its own if the manager has no concerns to alleviate the situation. However, it may also be used in conjunction with a substantive act to repair the situation. Social account (i.e., Justification or Excuse). A manager may choose to respond to a subordinate’s accusation by giving a social account. Social accounts are verbal responses which reveal “the reason for, or the cause of, some event that is not immediately obvious or entirely known” (Shaw, Wild, & Colquitt, 2003, 445) and come in two forms, excuses and justifications (Scott & Lyman, 1968). Bies (1987) noted that explanations are a form of social account and referred to excuses and justifications as causal accounts and ideological/ referential accounts, respectively. Excuses are explanations in which an individual, in this case a manager, admits what he or she did was unfavorable or inappropriate but claims that a mitigating circumstance influenced his or her behavior. By contrast, a justification admits responsibility for the act in question but denies the act is inappropriate, appealing to a superordinate goal or another referent standard to “justify” the behavior. Research has demonstrated that explanations can have a beneficial impact on outcomes such as enhanced cooperation, and decreased retaliation and withdrawal (Shaw et al., 2003). Previously, researchers conceptualized social accounts as managers’ primary response to justice violations (Schlenker & Darby, 1981). We may re-

Was I Unfair?

• 127

fer back to the scenario to illustrate how a social account might be used. Turner has questioned Davis about her decision regarding merit increases. Davis, however, by nature of her position may have more information about the objective performance of Turner’s colleagues that might justify the allocation. Therefore, when Turner approaches her with his grievance, knowing that her allocation had been fair, Davis might disclose this additional information to explain to him why he received that amount. In sum, Davis may resort to using an excuse to alleviate this situation, offering Turner’s objective performance as a mitigating circumstance. Apology. A manager may also choose to simply apologize. By definition, an apology is as a statement that acknowledges both responsibility and regret for a transgression (Kim, Dirks, Cooper, & Ferrin, 2006). An apology can help resolve a predicament of injustice because the manager provides an expression of remorse that may positively influence the employee’s beliefs about their motives and intentions, and reduce the employee’s concerns about continued vulnerability (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Tomlinson, Dineen, & Lewicki, 2004). Bies (1987) describes an apology as a penitential account because by publicly expressing remorse, the manager is actually enacting a form of self-retribution. Thus, the act of apologizing in itself can be perceived as “offering partial payment for the injustice event” (Bies, 1987, 303). Because of this, the expression of remorse following a transgression can mitigate punishment from those who feel they have been wronged (e.g., Schwartz, Kane, Joseph, & Tedeschi, 1978). It is important, though, to note that apologies can come in different forms. A manager can offer an apology and assume full responsibility for the act (i.e., offer an internal attribution) or she can offer an apology and assume only partial responsibility for the act while attributing the remainder to situational factors (i.e., offer an external attribution). The latter is similar to an excuse but differs in that the identification of the mitigating circumstance is accompanied with an explicit expression of remorse. Research has found that these two types of apologies can have very different effects on relationship repair (Kim et al., 2006). Hence, they should be considered distinct forms of responses as noted in our model. The justice literature has not previously acknowledged these alternate forms of apologies and their differing effects. SUBSTANTIVE ACTS A manager may also choose to address the situation with actions (i.e., a substantive response) instead of or in addition to a verbal response. Research has indicated that actions (e.g., offering reparations or penance) used alone or alongside apologies can restore trust between parties after a (perceived) transgression (Bottom et al., 2002; Dirks, Kim, Ferrin, & Cooper, 2011). If possible, a manager may decide to directly repair the situation, a

128

•

CECILY D. COOPER & TERRI A. SCANDURA

tactic we refer to as restorative action. Alternatively, the manager may choose to address the situation by offering alternative desired inputs, a tactic we refer to as alternative recompense. Restorative Action. The cooperation which is critical to the functioning of a manager-subordinate dyad is based on reciprocity: The employee provides a valued input and the manager rewards them accordingly. Both parties will be motivated to cooperate as long as each believes they will continue interacting with the other and each is benefiting from the interactions (Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981). In order to maintain this state of cooperation, the manager may decide to repair the situation directly and restore it to a fair state for the subordinate (i.e., restorative action). Referring back to Turner and Davis, if Davis ultimately accepted Turner’s perspective regarding the merit increase, Davis might want to give Turner the additional money he deserves. Assuming funds were available, she would increase Turner’s raise to accurately reflect his performance at work. Restorative action can also be used to correct procedural justice violations as well. If a manager has committed a procedural injustice, he or she can restore justice by re-applying the procedures in a fair manner or altering the procedures to be fair. Yet, managers will not be able to apply this tactic to all types of justice violations. Restorative action is not possible for injustices resulting from flawed interactions (i.e., interpersonal and informational justice), because interactions cannot be undone. In these situations, if a manager wants to employ a substantive repair tactic, it would have to be alternative recompense. Alternative Recompense. When managers desire to repair a situation, sometimes they cannot correct the specific behavior which was unjust or correcting that particular behavior is not appropriate. Organizational policies may constrain a manager’s actions so that they cannot re-distribute outcomes or alter procedures. In cases where desired resources of a certain type are limited, additional resources of the same type may be unavailable. If so, the manager may choose to address the situation through alternative recompense. According to social exchange theory, the two parties of an exchange frequently offer inputs of various types (Blau, 1964). One party may offer inputs such as mentoring, social support, and money, while the other contributes work effort and helping behavior. The inputs do not have to be of the same type to be equitable, they only have to be relevant to the relationship and their value similarly recognized by both parties (Adams, 1965). In the scenario, Davis may realize that she has not rewarded Turner adequately but may not be able to give him the additional compensation he deserves. There may not be available funds past the percentage of base pay that she was initially allocated and she may not be able to re-distribute those funds between her reports. However, assuming Davis wants to correct the

Was I Unfair?

• 129

injustice, she may think of other ways to compensate him, such as offering him a seed-money grant for his research or paying for a conference he wants to attend. If a manager relies on alternative recompense to repair the injustice, the specific injustice will not be corrected, but the manager may be able to restore balance to the exchange. Alternative recompense is the only substantive tactic a manager can employ for violations relating to interpersonal and informational justice, because, as stated above, he or she will not be able to undo such violations. However, a manager may also look for other means to correct a distributive or procedural injustice if constraints do not permit them to take restorative action. Thus, alternative recompense may be used to help repair a predicament of injustice related to any of the four types. CONCLUDING REMARKS This theoretical discussion offers a description extending beyond that of previous work (e.g., Bies, 1987; Greenberg, 1988, 1990) regarding how managers may react to and deal with a predicament of injustice. In doing so, the ideas presented herein contribute to both management research and practice. For research, the proposed model can inform and direct scholarship in the area of organizational justice. Justice scholars have clearly demonstrated that it is critical to attend to and manage employees’ fairness perceptions, but this research has not fully described the range of possible managerial reactions. As a descriptive framework, the prior focus on social accounts is insufficient. This work is grounded in impression management theory and relies on the assumption that a manager’s primary focus will be to defend his or her social identity. If a predicament of injustice is instead viewed at the dyadic level of analysis and the relationship between the manager and employee is considered as the focal point, then the processes through which a predicament of injustice are resolved must be conceptualized much differently. Specifically, after a subordinate confronts a manager with an accusation of injustice, she may not react by immediately defending herself. Rather, this accusation can provoke a dialogue between the two parties in which either party can influence the other. The literature on identity negotiation tells us that both parties will work to verify their self-view to the other (Swann, 1987). And research on the self-fulfilling prophecy demonstrates that in a manager-subordinate dyad sometimes the manager’s view will prevail (Eden & Shani, 1982) but sometimes the subordinate’s perspective may prevail (Scandura & Graen, 1984; Eden, 1990). The literature on empathy offers further support for why a manager may accept a subordinate’s perspective in this situation. Taken together, these two theoretical frameworks, identity negotiation and empathy, offer a clear and convincing argument as to why a manager may succumb to accusations from a subordinate. If this

130

•

CECILY D. COOPER & TERRI A. SCANDURA

occurs, it presents the possibility that managers may not want to employ a social account. When looking at the organizational literature, it is apparent that managers in a predicament of injustice will not always respond with a social account or an apology. Recently, there has been a burgeoning body of work on relationship repair which has acknowledged and studied a number of responses (other than social accounts) which are often used by accused parties, such as denials (Barsade et al., 1988; Kim et al., 2004), reticence (Ferrin et al., 2007), and reparations or penance (Bottom et al., 2002; Dirks et al., 2011). The justice literature also has not previously acknowledged that a manager might decide to enact more than one response, such as offering an apology coupled with a monetary reparation. Limitations The current model does have some limitations. The functioning of the antecedents is clearly defined: In practice, all five categories of antecedents will work simultaneously to determine whether or not a manager will accept a subordinate’s perspective. However, the model does not delineate which particular response(s) a manager will choose, nor does it speak to the relative effectiveness of these responses. We offer some ideas for future research on these topics. Choice of Response(s). There are a myriad of factors which may influence a manager’s choice of verbal and/or substantive responses. Determinants of this decision are likely to include (among others): 1) the type of justice norm which was violated, 2) the severity of the (perceived) violation, and 3) the medium of communication used by the aggrieved employee. First, predicaments which stem from an interpersonal or informational injustice were generally caused by verbal interactions. Since these types of injustice are verbal in nature, they may be more likely to elicit a verbal response from the accused manager (e.g., apology or excuse) rather than a substantive act. Restorative action would not be possible for these types of violations since the harm cannot be directly undone (i.e., the interaction has already occurred). It is possible that a manager in this situation may choose alternative recompense, just as the contrite husband may buy flowers, but the choice to move beyond a verbal response to a substantive one may depend on other factors such as the severity of the violation. Moreover, only predicaments which stem from distributive or procedural justice concerns have the possibility of being repaired through restorative action, since these are the only types of injustice which can be directly addressed (i.e., by giving the employee the appropriate outcomes or reapplying the procedures correctly). The choice of response should also be determined by how severe the manager perceives the violation. As the severity of the violation increases,

Was I Unfair?

• 131

the manager may be more likely to employ a substantive act, if they believe a substantive act seems more penitent. Increasingly severe violations may also elicit multiple responses (i.e., an apology in addition to restorative action). Finally, the form of communication (e.g., face to face, memo, email, third party) should influence the type of response the manager will choose. If the subordinate confronts a manager in person, this will almost necessitate a verbal response. Also, even if the manager in that situation is eventually going to employ a substantive act, the face-to-face confrontation increases the chance that an initial verbal response will precede the act. If the subordinate communicates through a written medium or third party, it should be easier for the manager to ignore the accusation if they choose. Of course many other factors may influence a manager’s choice of interpersonal response. This is a relatively unexplored area which could benefit from future research. Relative Effectiveness of Responses. Management scholars will also need to empirically explore the relative effectiveness of these various response strategies (i.e., alternative recompense vs. social account) for addressing a predicament of injustice. For example, substantive acts such as restorative action may be more successful at resolving a predicament than an apology, because they directly repair the violation. However, it would be unwise to prescribe that managers should always employ substantive acts since there may be some cases in which an excuse or apology is sufficient and a substantive act offers no added value but significant cost. The relative effectiveness of these responses for repairing justice perceptions is likely to depend on a number of contingency factors. For example, it has been previously demonstrated that the efficacy of an explanation depends on whether it is clear, reasonable, and detailed (Shaw et al., 2003). Trust repair research has also clearly demonstrated that the relative success of responses such as apologies (with various attributions) and denials depends on the type of violation (Kim et al., 2004, 2006). At a more macro-level, research has already demonstrated that the effectiveness of an organization’s attempt to restore justice depends on matching the appropriate remedy with the type of injustice experienced by the worker (Reb, Goldman, Kray, & Cropanzano, 2006). Notably, “effectiveness” in this situation could also be defined according to any number of criteria, such as effectiveness at repairing the subordinate’s perceptions or effectiveness at defending the manager’s image. These two goals may be mutually exclusive. Questions regarding this issue are more complex than they may initially seem and will require much future research. Researching Predicaments In terms of testing the model presented in Figure 1, the proposed relationships should not be difficult to explore empirically and would read-

132

•

CECILY D. COOPER & TERRI A. SCANDURA

ily lend themselves to a variety of research methods. Qualitative research might be employed to have managers and employees reflect on actual predicaments in which they were involved at work and discuss how these predicaments were resolved. To complement this, issues of internal validity might be addressed by also investigating these questions in the laboratory, perhaps using detailed scenarios and role-plays. In fact, the proposed model might lend itself quite well to being tested in a laboratory setting since each of the antecedents could be manipulated independently to discern their effects. Field surveys might ask managers how often they have employed any of the various behavioral reactions when responding to a predicament of injustice. All of these methods could be triangulated to create a comprehensive program of research. Practical Implications This model has practical implications for employees who feel they have been treated unfairly: It can help them understand how to approach their supervisor in a way that might be most likely to result in a beneficial outcome. It is possible for employees to change managers’ perspectives, however, there are many factors which determine how a boss will react to a confrontation. If employees are aware of these factors, they can consciously attempt to manage them for their benefit. For managers, this discussion increases awareness of the variety of options that are available for dealing with a predicament of injustice. Previously, prescriptions from the organizational justice literature have generally only included social accounts and apologies (e.g., Greenberg, 1990). However, managers have many more options than this available to them and may choose, instead, to use one of these options. Moreover, even though research has clearly demonstrated that social accounts can alleviate justice concerns (e.g., Riordan, Marlin, & Kellogg, 1983), prescriptions stemming from this work might engender certain ethical concerns (Bies, 1987). There might be situations in which a manager knows they have been unfair. If so, it would obviously not be appropriate to give a social account if such an account was disingenuous. Prescribing a social account for such situations also elicits pragmatic concerns. It would be a risky strategy if there is a chance that proof of culpability may become available (Kim et al., 2004). Even if proof of culpability is never known, recent research indicates that there can also be many disadvantages to employing social accounts (Schlenker et al., 2001). In conclusion, we do not believe that social accounts offer no value for managers. On the contrary, a significant body of work decidedly indicates that they do. However, we believe that our model more accurately represents how managers and subordinates approach a predicament of injustice and how these predicaments are subsequently addressed by managers. Our

Was I Unfair?

• 133

discussion of these issues introduces new assumptions as well as new variables to the field of organizational justice. Additionally, on a broader level, the proposed framework illustrates the value that a dynamic view of justice can add to the field. If justice scholars embrace this dynamic perspective, this shift in orientation can introduce a plethora of additional avenues for research. Hopefully, organizational scholars will acknowledge the potential that this has for helping us understand precarious justice-related situations. Continued research in this area will be important, not only for advancement of the field, but to advise practicing managers (and their employees) in how to deal with these delicate and distressing issues. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank Steven Blader and Jason Colquitt for their excellent comments on an earlier draft. This research was supported by the University of Miami’s James W. McLamore Summer Award in Business and Social Sciences. ENDNOTES 1.

2.

There is some minor disagreement regarding the definition of social accounts in that Bies (1987) includes apologies as a form of social account, referring to them as “penitential accounts.” For the purpose of this paper, however, we are relying on the more common definition of accounts as explanations (i.e., excuses and justifications). That said, the literature on apologies is very relevant to the model and is reviewed later in this discussion. There has been extensive debate regarding the temporal sequencing of cognitions and emotions in the empathy literature. Overall, the debate as summarized in chapter six of Davis (1994) indicates that perspective-taking is an antecedent of the emotional reactions as proposed by Eisenberg, Shea, Carlo, & Knight (1991). REFERENCES

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918. Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211, 1390–1396. Bailey, C., & Fletcher, C. 2002. The impact of multiple source feedback on management development: Findings from a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 853–867.

134

•

CECILY D. COOPER & TERRI A. SCANDURA

Batson, C. D., Turk, C. L., Shaw, L. L., & Klein, T. R. (1995). Information function of empathetic emotion: Learning that we value the other’s welfare. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 300–313. Bies, R. J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 289–319. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional Justice: Communication criteria of effectiveness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & B. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Negotiation in organizations. (vol. 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Brockner, J. (2002). Making sense of procedural fairness: How high procedural fairness can reduce or heighten the influence of outcome favorability. Academy of Management Review, 27, 58–76. Brockner, J., & Weisenfeld, B. M. (1996). The interactive impact of procedural and outcome fairness on reactions to decision: The effects of what you do depends on how do it. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189–208. Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational leadership: The integration of trust and leader-member exchange. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 227–250. Bottom, W. P., Gibson, K., Daniels, S. E., & Murnighan, J. K. (2002). When talk is not cheap: Substantive penance and expressions of intent in rebuilding cooperation. Organization Science, 13, 497–513. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766. Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1976). Communication modality as a determinant of message persuasiveness and message comprehension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 605–614. Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 481–494. 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. Greenjuig & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321. Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85–101. Davis, M. H. (1983a). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126. Davis, M. H. (1983b). The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and helping: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality, 51, 167–184.

Was I Unfair?

• 135

Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach. Madison, Wisconsin: Brown & Benchmark Publishers. Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618–634. Dirks, K. T., Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., & Cooper, C. D. (2011). Understanding the effects of substantive responses on trust following a transgression. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 87–103. Eden, D. (1990). Pygmalion in management: Productivity as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Eden, D. (2003). Self-fulfilling prophecies in organizations. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: State of the science (2nd ed., pp. 91–122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Eden, D., & Shani, A. B. (1982). Pygmalion goes to boot camp: Expectancy, leadership, and trainee performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 194–199. Eisenberg, N., Shea, C. L., Carlo, G., & Knight, G. P. (1991). Empathy-related responding and cognition: a “chicken and the egg” dilemma. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (vol. 2: Research, pp. 63–88). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Erber, R., & Fiske, S.T. (1984). Outcome dependency and attention to inconsistent information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 709–726. Ferrin, D. L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2007). Silence speaks volumes: The effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for repairing integrity- and competence-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 893–908. French, J. & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies of social power. (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827–844. Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (vol. 9, pp. 175–208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Green, S. G., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Attributional processes of leaders in leadermember exchanges. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 429– 458. Greene, C. N. (1975). The reciprocal nature of influence between leader and subordinate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 187–193. Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340–342. Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of Organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9–22. Greenberg, J. (1988). Cultivating an image of justice: Looking fair on the job. Academy of Management Executive, 2, 155–157. Greenberg, J. (1990). Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing impressions of Organizational justice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 111–157.

136

•

CECILY D. COOPER & TERRI A. SCANDURA

Greenberg, J., & Lind, E. A. (2000.) The pursuit of organizational justice: From conceptualization to implication to application. In C. L. Cooper & E. A. Locke (Eds.), I/O Psychology: what we know about theory and practice. (pp. 72–105). Oxford: Blackwell. Greenspan, P. S. (1995). Practical guilt. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hoffman, M. L. (1984). Interaction of affect and cognition in empathy. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, cognitions, and behavior (pp. 103–131). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 307–316. Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Kim, P., Ferrin, D., Cooper C., & Dirks, K. (2004). Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing ability versus integritybased trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 104–118. Kim, P. H., Dirks, K.T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. (2006). When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 49–65. Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 33–41. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intra-organizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440– 452. 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. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research. (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum. Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lewicki, R. J., Wiethoff, C., & Tomilinson, E. C. (2005). What is the role of trust in organizational justice? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice. (pp. 247–270). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press. Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W .L. (1987). The leader/member attribution process. Academy of Management Review, 12, 235–249. 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.

Was I Unfair?

• 137

McAllister, D., Mitchell, T.R., & Beach, L.R. (1979). The contingency model for the selection of decision strategies: An empirical test of the effects of significance, accountability, and reversibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 228–244. Meindl, J. R. (1989). Managing to be fair: An exploration of values, motives, and leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 252–276. Messick, D. M., Bloom, S., Boldizar, J.P., & Samuelson, C.D. (1985). Why we are fairer than others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 480–500. Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. (2000). A case for procedural justice climate: Development and test of a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 881–889. Neuberg, S. L., & Fiske, S. T. (1987). Motivational influences on impression formation: Outcome dependency, accuracy-driven attention, and individuating processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 431–444. Patient, D. L., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2005.) Why managers don’t always do the right thing when delivering bad news: The roles of empathy, self-esteem, and moral development in interactional fairness. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), What motivates fairness in organizations? (pp. 149–178). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. Pritchard, R., Dunnette, M. D., & Jorgenson, D. O. (1972). Effects of perceptions of equity and inequity on worker performance and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 75–94. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of social justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Reb, J., Goldman, B. M., Kray, L. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2006). Different wrongs, different remedies? Reactions to organizational remedies after procedural and interactional injustice. Personnel Psychology, 59, 31–64. Redmond, M. V. (1989. The functions of empathy (decentering) in human relations. Human Relations, 42(7), 593–605. Riordan, C. A., Marlin, N. A., & Kellogg, R. T. (1983). The effectiveness of accounts following transgression. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 213–219. Scandura, T. A. (1999). Rethinking leader-member exchange: An organizational justice perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 25–40. Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). The moderating effects of initial leadermember exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428–436. Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression Management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Schlenker, B. R., & Darby, B. W. (1981). The use of apologies in social predicaments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 271–278. Schlenker, B. R., Pontari, B. A., & Christopher, A.N. (2001). Excuses and character: Personal and social implications of excuses. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 15–32. Schwartz, G., Kane, T., Joseph, J., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1978). The effects of remorse on the reactions of a harm-doer. British Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 293–297. Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46–62.

138

•

CECILY D. COOPER & TERRI A. SCANDURA

Shaw, J. C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. (2003). To justify or excuse?: A meta-analytic review of the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 444–458. Sias, P. M., & Jablin, F. M. (1995). Differential superior-subordinate relations, perceptions of fairness, and coworker communication. Human Communication Research, 22, 5–38. Sigal, J., Hsu, L., Foodim, S., & Betman, J. (1988). Factors affecting perceptions of political candidates accused of sexual and financial misconduct. Political Psychology, 9(2), 273–280. Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: The effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 432–443. Sitkin, S. B., & Bies, R. J. (1993). The legalistic organization: Definitions, dimensions, and dilemmas. Organization Science, 4, 345–351. Swann, W. B. (1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1038–1051. Swann, W. B., & Ely, R. J. (1984). A battle of wills: Self-verification versus behavioral confirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1287–1302. Tomlinson, E. C., Dineen, B. R., & Lewicki, R. J. (2004). The road to reconciliation: Antecedents of victim willingness to reconcile following a broken promise. Journal of Management, 30, 165–187. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361. Tyler, T. R., & Caine, A. (1981). The role of distributive and procedural fairness in the endorsement of formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 643–655. Yukl, G., & Tracey, B. (1992. Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525–535.

CHAPTER 6

BEYOND THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER Why Managers Act in Ways Likely to Be Perceived as Unfair Jie Li, Suzanne S. Masterson, and Therese A. Sprinkle

Research on organizational justice has focused extensively on recipients’ perceptions of fairness, but little attention has been directed as to why managers might act in ways that are likely to be perceived as unfair. In this chapter, we apply image theory in an attempt to understand why managers may choose behaviors that others are likely to view as unfair. Specifically, we apply image theory to examine: (1) when justice concerns might be activated as a factor in a manager’s decision-making process; and (2) under what conditions managers might act in ways likely to be perceived as unfair by employees, even once justice concerns have been activated. Through our review, we develop a model outlining the manager’s decision making process, and lay out propositions as well as implications for future research and managerial practice.

Research in Management: Perspectives on Justice and Trust in Organizations, pages 139–163 Copyright © 2012 by Information Age Publishing 139 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

140

•

JIE LI, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & THERESE A. SPRINKLE

INTRODUCTION Managers make decisions constantly, and many of these decisions have important implications for their employees. For example, managers make decisions about who to promote, how to distribute bonuses and raises among employees, how to assign work across employees, who should receive training opportunities, and whether to approve or deny special requests from employees, among other things. The justice literature suggests that employees evaluate these decisions on the basis of their perceived fairness, and that their subsequent reactions may change depending upon that perceived fairness (e.g., Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Specifically, employees evaluate the fairness of the outcome of the decision, i.e., distributive justice (e.g., Adams, 1965), the fairness of the decision-making processes, i.e., procedural justice (e.g., Thibaut & Walker, 1975), and the fairness of the treatment and information received during the process, i.e., interpersonal justice and informational justice (e.g., Bies & Moag, 1986; Colquitt, 2001). Moreover, employees’ fairness perceptions have been shown to predict important outcomes for employees and organizations, ranging from increased job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors to decreased turnover intentions and workplace deviance behaviors (e.g., Colquitt et al., 2001). Given such findings, justice researchers generally recommend that managers act in ways that are likely to be perceived as fair by their employees (Cropanzano, Bowen, & Gilliland, 2007), and have advocated training leaders in organizational justice (Skarlicki & Latham, 1997). Despite such advice and the abundant research demonstrating positive outcomes associated with fair treatment of employees, there is evidence that managers still act in ways that employees are likely to perceive as unfair (e.g., Folger & Skarlicki, 1998; Gilliland & Schepers, 2003). Such findings lead us to our overarching research question: why might managers choose to act in ways that are likely to be perceived as unfair by their subordinates? Several researchers have examined justice issues from the manager’s perspective, but our work differs from the existing research in several important ways. First, Masterson, Byrne, and Mao (2005) developed a conceptual model identifying the different antecedents of managers’ interpersonal vs. informational justice-related behaviors. This research focused specifically on managers’ behaviors that align with the decision rules associated with interpersonal and informational justice perceptions only, and did not examine the full decision-making context. Second, Folger and Skarlicki (2001) examined why good managers act with interactional injustice toward employees when delivering bad news, which they labeled the Churchill effect. However, only situational variables, such as the manager’s anticipated blameworthiness and the perceived illegitimacy of the bad news to be de-

Beyond the Eye of the Beholder •

141

livered to the victim, were discussed. In other research, Scott, Colquitt, and Paddock (2009) examined managers’ motives to adhere to or violate justice rules, as well as the amount of discretion managers were likely to have to uphold or disregard such rules. While they examined all four types of justice, the focus was on the manager’s own perceptions of justice rule application; thus how such perceptions are related to the subordinates’ justice perceptions of the manager’s actions remains unclear. In addition, it seemed to assume that, from the manager’s view, whether his/her action adhered or violated certain justice rules would always be a clear-cut judgment. We argue that this may not be the case when multiple justice rules are simultaneously salient and in conflict. Overall, we propose that, in order to better answer the question as to why managers may act in ways likely to be perceived as unfair by subordinates, a more generalized model is needed; one that: (1) considers both managers’ dispositional and situational factors; and (2) goes beyond interactional injustice. In this chapter, we will explore this question through the lens of image theory (Beach, 1990; Beach & Mitchell, 1990), to examine the factors that may influence managers’ justice-related behavioral choices. Specifically, we examine: (1) when fairness concerns might or might not be activated as a factor in a manager’s decision-making process; and (2) under what conditions managers might act in ways likely to be perceived as unfair by employees, even once fairness concerns have been activated. Both questions are important to better understanding managerial behavior in organizations. We begin by reviewing justice research, followed by an overview of image theory. We then develop a model to address our research questions. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of implications for future research and organizational practice. OVERVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE Organizational Justice Defined Organizational justice is a widely researched construct in organizational behavior, consisting of four dimensions: distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice (Colquitt, 2001). Distributive justice is typically understood as the perceived fairness of the outcome of the allocation decisions, with three distribution rules receiving research attention: equity, equality, and need (cf. Deutsch, 1975). Procedural justice is associated with the perceived fairness of the procedures used in making allocation decisions. The most commonly researched procedural justice rules include process control and outcome control (Thibaut & Walker, 1975), consistency, bias suppression, accuracy, correctability, representa-

142

•

JIE LI, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & THERESE A. SPRINKLE

tiveness, ethicality (Leventhal, 1980), the individual’s status and standing in the group, and neutrality of the authority (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Interactional justice refers to the perceived fairness associated with interpersonal treatment received from the authority (Bies & Moag, 1986), and it is generally studied as having two dimensions Interpersonal justice is typically assessed using the degree to which one is treated with propriety and respect, whereas informational justice concerns the truthfulness and adequacy of the information provided in the allocation process (Colquitt, 2001). Consequences of Justice Perceptions Extant research has documented the independent and collective impact of the four dimensions of justice on workplace outcomes. In particular, a high perception of justice is strongly related to an increase in job performance, identification with the team and/or the organization, and affective commitment (e.g., Colquitt, 2001; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; Roberson & Colquitt, 2005). In contrast, the perception of injustice is related to negative outcomes including increased counterproductive work behavior (e.g., Ambrose, Seabright, & Schminke, 2002; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), workplace aggression (Hershcovis et al., 2007), and decreased organizational citizenship behavior (Moorman & Byrne, 2005). Given such important consequences of justice perceptions, it is imperative that we better understand why managers may act in ways likely to be perceived as unfair by subordinates. In this chapter, we take a decision making approach through the application of the image theory framework (Beach, 1990; Beach & Mitchell, 1990) to examine the manager’s decision making process and factors that may direct the manager’s decisions toward actions that are likely to be perceived as unfair. OVERVIEW OF IMAGE THEORY According to image theory (Beach, 1990; Beach & Mitchell, 1987), a behavioral decision is contingent on perceptions of three types of images. Value images represent the decision maker’s prescriptive and proscriptive values, morals, and predispositions, which collectively are called principles. Trajectory images are the decision maker’s agenda for the future, or the goals that are being pursued. Strategic images refer to various plans that have been adopted for attaining the goals that the decision maker is pursuing (Beach, 1990). Decision makers use the three types of images to make two kinds of decisions. First, adoption decisions address the question of “what should I do?” Adoption decisions focus on screening out the decision options that are incompatible with the constituents of the various images and choosing the best one if more than one option remains compatible after the screening process. The screening stage is also referred to as the compatibility test, which

Beyond the Eye of the Beholder •

143

basically assesses how many times a decision option violates (is incompatible with) the various images. If a decision option’s number of violations exceeds the rejection threshold, it is rejected; otherwise it remains as eligible for the profitability test, also known as the choice stage. The profitability test applies only to adoption decisions and its purpose is to choose the decision option that has the highest potential payoff. Second, progress decisions answer the question of “how am I doing?” Only the compatibility test is involved in progress decisions. If the strategic image (plan adopted) does not fit the trajectory image, or if the number of violations exceeds the rejection threshold, the failing plan is rejected. Otherwise, the status quo remains unchanged. Human decisions are not isolated activities. Prior decisions or incidents affect the current decision making context. Beach and Mitchell (1990) observed that decision making begins with an effort to frame the context. That is, decision makers use their knowledge to comprehend what is going on and whether there is a need for a behavioral decision. If yes, then decision makers identify, from their sizable stock of principles, goals and plans, the subset of the value images, trajectory images, and strategic images that they believe to be relevant to the context at hand. If the context is seen as identical to one encountered in the past, decision makers recognize the situation and invoke a pre-formulated plan or policy (Beach, 1990). If the context is similar but not identical to a previous context, decision makers identify the situation and start a progress decision. Provided that the current plan is compatible with the goals, the status quo remains; otherwise, decision makers need to initiate an adoption decision to come up with a new plan to achieve their goals. Image theory has been applied in justice research. Gilliland, Benson, and Schepers (1998) found that violations of justice rules played a major role in decisions to act in response to perceived fairness. In the screening stage, when the number of violations exceeded the rejection threshold, the decision alternative was removed from the pool of viable options, as the nonviolations could not compensate for the violations. The options that survived the screening stage were examined in the choice stage, which involved compensatory consideration of both violations and nonviolations of justice rules. In addition, using the image theory framework, Gilliland and Paddock (2005) proposed Justice Integration Theory to explain how justice-related images are processed in forming justice perceptions. Although image theory has been examined with justice issues in explaining how employees form justice judgments and decisions, it has not been applied for understanding how managers decide to act in ways that are likely to be perceived as unfair. Several attributes of image theory render it an appealing framework by which this complex issue can be analyzed. First, image theory suggests that justice-related images are only part of the

144

•

JIE LI, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & THERESE A. SPRINKLE

FIGURE 1.

Managerial Unfair Decision Making

decision maker’s vast store of images, and may not always be regarded as pertinent in the decision context. Second, past research on violations of justice rules and the formation of justice evaluations (Gilliland et al., 1998) indicated that employees would contrast the manager’s decisions and their

Beyond the Eye of the Beholder •

145

own justice-related images in forming justice perceptions. The more the manager’s decisions deviate from the employees’ justice images, the more likely the manager’s actions will be perceived as unfair. Third, unlike traditional theories of decision making, image theory does not assume that decision makers are always self-interested and act with economic rationality. Thus maximizing personal benefit is not assumed by image theory to be the only goal for the decision maker (Beach & Mitchell, 1990). Hence, image theory allows us to consider various individual difference factors as well as social contextual factors that may tilt managers’ decision making toward a direction that is likely to be seen as unfair. In order to answer our research questions, we integrate image theory, justice integration theory, and relevant justice theories such as fairness theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001) and develop a model (see Figure 1) to explain how managers make decisions that may be perceived as unfair by others. FRAME ACTIVATION: WHEN MIGHT FAIRNESS CONCERNS BE ACTIVATED IN THE MANAGER’S DECISION-MAKING FRAME? If justice concerns are not activated as part of their decision frame, managers are likely to make decisions based on factors other than fairness concerns. Under such conditions, managers may be surprised by employees’ justice-related reactions, and it is only through the employees’ reactions that fairness issues become salient, but this is post-decision. We propose that, while justice research often seems to take for granted that fairness concerns are important in all decision-making contexts, there are circumstances under which fairness concerns are not activated for managers. Moreover, we argue that whether or not justice concerns are activated has differential implications for the fairness of the manager’s action perceived by the subordinates. To better understand the activation of fairness concerns and its implications, we need to start from the beginning of the manager’s decision making process: the framing of the decision context. How the manager frames the decision problem has a significant impact on his/her judgment and choice of actions (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). It has been suggested that whether the manager frames the outcomes of delivering bad news to a victim as a high cost or potential gain might influence how the manager delivers the bad news and the subsequent fairness perceived by the victim (Folger & Skarlicki, 2001). Framing has also been found to affect the recipients’ reactions to managerial decisions (e.g., Brockner, Wiesenfeld, & Martin, 1995). One of two outcomes will occur as a result of the framing process: the decision situation is either recognized or identified (Beach, 1990).

146

•

JIE LI, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & THERESE A. SPRINKLE

Frame Recognition There are circumstances under which a manager makes decisions without actively considering justice. Frame recognition (Beach, 1990) may help understand such unintended fairness/unfairness by the manager. If the decision frame is recognized, the manager perceives the situation as the same as one he/she has encountered before, and will quickly activate the pre-formulated, often repeated action plan (Beach, 1990). Responses to decisions in the frame recognition mode require less attention from the manager. Scott et al. (2009) noted that, “Actions that are repeated in certain situations become habitual and routine, forming behavioral scripts in memory. When similar situations are encountered, the behavioral scripts are automatically activated and run to completion” (p. 761). Thus the activation of fairness concerns largely depends on whether fairness was activated previously in the same decision context. If fairness concerns were not activated in the recognized situations in the past, it is very likely that justice images will not be a salient set of images in the manager’s current decision making. As a result, the perceived fairness or unfairness of the manager’s action is more of an unintended consequence. On the one hand, if subordinates recognize the decision problem the same way as the manager does, then fairness is irrelevant to the situation. On the other hand, if some justice images are salient in the subordinates’ framing of the decision context, then the fairness of the manager’s action will likely be determined by the degree of the perceived matching between the manager’s action and the subordinates’ images of justice (Gilliland & Paddock, 2005). Frame Identification If the decision frame is identified, the manager realizes that the current decision context has not been encountered before and he/she needs to use his/her stored knowledge in order to construe the meaning of the decision context (Beach, 1990). In such situations, justice concerns may or may not be part of the identified decision frames of the manager. If they are not, then the implication for the manager’s decision making will be similar to the frame recognition situation. Proposition 1: If the manager’s decision frame does not involve justice-related decision images, either due to frame recognition or frame identification, the manager will not actively consider justice in the decision making process and any fairness perceptions of the resulting actions will likely be an unintended consequence of the manager’s actions.

In order to better understand and handle the unintended consequences of the managers’ actions, we need to be aware of the factors that can affect the activation of justice concerns in the managers’ framing of the context,

Beyond the Eye of the Beholder •

147

which is influenced by both characteristics of the person and the context/ situation. Individual Difference Factors Past Experience. If the manager has experienced neutral or positive reactions to the same decision in the past, the manager will very likely repeat the same decision. Over time, the decision becomes a readily available script in the manager’s memory and more of an automatic reaction each time the decision problem is recognized (Beach, 1990). Thus, justice concerns are less likely to be activated in such automatic decision making. In contrast, if the past experience involves negative reactions to the same or similar decisions from the subordinates, with regard to the outcome, procedure, and the treatment received, fairness concerns are very likely to be activated in the manager’s decision making process. Cognitive Moral Development. The more advanced a manager’s cognitive moral development, the more likely the manager will care more about his/ her social relationships with others, and the more likely fairness becomes a moral virtue of the person (Folger, 1998; Kohlberg, 1969). As a result, the manager is more likely to have a stronger internalized value of fairness and tends to be more sensitive to moral issues that include justice (Rest, 1986). On the other hand, we expect that justice concerns are less likely to be activated in the framing of the decision problem by managers who are low in cognitive moral development. Empathy Concerns. Research suggested that managers high on empathic concern were more likely to be seen as higher on interpersonal and informational justice (Masterson et al., 2005; Patient & Skarlicki, 2010). It is possible that managers with low empathic concern will have less prominent fairness concerns in their decision making (Blader & Tyler, 2001). Machiavellianism (Mach). High Mach is often associated with being pragmatic, maintaining a high emotional distance, and believing that the ends will justify the means (Christie & Geis, 1970). At the core of high Mach are strong personas “guided by expediency, as opposed to principle” (Kessler et al., 2010, p. 3). Thus, high Mach managers are likely to have little concern for justice unless it benefits them personally. In summary, there are a number of individual differences and personality traits which may impact a manager’s predisposition to include or not include fairness in his/her decision frames. These are particularly important when the framing for the decision is one of identification rather than recognition. Other factors such as justice orientation (Rupp, Byrne, & Wadlington, 2003) and impression management concerns (Greenberg, 1990) may also have a significant effect on whether or not the justice frames are activated by the manager.

148

•

JIE LI, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & THERESE A. SPRINKLE

Proposition 2: In the framing of the decision situation, individual difference factors of the manager will influence whether a manager activates fairness as part of his or her decision frame.

Contextual/Situational Factors Subordinates’ Trust in the Manager. If the manager enjoys a high level of trust from the subordinates, he/she tends to have less concern about the interpersonal relationships with them because the subordinates tend to attribute positive motives to his/her actions (Tyler & Degoey, 1996) and react positively. As a result, the manager may take the subordinates’ good faith for granted and become less cognizant of the fair/unfair consequences that his/her actions can potentially create in the eyes of the employees. As a result, justice concerns may not be activated as part of the decision frame. Monolithic vs. Pluralist Social System. According to Leventhal (1980), monolithic social systems tend to have consensually-accepted definitions of justice and consistently enacted justice rules. As a result, allocation decisions made by managers in such systems are likely to be routine and would not require activation of justice images in the decision frame. Conversely, in a pluralist social system, the manager’s justice concerns are more likely to be activated in his/her framing of the decision making context due to the existence of diverse and inconsistent justice standards (e.g., Shapiro & Tinsley, 2001). High vs. Low Impact Situations. Lerner (2003) noted the theoretical implications of using high versus low impact situations in justice research. According to Lerner, high impact situations tend to be very emotionally compelling and personally engaging, and so people often use less cognitive efforts and respond quickly with scripted actions. In a similar vein, we argue that when managers are put in such high impact situations, justice concerns are less likely to be activated in the managers’ decision frames. Proposition 3: In the framing of the decision situation, contextual/situational factors will influence whether a manager activates fairness as part of his or her decision frame.

It should be noted that the list of individual factors and contextual/situational factors is not meant to be exhaustive. Other potential variables that may have an impact on the activation of justice concerns in the manager’s framing of the decision situations need to be identified. In addition, the decision context and the framing are not static. They evolve as the events unfold and are subject to outside influence such as intervention from other people (Beach, 1990). It is possible that justice concerns can be activated or deactivated as the framing evolves.

Beyond the Eye of the Beholder •

149

So far, we have focused on the factors that affect whether justice concerns are activated in the decision context and on the justice perception implications of justice frames not being activated. Next, we turn to the second research question and examine situations in which justice concerns are activated in the manager’s decision making frame. BEYOND FRAME ACTIVATION: WHY MIGHT MANAGERS WITH SALIENT JUSTICE CONCERNS ACT IN WAYS LIKELY TO BE PERCEIVED AS UNFAIR? Even if a manager’s decision frame includes justice images, there still may be conditions under which the manager acts in ways that are likely to be perceived as unfair. While the justice-related frames become constituents of the decision maker’s value, trajectory, and strategic images, a salient concern for justice is neither sufficient nor necessary to guarantee fairness perceptions by others. Lack of Consensus One explanation is that there may not be consensus between the manager and the subordinates regarding what should be the relevant justice standards or rules against which the manager’s actions should be evaluated. Leventhal (1980) noted that in a pluralist social system that lacked uniformity, competing standards of fairness would be present. When there is no consensus between the manager and the subordinates on how fairness should be defined, the manager may act on the justice rule(s) he/she believes as pertinent to the decision context, while the subordinates may evaluate the fairness of the manager’s action using different justice rules. As a result, the manager’s actions will likely be seen as violations of the justice standards which are activated in the subordinates’ images of justice (Gilliland & Paddock, 2005), no matter how strong the manager’s justice motive was. Extant research appears to support this. For example, Van den Bos, Vermunt, and Wilke (1996) found that subjects who expected a no-voice procedure judged receiving the voice procedure as less fair than receiving the no-voice procedure because the enacted justice rule (voice) did not match the subjects’ justice rule (consistency over time) that shaped their justice expectations and subsequent justice evaluations. Additionally, Novelli, Kirkman, and Shapiro (1995) argued that the friction between the old system and the new one during organizational changes often led to disagreements regarding justice standards and perceptions of unfairness. The consensus issue between actor and perceiver has also been found in ethics research,

150

•

JIE LI, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & THERESE A. SPRINKLE

where it has been observed that it is difficult to act ethically when there is low social consensus on what behavior is good (Jones, 1991). Proposition 4: If there is no consensus between the manager and subordinates regarding which justice rules should define fairness in a particular decision context, the subordinates are likely to perceive the manager’s action as unfair.

Consensus On the other hand, in some cases, the manager and subordinates are in consensus on which justice rules are pertinent to the current decision context. From an image theory perspective, similar justice frames are activated in the decision images of both the manager and subordinates, and they have similar understandings of how fairness should be defined in the particular situation. However, the manager may still act in a way that deviates from the consensual justice standards. We argue that this is largely because of the goals the manager chooses to pursue simultaneously and the different priorities of those goals. Allocation decisions vary with the allocator’s goals and the allocation contexts (e.g., Deutsch, 1975; Leung & Park, 1986; Meindl, 1989). A variety of allocation goals have been studied in justice research, including economic productivity, social harmony, fostering personal welfare (Deutsch, 1975), animosity reduction (Leung, 1987), productivity, solidarity, leader relations, fairness (Meindl, 1989), administrative purpose, developmental purpose (Curtis, Harvey, & Ravden, 2005), self-interest (van Dijk & Tenbrunsel, 2005), recipient motivation (Greenberg & Leventhal, 1976), and impression management (Greenberg, 1990). Frequently, managers need to pursue several goals simultaneously, and they may not have complete discretion in choosing the goals (Mikula, 1980). Moreover, justice is only one of many possible goals the manager may have, and it may not always be the most important one in a given allocation situation (Leventhal, Karuza, & Fry, 1980). Furthermore, these simultaneously salient goals may imply allocation patterns that can be incongruent with each other (Meindl, 1989). In sum, the justice goal may be the secondary concern and in conflict with the primary goal. In such situations, the manager will most likely act to achieve the primary goal and give up the justice goal, very possibly resulting in unfair perceptions by the subordinates. This effect can be examined through multiple lenses, including image theory (Beach, 1990), fairness theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001), and justice integration theory (Gilliland & Paddock, 2005). In the image theory framework, the non-justice-related beliefs would be the primary principles in the value images whereas the justice-related principles are secondary. Because value images motivate the entire decision

Beyond the Eye of the Beholder •

151

making process (Beach, 1990), the goals (trajectory images) prescribed by the primary principles in the manager’s value images will supersede the manager’s justice goal. When the primary goal and the secondary goal (i.e., justice) are not in contradiction, the manager will probably strive to find an action that will satisfy them both (Meindl, 1989; Mikula, 1980). However, at other times, the primary goal and the justice goal of the manager will be in conflict and, as a result, the manager is more likely to act in a way that deviates from the justice goal. From a fairness theory perspective (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001), the subordinates use the pertinent justice rule for their should counterfactual evaluation of the manager’s action. If the manager acts to achieve his or her primary goal over the justice goal, he/she would fail the subordinates’ should counterfactual evaluation. To the extent the subordinates perceive the manager’s action as discretionary (could) and unfavorable (would), they will likely hold the manager accountable and perceive him/her as unfair. The same prediction can also be offered by justice integration theory (Gilliland & Paddock, 2005), which suggests that justice evaluations are based on the matching between the current event and images of justice. If the manager takes action based on his or her primary non-justice goal, it will not match the trajectory image of justice of the subordinates; therefore, he/she will likely be perceived as unfair (Gilliland & Paddock, 2005). Proposition 5: If there is consensus between the manager and subordinates regarding justice standards in a particular situation, but the manager’s justice goal is secondary and contradicts his/her primary goal, the manager will act in a way that is likely to be perceived as unfair.

In attempting to explain why managers with a salient justice motive may act in ways likely to be perceived as unfair, we must specify the mechanisms that may lead to the manager’s choice of justice-related goals as secondary. We believe that accountability is a useful concept that can help us accomplish this task. Accountability and the Choice of Decision Goals Organizations are social systems that can be defined as common sets of shared expectations of behavior (Frink & Klimoski, 1998). Such shared expectations exert social pressure on the manager to defend his/her allocation decisions, because the manager’s decisions are evaluated by audiences based on such expectations. Accountability can be defined as “the perceived need to justify or defend a decision or action to some audience which has potential reward and sanction power” (Frink & Klimoski, 1998, p. 9). Accountability is a universal issue in that decision makers are generally motivated to seek approval and positive evaluations from those to whom

152

•

JIE LI, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & THERESE A. SPRINKLE

they are accountable, including self, so that desirable decision outcomes can be attained (Schlenker & Weigold, 1989; Tetlock, 1985). If the manager’s accountability perceptions dictate that pursuing the justice goal in the situation is not the most desirable plan, the manager will likely deviate from the justice goal and pursue the alternate salient goal. Different goals simultaneously pursued by the manager often prescribe different patterns for allocation decisions (Deutsch, 1975; Meindl, 1989). Moreover, the goals might have different accountability-related consequences. For example, a manager might have a value for both justice and expediency in a particular situation—that is, two different value images. These values would lead to different goals or trajectory images: the value for justice may lead to a goal of giving employees voice in the decision, while the value for expediency may lead to a goal of making a decision now and moving on. Similarly, each would lead to different plans of action, or strategic images, and these strategic images are incompatible: giving the subordinates voice in the decision will take time which contradicts the action to make the decision immediately. If the manager does not have an a priori preference between these two goals, and if he/she has the discretion in choosing which goal to pursue in this situation, then the manager will need to consider both the desirable and undesirable consequences of each plan, including accountability considerations. In this situation, the different decision options may be associated with different accountability relationships: employees may hold the manager accountable for fairness-related concerns, but top management may hold the manager accountable for quick action. The manager will weigh the desirable vs. undesirable attributes of each plan and choose accordingly. To the extent that the manager perceives being accountable to top management as more desirable than being accountable to subordinates, he/she will deviate from the images of justice and choose to pursue the alternate goal, running a high risk of being perceived as unfair by the subordinates. There may be some nuances associated with the above analysis. First, there might be multiple decision options that pass the compatibility test within each set of decision frames. If so, the manager will move to the profitability test (Beach, 1990) and choose the best decision candidate within each set of decision frames. Then the manager will go through the weighing process described above and choose the most desirable course of action. Second, sometimes more than one justice rule can be salient in the situation, which makes the compatibility and profitability tests within the justice decision frames more complicated. In the end, the chosen plan that best fits each set of decision frames respectively will be compared in the weighing process. Third, sometimes the manager’s self is one of the audiences, and his/her perceived accountability to self will enter the weighing

Beyond the Eye of the Beholder •

153

process, which may further complicate the process. Finally, sometimes the manager has to pursue an assigned goal that contradicts the salient justice goal. If pursuing the assigned goal is more desirable (or less undesirable) than pursuing the justice goal, he/she will perceive higher accountability toward the assigned goal. Proposition 6: If there is consensus between the manager and subordinates regarding justice standards in a particular situation, but the manager’s justice goal contradicts his/her alternate goals, the higher the manager’s perceived accountability toward the alternate goals, the more likely the manager will act in a way that is likely to be perceived as unfair by the subordinates.

There are multiple factors which may cause managers to perceive lower accountability toward subordinates and justice standards, including both individual and contextual factors. Some of the factors identified above as influencing whether or not fairness concerns are activated may also have an impact on this stage of the decision making process as well. Individual Difference Factors There are multiple individual difference factors which have the potential to affect managers’ accountability perceptions. First, if the manager’s past justice experience was negative, the manager may think that unfair actions are condoned in the organization, and thus perceive lower accountability toward justice standards (cf. Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison, & Carroll, 1995). Second, the lower the manager’s cognitive moral development stage (Kohlberg, 1969), the less likely the manager will perceive accountability toward principles of justice as moral virtues (Folger, 1998). Third, the managers’ cognitive moral development (Kohlberg, 1969) may interact with their belief in a just world (Lerner, 1980) to influence their ethical decision making (Ashkanasy, Windsor, & Trevino, 2006), because different combinations of the two individual characteristics may have differential implications on the managers’ accountability perceptions based on either internalized justice/ ethics principles or external rewards and punishments. Fourth, the managers’ relational self-construal (RSC: Gelfand, Major, Raver, Nishii, & O’Brien, 2006) may interact with the decision context (relation-oriented vs. outcome-oriented) in affecting the managers’ fairness in dispute resolutions (Walker, 2011). It is very likely that managers with high RSC in a relationoriented context tend to perceive higher accountability toward salient audiences. Fifth, managers with high neuroticism tend to react to their negative self-focused emotions rather than realistically assess their accountability toward salient audiences; thus their accountability perceptions are likely to be distortedly higher or lower than their emotionally stable counterparts. Neurotic managers tend to act in a way that is perceived by subordinates as unfair (Mayer, Nishii, Schneider, & Goldstein, 2007). Furthermore, man-

154

•

JIE LI, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & THERESE A. SPRINKLE

agers high in Machiavellianism tend to perceive higher accountability toward their self-interests rather than justice principles (Kessler et al., 2010). Finally, managers with high political skill (Treadway et al., 2004) often are able to create positive images in front of different audiences, and thus may perceive lower accountability because they tend to get away with the undesirable outcomes of their actions (Greenberg, 1990). Proposition 7: If there is consensus between the manager and subordinates regarding justice standards in a particular situation, but the manager’s justice goal contradicts his/her alternate goals, individual difference factors are likely to weaken his/her perceived accountability toward the justice standards and/or strengthen his/her perceived accountability toward the alternate goals, resulting in the manager acting in a way that is likely to be perceived as unfair by the subordinates.

Contextual Factors One contextual factor that may shape accountability perceptions is the power relationship, because it defines which actions are justifiable and which are not (Austin & Hatfield, 1980). Although managers’ accountability is partly based on formal contracts, policies, and procedures, it is even more of an informal and social political process (Frink & Klimoski, 2004). Different sets of expectations must be acknowledged, interpreted, and negotiated before accountability perceptions are formed (Schlenker & Weigold, 1989). Thus, power and political considerations often go hand in hand with accountability perceptions in affecting managerial decision making. Social exchange theory suggests that parties in an exchange relationship form expectations and obligations to reciprocate to each other after valuable resources are received (Blau, 1964). Managers develop exchange relationships with the organization as captured by perceived organizational support (POS: Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986), with their peers as in team member exchange (TMX: Seers, 1989), and with their superiors and subordinates as in leader-member exchange (LMX: Graen & Scandura, 1987). In these exchange relationships, the managers develop different obligations toward different exchange partners depending on the nature and the quality of the relationships (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Masterson et al., 2000). Such obligations are very likely to trigger the manager’s perceived needs to justify or defend his/her decisions to different exchange partners as the audiences of the decision episode, very possibly by way of reciprocating. In other words, these exchange relationships will affect the manager’s accountability perceptions. Some research has indicated that when LMX is low, the manager might perceive less accountability toward the justice standards between him/her and the subordinates (e.g., behave autocratically; Fairhurst & Chandler, 1989).

Beyond the Eye of the Beholder •

155

Accountability is also affected by organizational culture, because organizations socialize members to accept the unique expectations imposed on them through formal or informal mechanisms (Gelfand, Lim, & Raver, 2004). Over time, members develop a collective understanding of what behaviors are justifiable to which audience at what level in the accountability system, as well as how positive or negative subsequent evaluations would be. Thus different organizations or groups may create their unique accountability systems that differ in content and strength. Societal cultures may also affect managers’ accountability perceptions. For example, managers in high power distance cultures such as China may perceive less accountability toward the justice rules regarding voice (Brockner et al., 2001) and propriety (Bond, Wan, Leung, & Giacalone, 1985) than American managers because of the lower expectations toward these rules from Chinese subordinates. Other contextual factors that may have the potential to affect the managers’ accountability perceptions toward justice include task interdependence (Meindl, 1989), the audiences’ trust in the manager (Ammeter, Douglas, Ferris, & Goka, 2004), human resource policies (Taylor et al., 1995), and organizational forms and control (Creed & Miles, 1996), as well as subordinate attributes such as assertiveness (Korsgaard, Roberson, & Rymph, 1998), propensity to trust (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995), and charisma (Scott, Colquitt, & Zapata-Phelan, 2007). Proposition 8: If there is consensus between the manager and subordinates regarding justice standards in a particular situation, but the manager’s justice goal contradicts his/her alternate goals, contextual factors are likely to weaken his/her perceived accountability toward the justice standards and/ or strengthen his/her perceived accountability toward the alternate goals, resulting in the manager acting in a way that is likely to be perceived as unfair by the subordinates.

Strategic Images One final decision making factor to consider is violation of the strategic images of justice of the subordinates in the implementation of the manager’s decision (Gilliland & Paddock, 2005). Because no two people share exactly the same decision images (Beach, 1990), the steps or tactics used in implementing the decision may be viewed as adequately enacting the justice rules by the manager; however, they may not match those in the subordinates’ expectations. Proposition 9: If there is consensus between the manager and subordinates regarding justice principles and goals, and the justice images are the primary images of the manager, the larger the discrepancy in the strategic images be-

156

•

JIE LI, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & THERESE A. SPRINKLE

tween the manager and the subordinates, the more likely the manager will act in a way that is likely to be perceived as unfair by subordinates.

It should be noted that, similar to the earlier analyses on justice as value image and trajectory image and their influence on managerial decision making, certain individual difference and contextual factors may also affect the manager’s strategic image options and choice. For example, in a study of the antecedents of fair treatment in implementing layoff decisions, Gilliland and Schepers (2003) found that contextual variables influenced features of the manager’s layoff plan, including industry type, unionization, reasons for layoff, and the use of Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN). They also found support for individual difference variables in shaping the layoff plan, such as the manager’s past experience in conducting layoffs. Such variations in the manager’s strategic image (plans and tactics) for the layoff decision will affect subordinates’ justice perceptions, depending on how closely these images match the employees’ expectations (Gilliland & Paddock, 2005). IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION Our model has both theoretical and practical implications for research and practice. To date, most research on organizational justice has focused on how justice perceptions are formed and on the consequences of justice perceptions—both from the recipients’ perspective (cf. Scott et al., 2009). In contrast, we take on the “elephant in the room” by focusing on the actor’s position and explicitly examining the manager’s decision making process as a precursor to subordinates’ justice perceptions. Unlike other research, both dispositional and situational factors as well as the model’s applicability to all four types of justice are considered in this chapter. In addition, we move beyond the manager’s own perception and elucidate clearer implications for the subordinates’ justice perceptions. This approach can potentially extend the literature in several ways. First, while it is important to understand justice rules, simply following these rules cannot guarantee that a manager’s behavior will be perceived as fair by his/her subordinates, because the manager and subordinates may frame the decision context differently regarding the specific meaning of justice. One question that this raises is how we can measure consensus between managers and subordinates regarding justice images in the framing of decision contexts? Second, our model may help explain why managers’ providing explanations and accounts (Bies, 1987) for their decisions are likely to be perceived as fair. By providing explanations and justifications for their actions, mangers help to change the subordinates’ framing of the decision context

Beyond the Eye of the Beholder •

157

toward specific justice rules and/or alternative values and goals. To the extent that such explanations are successful in creating consensus between the manager and follower, they should help align the two parties’ decision context frames and increase perceptions of fairness. Future research may want to explore other dispositional and situational factors that may affect the degree of consensus between the manager and subordinates. Third, a manager’s concern for justice in a decision making episode is not as simple as it appears. It involves at least three components: concern for justice as a guiding principle in the value image; goals toward achieving justice in the trajectory image; and scripts for enacting justice rules in the strategic image. We identified multiple factors that can potentially impact managers’ choices with regard to these images related to justice, although we recognize that our listing is not exhaustive. Future research is needed to test the proposed relationships between these factors and managers’ choices of actions that are likely to be perceived as unfair by others. This chapter also has implications for managerial practice. First, managers would be well advised to explicitly define their decision rules relating to what is fair in a given situation, and to make sure that subordinates share the same understanding. This would help avoid situations in which the manager acts on justice standards which are not shared with or appreciated by subordinates. However, the more clearly these justice standards are defined and widely shared, the more rigid they become. Consequently, the manager may feel less discretion in justice-related decision making. Second, although some justice principles are widely applicable, unique principles or standards regarding certain aspects of justice may exist in different cultures, organizations, or even units of the same organization. Managers who transfer to a different cultural or organizational context need to be sensitive to those unique justice standards. It may be a good idea to explicitly evaluate the congruence between the potential manager’s and the organization’s justice beliefs before hiring and/or promotion, and in fact this may be an additional aspect of person-organization fit that should guide future research. Third, formal as well as informal accountability systems should be consciously designed to promote fairness. When most managers perceive that acting unfairly leads to highly undesirable consequences, they should be more likely to act in ways that others will perceive as fair. Finally, sometimes managers may not be able to avoid acting in ways that others may perceive as unfair, because other, more important goals are incompatible with justice goals. Organizations may want to enact procedures and protocols to ensure that, in such situations, the other goals that the manager is pursuing benefit a broader audience than the manager and his/her unit. While past research has identified common rules by which individuals assess all four dimensions of justice, it is important to understand that justice

158

•

JIE LI, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & THERESE A. SPRINKLE

perceptions are subjective, and individuals may perceive different levels of fairness when examining the same event. Given this, we examine conditions under which managers’ actions are likely to be perceived by the subordinates as unfair. We are aware that idiosyncratic characteristics of the individual can produce perceptions inconsistent with our predictions. Overall, we believe that, through the application of image theory to managerial justice-related decision making, we can develop a more complete understanding of justice in the workplace. It is important that we move beyond the prevailing focus on recipients’ perceptions to better understand the impetus behind managers’ actions, particularly in terms of those actions that are likely to be perceived as unfair by others. 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. Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 947–965. Ammeter, A. P., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., & Goka, H. (2004). A social relationship conceptualization of trust and accountability in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 14(1), 47–65. Ashkanasy, N. M., Windsor, C. A., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Bad apple in bad barrels revisited: Cognitive moral development, just world beliefs, rewards, and ethical decision-making. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(4), 449–473. Austin, W., & Hatfield, E. (1980). Equity theory, power, and social justice. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction: Experimental and theoretical contributions from psychological research (pp. 25–61). New York: Springer-Verlag. Beach, L. R. (1990). Image theory: Decision making in personal and organizational contexts. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1987). Image theory: Principles, goals, and plans in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 66(3), 201–220. Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1990). Image theory: A behavioral theory of decision making in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (vol. 12, pp. 1–41). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bies, R. J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 9, pp. 289–319). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 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. Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2001). Justice and empathy: What motivates people to help others? In M. Ross & D. T. Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 226–251). New York: Cambridge University Press. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Beyond the Eye of the Beholder •

159

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. Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., et al. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(4), 300–315. Brockner, J., Wiesenfeld, B. M., & Martin, C. L. (1995). Decision frame, procedural justice, and survivors’ reactions to job layoffs. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(1), 59–68. Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445. Creed, W. E. D., & Miles, R. E. (1996). Trust in organizations: A conceptual framework linking organizational forms, managerial philosophies, and the opportunity costs of controls. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 16–38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 34–48. Curtis, A. B., Harvey, R. D., & Ravden, D. (2005). Sources of political distortions in performance appraisals: Appraisal purpose and rater accountability. Group Organization Management, 30(1), 42–60. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 137–149. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507. Fairhurst, G. T., & Chandler, T. A. (1989). Social structure in leader-member interaction. Communication Monographs, 56(3), 215–239. Folger, R. (1998). Fairness as a moral virtue. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Moral management of people and processes (pp. 13–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. S. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. S. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 1–55). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1998). When tough times make tough bosses: Managerial distancing as a function of layoff blame. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 79–87. Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2001). Fairness as a dependent variable: Why tough times can lead to bad management. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (vol. 2, pp. 97–118). Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resource management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (vol. 16, pp. 1–51). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

160

•

JIE LI, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & THERESE A. SPRINKLE

Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Advancing accountability theory and practice: Introduction to the human resource management review special edition. Human Resource Management Review, 14(1), 1–17. Gelfand, M. J., Lim, B.-C., & Raver, J. L. (2004). Culture and accountability in organizations: Variations in forms of social control across cultures. Human Resource Management Review, 14(1), 135–160. Gelfand, M. J., Major, V. S., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L. H., & O’Brien, K. (2006). Negotiating relationally: The dynamics of the relational self in negotiations. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 427–451. Gilliland, S. W., Benson, L., & Schepers, D. H. (1998). A rejection threshold in justice evaluations: Effects on judgment and decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 113–131. Gilliland, S. W., & Paddock, L. (2005). Images of justice: Development of justice integration theory. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, D. P. Skarlicki, & K. van den Bos (Eds.), What motivates fairness in organizations? (pp. 49–78). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing Gilliland, S. W., & Schepers, D. H. (2003). Why we do the things we do: A discussion and analysis of determinants of just treatment in layoff implementation decisions. Human Resource Management Review, 13(1), 59–83. Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175–208. Greenberg, J. (1990). Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing impressions of organizational justice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 111–157. Greenberg, J., & Leventhal, G. S. (1976). Equity and the use of overreward to motivate performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(2), 179–190. Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K. E., Inness, M., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 228–238. Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395. Kessler, S. R., Bandelli, A. C., Spector, P. E., Borman, W. C., Nelson, C. E., & Penney, L. M. (2010). Re-examining Machiavelli: A three-dimensional model of Machiavellianism in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(8), 1868–1896. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-development approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand McNally. Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship Behavior and Social Exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 656–669. 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(5), 731–744. Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum. Lerner, M. J. (2003). The justice motive: Where social psychologists found it, how they lost it, and why they may not find it again. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 388–399.

Beyond the Eye of the Beholder •

161

Leung, K. (1987). Some determinants of reactions to procedural models for conflict resolution: A cross-national study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 898–908. Leung, K., & Park, H. J. (1986). Effects of interactional goal on choice of allocation rules: A cross-cultural study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37(1), 111–120. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum Press. Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preference. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction: Experimental and theoretical contributions from psychological research (pp. 167–218). New York: Springer-Verlag. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum. 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, & K. Van den Bos (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(4), 738–748. Mayer, D., Nishii, L., Schneider, B., & Goldstein, H. (2007). The precursors and products of justice climates: Group leader antecedents and employee attitudinal consequences. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 929–963. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. Meindl, J. R. (1989). Managing to be fair: An exploration of values, motives, and leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(2), 252–276. Mikula, G. (1980). On the role of justice in allocation decisions. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction: Experimental and theoretical contributions from psychological research (pp. 127–166). New York: Springer-Verlag. Moorman, R. H., & Byrne, Z. S. (2005). How does organizational justice affect organizational citizenship behavior? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 355–380). Mahwah, NJ: LEA Publishers. Novelli, L., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (1995). Effective implementation of organizational change: An organizational justice perspective. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (pp. 15–36). Chichester: Wiley. Patient, D. L., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2010). Increasing interpersonal and informational justice when communicating negative news: The role of the manager’s empathic concern and moral development. Journal of Management, 36(2), 555– 578. Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.

162

•

JIE LI, SUZANNE S. MASTERSON, & THERESE A. SPRINKLE

Roberson, Q. M., & Colquitt, J. A. (2005). Shared and configural justice: A social network model of justice in teams. Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 595– 607. Rupp, D. E., Byrne, Z. S., & Wadlington, P. (2003). Justice orientation and its measurement: Extending the deontological model. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL. Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1989). Self-identification and accountability. In R. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 21–43). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 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(3), 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(6), 1597–1609. Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(1), 118–135. Shapiro, D. L., & Tinsley, C. H. (2001). Intervening “fairly” in disputes among nationally-different employees: Is this possible? In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice (pp. 187–213). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434–443. 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(3), 617–633. Taylor, M. S., Tracy, K. B., Renard, M. K., Harrison, J. K., & Carroll, S. J. (1995). Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedure justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 495–523. Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 297–332). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Treadway, D. C., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., Ammeter, A. P., et al. (2004). Leader political skill and employee reactions. Leadership Quarterly, 15(4), 493–513. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the pyschology of choice. Science, 221, 453–458. Tyler, T. R., & Degoey, P. (1996). Trust in organizational authorities: The influence of motive attributions on willingness to accept decisions. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 331–356). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1996). The consistency rule and the voice effect: The influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgments and performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26(3), 411–428.

Beyond the Eye of the Beholder •

163

van Dijk, E., & Tenbrunsel, A. (2005). The battle between self-interest and fairness: Evidence from ultimatum, dictator, and delta games. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, D. P. Skarlicki & K. van den Bos (Eds.), What motivates fairness in organizations? (pp. 31–48). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Walker, S. S. (2011). The role of self-construal and social context in determining manager’s fairness in dispute resolutions. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, San Antonio.

CHAPTER 7

TRUST THERAPY The Effects of Impact and Intent Strategies on Trust Repair Edward C. Tomlinson, Roy J. Lewicki, and Sheng Wang

This chapter enhances the existing literature on trust repair by examining the relative and combined effectiveness of impact and intent reparative efforts based on the stage of trust present in an interpersonal relationship. An empirical test is presented which highlights the relative and combined use of trust repair strategies and their differential impact on trust following a trust violation. Directions for future research as well as practical insights from the investigation are discussed.

In recent years, our economy has been battered with a relentless and unprecedented wave of corporate scandals that has sent shocks to the very core of our market system. Hardly a day passes without a new report of audacious executive greed or editorial commentary on the need to repair the trust so vital to nurturing and sustaining the lifeblood of professional relations. Corporate responses range from apologies without substantive victim compensation to settlements without any admission of wrongdoing. All of this has taken a tremendous toll on trust in corporate America. But while Research in Management: Perspectives on Justice and Trust in Organizations, pages 165–180 Copyright © 2012 by Information Age Publishing 165 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

166

•

EDWARD C. TOMLINSON, ROY J. LEWICKI, & SHENG WANG

scholars have developed a vast litany of treatises on the nature and benefits of trust (e.g., Kramer, 1999; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998), research has only recently begun to systematically explore how to repair trust after it has been broken (e.g., Dirks, Lewicki, & Zaheer, 2009; Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, & Dirks, 2004; Nakayachi & Watabe, 2005; Schweitzer, Hershey, & Bradlow, 2003; Tomlinson & Mayer, 2009). The extant literature on restoring trust and cooperation after a violation has focused on two broad categories of reparative efforts that violators (i.e., a trustee who has violated the trust granted by a trustor) can employ to enhance the likelihood of trust repair (i.e., the trustor’s willingness to extend trust again to the trustee in the future). The first category is referred to here as communicating the intent of the violator, and entails providing some sort of social account (i.e., verbal communication intended to mitigate negative reactions from others following a negative event) such as apologies, denials, or promises of future trustworthiness (e.g., Kim, Dirks, Cooper, & Ferrin, 2006; Kim et al., 2004; Schweitzer et al., 2003; Tomlinson, Dineen, & Lewicki, 2004). The second category deals with the impact of the violation, and involves providing some form of restitution (or “penance”) to the victim of the violation (e.g., Bottom, Gibson, Daniels, & Murnighan, 2002). However, it is unclear from prior work how these two categories of reparative efforts affect trust repair relative to each other and in combination. This chapter contributes to the developing literature on trust repair by examining the relative and combined effectiveness of impact and intent reparative efforts. More specifically, the present research examines the relative efficacy of impact and intent reparative efforts based on the stage of trust in the relationship. Furthermore, this study examines how the combined effect of impact and intent strategies compares to either trust repair treatment when applied alone. The following sections proceed to develop hypotheses regarding the relative and combined effects of impact and intent strategies. RELATIVE EFFECTS BASED ON THE STAGE OF TRUST Prior theoretical work on trust has suggested there are several bases of trust development in working relationships (Shapiro, Sheppard, & Cheraskin, 1992), and that these represent stages that are hierarchical and sequential, such that as relationships develop, higher and more complex levels of trust are attained (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995). Trust at the lowest or initial level is described as a calculus-based trust (CBT). Lewicki and Bunker (1995) described CBT as a market-oriented, transaction-focused calculation that relies on incentives and deterrents as motivators for trustworthy behavior.

Trust Therapy •

167

At this level, trustors expect that trustees will perform a cost-benefit analysis that will result in their decision to engage in trustworthy behavior. This expectation is reinforced to the extent that the trustee demonstrates a track record of reliability– that is, actually meeting deadlines and satisfying commitments as promised (Lewicki & Wiethoff, 2000). At the highest level of an interpersonal relationship, trust is described as an identification-based trust (IBT), and it is derived from a richer and more complex understanding of the other, and an internalization of the other’s desires and intentions (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995). In this case, a trustor expects trust to be honored because the trustee is deemed to share the same values, interests, and attitudes and reciprocate a close emotional bond (Lewicki & Wiethoff, 2000).1 The foregoing distinction between different stages of trust implies that trust has both cognitive and emotional dimensions, which is a conclusion reached by many scholars spanning a variety of disciplines (Kramer, 1999; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Lewis & Weigert, 1985; McAllister, 1995). CBT relationships reflect a predominantly cognitive assessment of trustworthiness; but as relationships reach the IBT stage, trust becomes more heavily grounded in emotion. It is also noteworthy that Lewicki and Bunker (1996) specified a model of trust violations that portrays the dynamics of a trust violation from the victim’s perspective. This model shows that trust violations will result in both a cognitive appraisal, in which the victim evaluates the costs associated with the violation, and an emotional reaction, composed of some mixture of anger, hurt, and frustration. This view of trust in relationships has important implications for when trust is violated, and we contend that different types of reparative strategies may be differentially necessary and effective depending on the stage of trust. The literature reviewed above suggests that depending on the stage of trust in a relationship, trust violations will lead to an emphasis on different components (cf. Lewicki & Wiethoff, 2000). That is, trust predicated on cognitive assessments is likely to be market-oriented, transaction-focused, strategic, calculative, and instrumental. But in contexts where trust is grounded in more emotional concerns, relational considerations will become more salient (Kramer, 1999). Lewicki and Bunker (1996) assert that, “Because the cognitive and emotional bases may be more or less salient in particular stages or phases, some trust repair will require more cognitive work, but other types will require more emotional repair” (p. 129). We argue that efforts to repair trust should be aligned with the stage of trust that best characterizes the relationship. When we know why trust matters to people (i.e., what function it is designed to serve in a given context), we can gain insight into how best to repair the damage when trust is broken. Accordingly, we proceed to consider the relative impact of two broad categories of reparative efforts in relation to the two stages of trust. These two types of reparative efforts address the impact of the violation (by mak-

168

•

EDWARD C. TOMLINSON, ROY J. LEWICKI, & SHENG WANG

ing restitution or amends for the tangible costs incurred) and the intent of the violator (by conveying a sincere apology, offering an explanation, and promising forbearance in future interactions). In CBT relationships, expectations of the other party are grounded in a cognitive appraisal of the trustee’s reliability in a given transaction, without particular emphasis on any emotional investment in the relationship (i.e., emotional concerns are not irrelevant, just not as salient as cognitive concerns). Thus, violations in a CBT relationship involve a focus on the exchange itself and the loss of the specific benefits the victim was relying on from the exchange. In short, in order to repair CBT, the impact (i.e., the direct consequences) of the trust violation should be the primary issue to address. This repair may involve acts of restitution that compensate the victim for the specific, tangible consequences of a discrete violation event (Bottom et al., 2002). This permits a cognitive re-balancing that restores equity in the mind of the victim (Walster, Berscheid, & Walster, 1973). Despite the likely importance of impact strategies in CBT relationships, prior research on trust violations in CBT relationships has often examined the efficacy of apologies, explanations, and promises (e.g., Bottom et al., 2002; Kim et al., 2004; Schweitzer et al., 2003; Tomlinson et al., 2004). Although this work has generally supported the positive effects of these forms of communication on trust repair, it should be recognized that apologies, explanations, and promises are “cheap talk:” costless to the speaker and unverifiable by the receiver (Farrell & Rabin, 1996). Accordingly, it can be argued that they do little to actually redress the tangible losses of a CBT violation, and that making restitution or amends for the actual loss resulting from the violation would be more meaningful. In CBT relationships, actions may speak louder than words (Bandura, 1977). Without the emotional ties that bind more established relationships at the IBT stage, verbal reaffirmations of the offender’s benevolent intentions toward the victim would appear to be less relevant for trust repair in CBT relationships. Prior work, in fact, has called for more research to address the effects of restitution on trust recovery (Tomlinson et al., 2004). In contrast, in IBT relationships, trust of the other party is grounded in the shared interests and values of the parties and their concomitant emotional investment in the relationship (not that cognitive concerns are irrelevant, they are just not as salient). Thus, violations may invoke an assessment by the victim on how the identities of the parties are not as congruent as they may have once appeared. Compared to the exchange of tangible resources in a CBT relationship, IBT relationships are more heavily grounded in intangible resources such as perceptions of mutual commonalities, attraction and social support. Therefore, in contrast to the focus on impact in CBT violations, IBT violations lead us to question the intent (i.e., motives and desires) of the other party that prompted the perceived betrayal. For

Trust Therapy •

169

example, Lewicki and Bunker (1996) argue that IBT relationships are resilient to transactional discrepancies that would be sufficient to seriously damage a CBT relationship, as long as the identification with the other party is not called into question. Since an IBT violation threatens the very basis of identification with the other, the victim’s reaction to the violation involves the feeling that he/she may no longer really “know” the violator after all. To re-establish benevolent intent, prior research suggests the efficacy of offering a thorough apology which may convey an explanation of the details surrounding the incident, an account of the cause which brought about the offense, acceptance of responsibility for the violation, an offer of repair, and a promise of forbearance to minimize future violations (Bottom et al., 2002; Goffman, 1972; Lewicki & Polin, 2011; Lewicki & Wiethoff, 2000; Scher & Darley, 1997). These types of social accounts communicate remorse for causing harm and calling one’s allegiance to the victim into question, provide mitigating circumstances that constrained one’s desired behaviors, and re-affirm commitment to the relationship, respectively. As such, these accounts from the violator attempt to speak directly to his/her intent with respect to the relationship with the victim. On the other hand, buying flowers for a spouse to compensate for marital infidelity is unlikely to heal the damage of that kind of trust violation (Lewicki, Wiethoff, & Tomlinson, 2005). Prior research, however, has not examined trust recovery in IBT relationships, or examined the relative effectiveness of these two reparative strategies. Hypothesis 1: There will be a trust stage by reparative effort interaction, such that (a) trust repair in CBT relationships will be higher after an impact strategy than an intent strategy, and (b) trust repair in IBT relationships will be higher after an intent strategy than an impact strategy.

COMBINED EFFECTS OF IMPACT AND INTENT ON TRUST REPAIR Consistent with Lewicki and Bunker’s (1996) model indicating that all trust violations have both cognitive and emotional components, we contend that the use of both impact and intent strategies will be more effective than either strategy alone regardless of the stage of trust. Scher and Darley (1997) found independent effects of explicit apologies and offers of repair on the victim’s evaluation of the offender, suggesting that optimal trust repair may occur when combining impact and intent strategies. Moreover, the congruent combination of words and deeds may be more cogent evidence of an offender’s trustworthiness after a violation (Schweitzer et al., 2003; Simons, 2002).

170

•

EDWARD C. TOMLINSON, ROY J. LEWICKI, & SHENG WANG

Prior research has indicated that even cheap talk (i.e., an intent strategy) can help restore trust after a violation in a CBT relationship (Bottom et al., 2002; Kim et al., 2004; Schweitzer et al., 2003; Tomlinson, in press; Tomlinson et al., 2004). For example, apologies are credited with mitigating negative reactions after a transgression (Ohbuchi, Kameda, & Agarie, 1989; Sitkin & Bies, 1993) and promoting forgiveness (Takaku, 2001). Tomlinson and colleagues (2004) showed that apologies are important antecedents to victim willingness to reconcile after a broken promise in a CBT relationship. Another study showed that apologies and simple explanations led to improved cooperation after a violation in a Prisoner’s Dilemma game, although supplementing these social accounts with substantive amends were much more effective than accounts alone (Bottom et al., 2002). So, even though efforts to redress the impact are posited to be relatively more important in CBT relationships, we hypothesize that trust will be repaired to a greater extent when both impact and intent strategies are present. Furthermore, prior theoretical work has suggested that restitution (i.e., an impact strategy) is also appropriate in an IBT relationship (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995, 1996). Substantive amends go beyond mere verbal reaffirmations of benevolent and trustworthy intent in that they are no longer mere words: acts of restitution may speak louder than unsubstantiated and unverifiable verbal claims and symbolize more than compensation alone. In this case, restitution by the offender may be a tangible display of remorse that restores equity to the relationship (Walster et al., 1973), and adds credence to assertions of trustworthy intent. Hypothesis 2: Trust repair will be higher when both impact and intent strategies are used relative to (a) an impact strategy alone, and (b) an intent strategy alone.

METHOD Participants and Procedure Participants were 147 undergraduate management students who completed vignette-based surveys for extra credit. The mean age of the participants was 21 years, average full-time work experience was 1.7 years, and 63 percent were male. Participants were told that the survey pertained to general attitudes about the role of trust in business relationships. They were assured that their answers would be strictly confidential and encouraged to answer every question candidly. Design A scenario study consisting of a 2 (CBT/IBT)  3 (impact/intent/both) between-subjects factorial design was conducted to test the hypotheses, and

Trust Therapy •

171

participants were randomly assigned to conditions. All scenarios depicted a professional relationship between two small business owners. Participants were asked to put themselves into the role of the trustor as described in the scenario. Each version of the scenario had three sections; the first section provided information regarding the type of trusting relationship, and the nature of a specific informal agreement regarding the sale of business labels for a bottling company. In the CBT condition, the trustee was portrayed as one who “has always followed through on the agreements the two of you have made, and is known for being reliable and dependable.” In addition, the background information specified that the relationship was “only businesslike and professional,” and that the two owners had little in common. In the IBT condition, the trustee was portrayed as more than a business partner: “The two of you were best friends in high school, and played together on several athletic teams. You spent a lot of time together, double-dated on occasion, and have many similar interests and values. You consider Pat to be a close and loyal friend and have often discussed merging your businesses together into some kind of new company.” The second section of the scenario introduced the trust violation, where the trustee called to break the informal agreement that was reached, citing a competitor’s more competitive price as the reason for reneging. This section also explained that the trust violation entailed serious financial repercussions for the trustor. The third section of the survey introduced the reparative effort manipulation. In the impact condition, the trustee left a voice mail “stating that the original deal you had reached would be honored after all,” and that “the order had been placed for [the full amount] and Pat’s company had sent payment.” In the intent condition, the trustee left a voice mail and “apologized profusely for breaking the promise to give you the business. Pat went on to explain that several new competitors had entered into the local market; as a result, [his/her] business had dropped off dramatically and Pat had to carefully monitor expenses. This was only discovered in the last 48 hours. Pat promised to you that the relationship between the two of you was a top priority and pledged that this broken promise was an isolated incident produced by unique circumstances and would never happen again.” In the impact and intent condition, both sets of information were combined in the third section of the survey. Measures Trust repair. Trust was measured with four items adapted from Mayer and Davis (1999). These items were modified to refer to Pat (the gender-neutral name of the trustee in the scenarios) and measured on a 7-point scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). A sample item is, “I would

172

•

EDWARD C. TOMLINSON, ROY J. LEWICKI, & SHENG WANG

be comfortable in having Pat make decisions that critically affect me.” The trust scale had alpha coefficients of 0.66 (initial trust), 0.76 (post-violation trust), and 0.80 (post-reparative effort trust). Trust repair was operationalized as a difference score (i.e., post-reparative effort trust—post-violation trust), such that larger positive scores indicate higher trust repair after the violation. Trust violation. While this is not a study variable, it was deemed important to measure the extent to which participants perceived a trust violation in the scenario for manipulation check purposes, and this was done in two ways. First, the difference in initial trust and post-violation trust was examined. Second, the extent of trust violation was measured directly with five items, such as “Pat’s actions have violated my trust.” The trust violation items were collapsed into a single scale and had an alpha coefficient of 0.72. RESULTS Before proceeding with the analyses, we conducted an outlier analysis. Based on high studentized residuals, one case was deleted from further analysis. This resulted in a final sample size of N = 146. Manipulation Checks Manipulation checks confirmed that participants perceived their experimental condition as expected. Those in the CBT condition were more likely to report that their trust in Pat is based on knowledge of Pat’s reliability in past agreements (M = 6.05) than participants in the IBT condition (M = 5.72; t(139.92) = 2.12, p < .05). Similarly, those in the CBT condition were more likely to report that their perceptions of Pat were based on their past business relationship (M = 5.86) than participants in the IBT condition (M = 5.10; t(133.05) = 3.84, p < .001). Those in the IBT condition were more likely to agree that their level of trust for Pat was based on the closeness of their relationship with each other (M = 5.61) than those in the CBT condition (M = 3.14; t(132.42) = –10.45, p < .001). IBT participants were also more likely to agree that their trust for Pat was based on their personal relationship with each other (M = 5.63) than participants in the CBT condition (M = 3.32; t(124.31) = –9.80, p < .001). Similarly, IBT participants reported that their perceptions of Pat were based on their view that they shared a lot in common with Pat (M = 4.15) than CBT participants (M = 2.27; t(135.21) = –7.96, p < .001). Finally, IBT participants were more likely to agree that their perceptions of Pat were based on the view that Pat shared a lot of their personal values (M = 5.24) than CBT participants (M = 3.24; t(141.63) = –7.80, p < .001). Participants also responded to a question verifying the reparative effort condition. A one-way ANOVA indicated significant differences in the ex-

Trust Therapy • TABLE 1.

173

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Study Variables

Variable

M

SD

1. Trust Stage

a

a

2. Repair Condition

a

a

.03

.56

.82

–.08

3. Trust Repair

1

2

.24**

Notes: N varies between 144 and 146 due to missing data. a Dummy coded conditions. ** p < .01.

tent to which participants felt compensated for the tangible consequences of the broken agreement (F(2, 145) = 17.01, p < .001. Follow-up Tukey tests showed that those in the “both” condition indicated that they were more compensated for the tangible costs of the violation (M = 4.80) than those in the intent condition (M = 3.06, p < .05). Similarly, those in the impact condition indicated they were more tangibly compensated (M = 4.12) than those in the intent condition (p < .05). Finally, all participants perceived the trust violation appropriately. While the overall mean was high (M = 5.85), the mean for those in the CBT condition (M = 5.88) was not significantly different from those in the IBT condition (M = 5.82; t(140.82) = –0.44, p > 0.10), as expected. In addition, indirect analysis showed that initial trust was higher (M = 3.52) than postviolation trust (M = 2.09). Table 1 provides the means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables. Tests of Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 predicted an interaction between trust stage and repair condition such that (a) trust repair in CBT relationships will be higher after an impact strategy than an intent strategy, and (b) trust repair in IBT relationships will be higher after an intent strategy than an impact strategy. To test this hypothesis, a 2 (CBT, IBT) × 2 (impact, intent) ANOVA was conducted with trust repair as the dependent variable. This analysis appears in Table 2, and it indicates a significant interaction effect (F(1, 94) = 4.49, p < .05). The interaction is plotted in Figure 1. To investigate the interaction, repair condition simple main effects were examined for differences in repair condition for CBT and IBT separately (Green & Salkind, 2003). In CBT relationships, although trust repair was higher after an impact strategy than an intent strategy, this difference failed to reach significance (F(1, 94) = .74, p = .39). Thus, Hypothesis 1a is not supported. In IBT relationships, trust repair was significantly higher after an intent strategy than an impact strategy, F(1, 94) = 4.44, p < .05), supporting Hypothesis 1b.

174

•

EDWARD C. TOMLINSON, ROY J. LEWICKI, & SHENG WANG

TABLE 2. Analysis of Variance in Trust Repair by Trust Stage and Repair Condition (impact, intent) Source Trust Stage (A)

df

MS 1

.34

F

p

.63

.43

Partial 2 .01

Repair Condition (B)

1

.46

.85

.36

.01

A×B

1

2.42

4.49

.04

.05

Error

94

.54

Note: N = 98.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that trust repair will be higher when both impact and intent strategies are used relative to (a) an impact strategy alone, and (b) an intent strategy alone. To test this hypothesis, a 2 (CBT, IBT) × 3 (impact, intent, both) ANOVA was conducted with trust repair as the dependent variable. This analysis appears in Table 3, and it indicates a significant main effect for repair condition (F(2, 138) = 3.17 p < .01). Follow-up Tukey tests showed that trust repair was significantly higher in the both strategy condition (M = .85) than in the impact condition (M = .35, p < .05), supporting Hypothesis 2a. Both strategies led to marginally significantly greater trust repair than intent alone (M = .49, p = .07), so Hypothesis 2b was supported at the .10 significance level.

FIGURE 1. Interaction of trust stage and repair condition on trust repair.

Trust Therapy •

175

TABLE 3. Analysis of Variance in Trust Repair by Trust Stage and Repair Condition (impact, intent, both) Source Trust Stage (A)

df 1

MS

F

p

Partial 2

.77

1.21

.27

.01

Repair Condition (B)

2

3.17

4.99

.01

.07

A×B

2

1.23

1.94

.15

.03

Error

138

.64

Note: N = 144.

DISCUSSION While prior theoretical work has developed some core ideas for rebuilding trust in different stages of relationships (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Tomlinson, Lewicki, & Dineen, 2002), this paper has presented an empirical test of how the relative and combined use of impact and intent reparative strategies may differentially affect trust following a trust violation. The findings from this study are noteworthy in several respects. With respect to CBT relationships, the results indicate that there is no significant difference between impact or intent strategies in CBT relationships. That is, providing restitution was not significantly more effective than the use of apologies, explanations, and promises. This result reaffirms the value of “cheap talk” established in prior studies (e.g., Kim et al., 2004; Schweitzer et al., 2003; Tomlinson et al., 2004) by more directly comparing these accounts which speak to the offender’s intentions toward the victim to more substantive actions to compensate for the tangible effects of the violation (cf. Bottom et al., 2002). Surprisingly, the current results suggest that an impact strategy to provide restitution is no better than simply offering “cheap talk” in a CBT relationship, which offers offenders an ostensibly “easy way out” of a trust violation. This is consistent with previous arguments that CBT relationships can be damaged easily, and may require substantial work that restitution alone is unable to repair significantly (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). However, some caution regarding this finding may be warranted, as the difference in trust repair was in the predicted direction, but simply did not reach significance. It is possible that the predicted effect would have been confirmed in a larger sample. Turning to IBT relationships, intent strategies were more effective than impact strategies, as predicted. Figure 1 shows that trust repair was low (i.e., trust did not get repaired and the trust level did not improve) when an impact strategy was employed in an IBT relationship. Simply trying to “buy” oneself out of a violation in an IBT relationship is not nearly as effective as verbal communication designed to reaffirm commitment to the relationship via apologies, explanations, and promises. Since the vast majority of

176

•

EDWARD C. TOMLINSON, ROY J. LEWICKI, & SHENG WANG

empirical research on trust stages has been done in relation to CBT relationships (with virtually no research aimed at IBT relationships), these findings begin to provide much needed illumination into a critical “blind spot” in the trust literature. Beyond the relative effects of impact and intent reparative efforts, this study also examined how these strategies combined to affect trust repair, relative to each strategy alone. The findings indicated that the combination of both strategies was associated with greater trust repair than impact (restitution) alone, but only marginally significantly more effective than intent alone. These findings suggest that impact and intent strategies combine in an additive manner to repair subsequent trust. Furthermore, these results indicate that an impact strategy alone is missing a critical element in maximizing trust repair (that an intent strategy conveys) and that providing restitution that addresses the impact only enhances the beneficial effect of an intent strategy at a marginally significant level. This pattern emerged across levels of the stage of trust. Practical Implications These findings highlight two primary points. First, communicating trustworthy intentions after a violation via apologies, explanations, and promises is often beneficial, and may tend to become relatively more valuable as relationships reach higher stages of trust. This finding echoes prior research on explanations (Shaw, Wild, & Colquitt, 2003), indicating that explanations are extremely valuable to victims. This is especially noteworthy considering that when managers resort to decisions that break trust, they are often more likely to distance themselves from the situation rather than attempt to explain the rationale for the decision (Folger & Skarlicki, 2001). So even though managers may be reluctant to engage in intent strategies due to personal discomfort (e.g., fear of being held personally accountable for adverse decisions, etc.), this may be the time when such action may be needed the most. However, on the other hand, when appropriate and adequate apologies have been provided, restitution still helps but only adds limited value. A second implication is that an impact strategy alone will not be as effective as using both impact and intent strategies simultaneously. This indicates that when trust is broken, managers should speak with their words and actions to redress the damage both in terms of the tangible consequences and the more emotional aspects of the relationship. Limitations Several limitations should be noted in this study. First, the study was conducted using a scenario. Accordingly, this study does not offer the realism

Trust Therapy •

177

of participants personally experiencing an actual trust violation. However, several previously published studies have successfully used scenario-based surveys for similar topics, such as the effects of apologies on forgiveness (e.g., Takaku, 2001). In addition, the most significant consequences of an impact strategy might be more accurately discerned in an experimental setting in which a trust violation actually costs the participant a financial outcome, and then the two different repair strategies are applied to that repair problem. Second, this study could have benefited from a larger sample size. One result was in the predicted direction, yet failed to reach statistical significance while another finding was only significant at .10 level. Testing these hypotheses on a larger sample may produce results that are more consistent with the theoretical rationale and give us more confidence in the findings. Directions for Future Research Even though this corroborates results from several prior studies, it is still interesting to note that “cheap talk” can be effective in stimulating trust repair. While prior work has established the efficacy of cheap talk on trust repair (e.g., Bottom et al., 2002; Schweitzer et al., 2003), future research should strive to further understand why forms of cheap talk enable trust recovery (even in CBT relationships, when impact strategies would seem to be more appropriate), and the conditions under which this effect is most likely to occur. It is also unclear why restoring the tangible loss incurred by a trust violation was not particularly effective in CBT relationships. It could be that despite the restitution, the occurrence of a trust violation may leave a continuing residue and shadow of suspicion (Shapiro, Buttner, & Barry, 1994) that prompts much closer scrutiny of the other’s intentions in future interactions. And, as we mentioned earlier, CBT relationships can be damaged easily, and may require substantial work that restitution alone is unable to repair significantly (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). Another interesting possibility for future research to consider is the type of violation that occurs. That is, some trust violations may be economic in nature, while others are more relational in nature. For example, being denied a promised raise may have qualitatively different implications compared to being denied a promised position on a prestigious committee by esteemed colleagues. Therefore, it may be that impact strategies are superior for remedying purely economic violations with no relational undertones, while intent strategies are superior for primarily relational types of violations. Finally, while prior research has indicated that the past history of the relationship is important in trust repair (Tomlinson et al., 2004), more work is needed to understand the “breaking point” at which trust repair becomes significantly less likely or even impossible. The scenario used here indicated a single violation in an otherwise unmarred relationship. It may

178

•

EDWARD C. TOMLINSON, ROY J. LEWICKI, & SHENG WANG

be that after a certain number of trust violations, “cheap” talk becomes even cheaper (i.e., unable to facilitate repair) and substantive reparation becomes relatively more essential. And of course, at some point, the history of trust violations may simply render any reparative effort moot. ENDNOTE 1.

Originally, Lewicki and Bunker (1995, 1996) posited three stages of trust that develop in relationships: calculus-based trust (CBT), knowledge-based trust (KBT), and identification-based trust (IBT). More recent theoretical refinement has resulted in KBT being eliminated as a stage of trust. Rather, it is now viewed as a dimension of the relationship between parties. Therefore, our analysis only focuses on CBT and IBT. REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bottom, W. P., Gibson, K., Daniels, S., & Murnighan, J. K. (2002). When talk is not cheap: Substantive penance and expressions of intent in the reestablishment of cooperation. Organization Science, 13, 497–513. Dirks, K. T., Lewicki, R. J., & Zaheer, A. (2009). Repairing relationships within and between organizations: Building a conceptual foundation. Academy of Management Review, 34, 68–84. Farrell, J., & Rabin, M. (1996). Cheap talk. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10, 103– 118. Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D.P. (2001). Fairness as a dependent variable: Why tough times can lead to bad management. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (pp. 97–118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Goffman, E. (1972). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Harper Row. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. (2006). When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 49–65. Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competenceversus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 104–118. Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598. Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1995). Trust in relationships: A model of development and decline. In B. B. Bunker & J. Z. Rubin and Associates (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation, and justice: Essays inspired by the work of Morton Deutsch (pp. 133–173). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Trust Therapy •

179

Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lewicki, R. J., & Wiethoff, C. (2000). Trust, trust development, and trust repair. In M. Deutsch & P. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 86–107). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lewicki, R. J., Wiethoff, C., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2005). Trust and organizational justice. In J. Greenberg & J. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 247–270). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lewicki, R.J. & Polin, B. (2012). The art of the apology: The structure and effectiveness of apologies in trust repair. In Kramer, R. & Pittinsky, T. (Eds). Restoring trust: Challenges and prospects. London: Oxford University Press. Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63, 967–985. 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. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59. Nakayachi, K., & Watabe, M. (2005). Restoring trustworthiness after adverse events: The signaling effects of voluntary “hostage posting” on trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 1–17. Ohbuchi, K., Kameda, M., & Agarie, N. (1989). Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating appraisal of and response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 219–227. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404. Scher, S. J., & Darley, J. M. (1997). How effective are the things people say to apologize? Effects of the realization of the apology speech act. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 127–140. Schweitzer, M. E., Hershey, J. C., & Bradlow, E. T. (2003, August). Promises and lies: Restoring violated trust. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Seattle, Washington. Shapiro, D. L., Buttner, E. H., & Barry, B. (1994). Explanations: What factors enhance their perceived adequacy? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 346–368. Shapiro, D. L., Sheppard, B. H., & Cheraskin, L. (1992). Business on a handshake. Negotiation Journal, 8, 365–377. Shaw, J. C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. (2003). To justify or excuse?: A meta-analytic review of the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 444–458. Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13, 18–35. Sitkin, S. B., & Bies, R. J. (1993). Social accounts in conflict situations: Using explanations to manage conflict. Human Relations, 46, 349–370.

180

•

EDWARD C. TOMLINSON, ROY J. LEWICKI, & SHENG WANG

Takaku, S. (2001). The effects of apology and perspective taking on interpersonal forgiveness: A dissonance-attribution model of interpersonal forgiveness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 494–508. Tomlinson, E. C. (in press). The impact of apologies and promises on post-violation trust: The mediating role of interactional justice. International Journal of Conflict Management. Tomlinson, E. C., Dineen, B. R., & Lewicki, R. J. (2004). The road to reconciliation: Antecedents of victim willingness to reconcile following a broken promise. Journal of Management, 30, 165–187. Tomlinson, E. C., Lewicki, R. J., & Dineen, B. R. (2002, August). Dealing with damaged trust: How to rebuild trust and temper distrust. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Denver. Tomlinson, E. C., & Mayer, R. C. (2009). The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair. Academy of Management Review, 34, 85–104. Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151–176.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Brian Bemmels (Ph.D., Minnesota) is the William Hamilton Professor of Industrial Relations, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia. His research interests are in justice theory and labour relations. He has numerous research publications in labour relations, labour economics and human resource management, and has published in many in leading research journals. Currently he is the Senior Associate Dean, Academic Programs for the Sauder School of Business. Graham Brown (Ph.D., University of British Columbia) is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Management at the University of British Columbia. Graham’s primary research area is territoriality with a specific focus on employee’s claiming of territories in organizations and how people mark and defend these territories vis-à-vis their coworkers. His most recent work explores how employees react when a coworker or supervisor infringes on their territory, and shows that people respond in a variety of ways from directly confronting the infringer to avoiding working with, or even sabotaging, the infringer or their work. Graham’s current research combines his interest and expertise in leadership with territoriality in a study of leadership transition and succession planning. Research in Management: Perspectives on Justice and Trust in Organizations, pages 181–185 Copyright © 2012 by Information Age Publishing 181 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

182

• AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Zinta S. Byrne (Ph.D., Colorado State University) is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Colorado State University. Her research interests include in employee engagement, computer-mediated work environments, and organizational attitudes such as justice and politics. Her work has been published in the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, and Journal of Business and Psychology, among others. Chu-Hsiang (Daisy) Chang (Ph.D., University of Akron) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at Michigan State University. Her research interests focus on occupational health and safety, leadership, and motivation. Specifically, she studies issues related to occupational stress, workplace violence, and how employee motivation and organizational leadership impact employee health and well-being. Her work has been published in Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Psychological Bulletin, and Work and Stress. Cecily D. Cooper (Ph.D., University of Southern California) is an Associate Professor at the University of Miami School of Business Administration. Her research interests include trust (particularly trust repair), fairness, and leadership. This research has been published in many leading organizational behavior journals and has received three national conference awards. Cecily serves on the editorial boards of the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Human Relations, and Journal of Trust Research (Associate Editor). Prior to joining University of Miami, she served as a Visiting Assistant Professor at Southern Methodist University. Hayley German (Ph.D., Durham University, UK) is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Católica-Lisbon School of Business and Economics (CLSBE), funded by the Portuguese Ministry of Science and Technology. Her work focuses on organizational justice, and particularly on the determinants of justice perceptions and their evolution over time. Brian M. Hurd (Ph.D., Colorado State University) works for Intel Corporation in Folsom, California, as a Technical Training and Development Program Manager for the Intel Architecture Group. His research interests are in employee engagement and the use of technology in organizations. He recently co-authored Exercises in Psychological Testing (2nd Edition). Russell E. Johnson (Ph.D., University of Akron) is an assistant professor of management in the Eli Broad College of Business at Michigan State Uni-

Author Biographies •

183

versity. His research examines the role of motivation- and leadership-based processes that underlie organizational behavior. His research has been published in Academy of Management Review, Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Personnel Psychology, Psychological Bulletin, and Research in Organizational Behavior. Klodiana Lanaj is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Management of the Eli Broad College of Business at Michigan State University. Her research interests include motivation, leadership, and team processes. Roy J. Lewicki (Ph.D., Columbia University) is a leading scholar in the study of trust development, negotiation and conflict management processes. He is the author or editor of over 32 books (one of his more recent books, Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts, won the Best Book Award from the International Association of Conflict Management), and hundreds of chapters and articles in top scholarly journals. Dr. Lewicki is the founding editor of Academy of Management Learning and Education, and has served as the associate editor of the Academy of Management Executive. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Management, and has won numerous awards for his contributions to teaching, research, and service. Jie Li is a Doctoral Candidate of Management in the Carl H. Lindner College of Business at the University of Cincinnati. He is interested in organizational justice, leadership, HR recruitment, and related cross-cultural issues. His research has appeared in the Journal of Frontiers of Business Research in China, and been presented in the Academy of Management annual meetings. Suzanne S. Masterson (Ph.D., University of Maryland) is an Associate Professor of Management in the Carl H. Lindner College of Business at the University of Cincinnati. Her research interests focus on organizational justice, social exchange relationships, and organizational quality. Her work has been published in the Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, and Journal of Organizational Behavior, among others. Linda L. Neider (Ph.D., State University of New York at Buffalo) is a Professor of Management in the School of Business Administration at the University of Miami, where she has also served in a variety of administrative roles including Vice Dean for Faculty, Vice Dean for Undergraduate Business, Vice Dean for Internal University Relations/Cross-Disciplinary and International Initiatives, and Department Chair of the Department of Management. She is the co-editor of the Research in Management book series, and her research in leadership may be viewed in such journals as the Academy

184

• AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

of Management Journal, Leadership Quarterly, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. David Patient (Ph.D., University of British Columbia) is an Assistant Professor at Católica-Lisbon School of Business and Economics (CLSBE). His current research focuses on motivation and organizational justice, with a focus on workplace communication of difficult news. Dr. Patient’s research has appeared in academic journals, including Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Journal of Management and Organisational Studies, in addition to practitioner journals and books. Terri A. Scandura (Ph.D., University of Cincinnati) is Dean of the Graduate School and Professor of Management in the School of Business Administration at the University of Miami. Her fields of interest include leadership, mentorship, and applied research methods. She has authored or coauthored over two hundred presentations, articles and book chapters. Her research has been published in journals such as the Academy of Management Journal, the Journal of Applied Psychology, the Journal of Organizational Behavior, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Industrial Relations, the Journal of International Business Studies, the Journal of Vocational Behavior, Research in Organizational Behavior and Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management and others. She is a member of the American Psychological Association (APA), and the Academy of Management., and past-Associate editor for Group & Organization Management, the Journal of International Business Studies, and the Journal of Management. Dr. Scandura currently serves as an Associate Editor for Organizational Research Methods. Chester A. Schriesheim (Ph.D., The Ohio State University) is a Distinguished Professor of Management in the School of Business Administration at the University of Miami. He is the author or co-author of more than 200 books, articles, and scholarly papers in the areas of leadership, power and influence, and applied research methods. He is a fellow of the American Psychological Association, a member of the Academy of Management, and on the current or former editorial boards of numerous journals in the field of organizational behavior. Daniel P. Skarlicki (Ph.D. University of Toronto) is the Edgar F. Kaiser Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Sauder School of Business at the University of British Columbia, and a Visiting Professor at HEC in Paris. His research focuses on organizational justice, organizational citizenship behavior, mindfulness, and leading during turbulent times. His papers have been published in the Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Per-

Author Biographies •

185

sonnel Psychology, and Applied Psychology: An International Review. He is coeditor of Research in Social Issues in Management. Therese A. Sprinkle (ABD, University of Cincinnati) is an Assistant Professor of Management in the Kohlhepp Business Administration Center at Thomas More College. Her research interests focus on organizational justice, roles and role behavior, and work-family issues. James A. Tan (Ph.D., University of Akron) is currently an Associate Professor of Management at St. Cloud State University. Dr. Tan has experience working with public sector and private clients as an associate for a consulting firm and as an independent consultant for a testing company. His research interests are on topics such as organizational behavior, personnel selection, and training. Edward C. Tomlinson (Ph.D., The Ohio State University) is an Associate Professor of Management at West Virginia University. He earned a bachelor’s degree in economics and business at Virginia Military Institute, and a MBA from Lynchburg College. His primary research interests include interpersonal trust, behavioral integrity, and deviant workplace behavior. He has published in several top-tier management journals, including Academy of Management Review, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Management Education, and International Journal of Conflict Management. He also co-edited (with Ron Burke and Cary Cooper) Crime and corruption in organizations: Why it occurs and what to do about it (published by Gower, 2011). Sheng Wang (Ph.D., The Ohio State University) is an Associate Professor in the College of Business at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Her research interests include employee development (mentoring relationships in particular), trust issues in professional relationships, knowledge management, human resources issues in entrepreneurial firms, and cross-cultural issues. Her work has been published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Human Resource Management Review, and Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, among others.