Substitutes for procedural fairness: Prototypical leaders are endorsed whether they are fair or not.

This article extends research on leader procedural fairness as well as the social identity model of leadership effectiveness (SIMOL) by demonstrating that leader prototypicality can act as a substitute for procedural fairness. Although procedural fairness in general and voice in particular have been found to have a robust positive influence on leader endorsement, the authors showed in an experimental scenario study and a correlational field study that the influence of voice on leader endorsement is substantially reduced when leaders are perceived as prototypical for the group that they lead and followers are highly identified with their group. Additionally, supportive of predictions of the SIMOL, leader prototypicality interacted with follower identification in predicting leader endorsement, such that prototypicality had a positive effect on leader endorsement, which was enhanced among high identifiers. Overall, these results suggest that leaders who are attuned to their followers' group identity can afford to go it alone, for the better or the worse. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Procedures: Do we really want to know them? An examination of the effects of procedural justice on self-esteem.

This study examined the effects of procedural justice on state-dependent self-esteem using the group-value model and attribution theory to present competing theoretical perspectives. The group-value model predicts a positive relationship between self-esteem and fair procedures. In contrast, attribution theory suggests procedural fairness interacts with outcome favorability to influence self-esteem. Thus, fair procedures will result in higher self-esteem ratings than unfair procedures when the outcome is positive but will result in lower self-esteem ratings than unfair procedures when the outcome is negative. The results of a laboratory and field study provide converging evidence to support the attribution theory predictions. The results of a 2nd laboratory study suggest that self-esteem is influenced by outcome expectancies, not actual outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior.

In this research, the authors test a model in which the regulatory focus of employees at work mediates the influence of leadership on employee behavior. In a nationally representative sample of 250 workers who responded over 2 time periods, prevention focus mediated the relationship of initiating structure to in-role performance and deviant behavior, whereas promotion focus mediated the relationship of servant leadership to helping and creative behavior. The results indicate that even though initiating structure and servant leadership share some variance in explaining other variables, each leadership style incrementally predicts disparate outcomes after controlling for the other style and dispositional tendencies. A new regulatory focus scale, the Work Regulatory Focus (WRF) Scale, also was developed and initially validated for this study. Implications for the results and the WRF Scale are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness.

The present research examined the effect of leaders' procedural fairness and perceived charisma on an important organizational process: cooperation. Both charisma and procedural fairness were predicted to have a positive effect on cooperation, and procedural fairness and charisma were predicted to interact such that their effects are stronger alone than in conjunction. Results from a scenario experiment, a cross-sectional survey, and a laboratory experiment supported these predictions. Results from the laboratory study also showed that the interactive effect of leader charisma and procedural fairness on cooperation was mediated by their interactive effect on the sense of group belongingness. It is concluded that leader charisma and procedural fairness may engender cooperation because they appeal to relational concerns. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders.

Tested the hypothesis that the procedures used by leaders to allocate outcomes have an impact on leadership evaluations that is independent of outcome level or outcome fairness. Two studies tested this hypothesis within the context of 132 college students' evaluations of teachers, and two tested it within the context of citizen evaluations of political leaders; Ss in the latter 2 studies were 50 residents of a university town and 156 undergraduates. The procedural justice hypothesis was strongly supported by all 4 studies. In each, strong procedural influences on evaluation were found, influences that were independent of outcome level or outcome fairness. In addition, in both surveys of naturally occurring evaluations, variations in procedural fairness had a much greater impact on leadership endorsement than did variations in outcome level, outcome satisfaction, or outcome fairness. Findings suggest that in experimental settings, Ss can be sensitive to both outcomes and procedures. In natural settings, however, individuals focus on procedures rather than outcomes in forming their evaluations of leaders. (20 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

When do procedural fairness and outcome fairness interact to influence employees’ work attitudes and behaviors? The moderating effect of uncertainty.

Prior research has shown that procedural fairness interacts with outcome fairness to influence employees’ work attitudes (e.g., organizational commitment) and behaviors (e.g., job performance, organizational citizenship behavior), such that employees’ tendencies to respond more positively to higher procedural fairness are stronger when outcome fairness is relatively low. In the present studies, we posited that people’s uncertainty about their standing as organizational members would have a moderating influence on this interactive relationship between procedural fairness and outcome fairness, in that the interactive relationship was expected to be more pronounced when uncertainty was high. Using different operationalizations of uncertainty of standing (i.e., length of tenure as a proxy, along with self-reports and coworkers’ reports), we found support for this hypothesis in 4 field studies spanning 3 different countries. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Procedural justice and status: Status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects.

The current article explores status as an antecedent of procedural fairness effects (the findings that perceived procedural fairness affects people's reactions, e.g., their relational judgments). On the basis of the literature, the authors proposed that salience of the general concept of status leads people to be more attentive to procedural fairness information and that, as a consequence, stronger procedural fairness effects should be found. In correspondence with this hypothesis, Experiment 1 showed stronger procedural fairness effects on people's relational treatment evaluations in a status salient condition compared with a control condition. Experiment 2 replicated this effect and, in further correspondence with the hypothesis, showed that status salience led to increased cognitive accessibility of fairness concerns. Implications for the psychology of procedural justice are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of procedural fairness and leader support on interpersonal relationships among group members.

In this article, the authors examine the impact of fair treatment by a group leader on people's relationships with and feelings toward other individual group members. Previous studies neglected procedural fairness effects on interpersonal relationships between group members. The authors hypothesized that fairness affects interpersonal relationships and feelings toward another group member only when the leader is regarded as representative and supported by the other group members. In three studies, the authors manipulated procedural fairness (no voice vs. voice) and other group member's support for the leader (full vs. mixed support for the leader). Two vignette studies supported the hypothesis. In addition, an experimental laboratory study showed that this interaction effect between procedural fairness and leader support was most pronounced among those with high belongingness needs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Evaluating outcomes by means of the fair process effect: Evidence for different processes in fairness and satisfaction judgments.

The authors refine and extend their explanation of the psychology of the fair process effect (the positive influence of procedural fairness on outcome evaluations). On the basis of fairness heuristic theory's substitutability proposition, the authors predicted and found that outcome evaluations show strong effects of procedural fairness when outcomes are better or worse than expected, whereas less strong fair process effects appear when outcomes are equal to or differ from the outcome of a comparison other. This finding suggests some important differences in how people use expectations versus social comparisons as reference points for evaluating outcomes. Findings also revealed that fairness judgments do not always show the same effects as do satisfaction judgments, indicating differences in the way people form judgments on these two dimensions of outcome evaluation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-level investigation.

This study tests the influence of servant leadership on 2 group climates, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior. Results from a sample of 815 employees and 123 immediate supervisors revealed that commitment to the supervisor, self-efficacy, procedural justice climate, and service climate partially mediated the relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Cross-level interaction results revealed that procedural justice climate and positive service climate amplified the influence of commitment to the supervisor on organizational citizenship behavior. Implications of these results for theory and practice and directions for future research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation decisions.

336 undergraduates considered allocations made within 16 representative types of interpersonal relationships that varied with regard to social-emotional or task basis, cooperative or competitive style of interaction, causal or rule-directed behavior, and power distribution. Ss also rated the importance of 8 allocation criteria, such as objectivity and practicality, and of 6 criteria for judging procedural fairness, such as consistency and correctability. Results suggest that procedural justice was a more important criterion in decisions concerning resource allocations than were a variety of nonfairness criteria and that it was equal in importance to distributive justice. The meaning of procedural justice in allocations and the relation of procedural justice concerns to social allocation goals are explored. (41 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Disentangling the effects of voice: The incremental roles of opportunity, behavior, and instrumentality in predicting procedural fairness.

Many voice studies have failed to distinguish among voice opportunity, perceived voice opportunity, voice behavior, and voice instrumentality. Thus, the authors sought to clarify the roles of each in determining procedural fairness perceptions. Controlling for the effect of voice opportunity, each of the 3 remaining constructs was hypothesized to predict fairness. Furthermore, voice instrumentality was hypothesized to moderate the effect of voice behavior on fairness. Undergraduates (N=102; 81 for some analyses) participated in an orientation-week design simulation in which voice opportunity was manipulated. The results indicated significant incremental effects of perceived voice opportunity and the predicted Voice Instrumentality × Voice Behavior interaction. Fairness was lowest for individuals who were denied voice opportunity, perceived less voice opportunity, and provided high levels of noninstrumental voice behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The role of authority power in explaining procedural fairness effects.

Building on fairness heuristic theory, fairness theory, and trust development models, we argue that unfairly enacted procedures decrease followers' trust in the authority particularly when authorities have high power over their followers. Moreover, we expected trust to mediate procedural fairness effects on followers' attitudes (authorities' legitimacy and charisma attributed to authorities) and organizational citizenship behavior. Procedural fairness effects on these variables, as mediated by trust, should therefore also be stronger when authority power is high. The results of a single- and multisource field study and a laboratory experiment supported these predictions. These studies support the role of authority power as a theoretically and practically relevant moderator of procedural fairness effects and show that its effectiveness is explained through trust in authorities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Sex effects in evaluating leaders.

Investigated the extent to which sex role stereotypes influence the evaluation of leadership behavior. 225 male and 57 female business students were administered 1 of 2 versions of a questionnaire containing 4 stories, each depicting a leadership style based on 1 of the following leadership dimensions: initiating structure, consideration, production emphasis, and tolerance for freedom. Managers' names were altered in the 2 versions to indicate males or females. Answers to 8 evaluative questions for each of the leadership styles confirm the hypothesis that sex has an effect on evaluations of managerial behavior, although the effect varied for different leadership styles. Female managers received more positive scores than male managers on the consideration style. Initiating structure behavior was valued more highly when engaged in by male managers. Manager sex had no significant influence on evaluations of the production emphasis and tolerance for freedom styles. Sex of S effects also were noted on all but the consideration style. (21 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model.

The authors examined antecedents of abusive supervision and the relative importance of interactional and procedural justice as mediators of the relationship between abusive supervision and the work outcomes of affective organizational commitment and individual- and organization-directed citizenship behaviors. Data were obtained from subordinate-supervisor dyads from a telecommunication company located in southeastern China. Results of moderated regression analysis revealed that authoritarian leadership style moderated the relationship between supervisors' perceptions of interactional justice and abusive supervision such that the relationship was stronger for supervisors high rather than low in authoritarian leadership style. In addition, results of structural equation modeling analysis revealed that subordinates' perceptions of interactional but not procedural justice fully mediated the relationship between abusive supervision and the work outcomes. Implications for future investigations of abusive supervision are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority.

On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, the authors argue that when information about whether an authority can be trusted is not available, people will resolve the question of how they should interpret the decisions of the authority by relying on perceived procedural fairness. As a consequence, people who do not have information about authority's trustworthiness react more positively toward the outcomes of authority's decisions if the authority is using fair as opposed to unfair procedures. However, when people know that the authority either can or cannot be trusted, they are less in need of procedural fairness information, yielding less strong effects of procedural fairness on people's reactions. The findings of 2 experiments support the authors' line of reasoning. It is concluded that people especially need procedural fairness when information about an authority's trustworthiness is lacking. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation.

The present research examined the effect of procedural fairness and trust in an authority on people's willingness to cooperate with the authority across a wide range of social situations. Prior research has shown that the presence of information about whether an authority can be trusted moderates the effect of procedural fairness. If no trust information is available, procedural fairness influences people's reactions. This is not the case when information about the trustworthiness of the authority is present. In the present article, it is argued that information about whether the authority can or cannot be trusted may also moderate the effect of procedural fairness in predicting levels of cooperation. Assuming that the use of fair procedures by authorities that cannot be trusted is less influential than is the enactment of procedures by trustworthy authorities, it is predicted that trust in authority moderates the influence of procedural fairness on cooperation in such a way that procedural fairness has a positive effect on cooperation primarily when trust in authority is high. Results from 4 studies (2 experimental studies and 2 field studies) provide supportive evidence for this interaction. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Self-esteem and the diffusion of leadership style.

Neither simple imitation, nor motivational coincidence, is adequate either to explain the frequent, superficial absence of similarities in leadership style across hierarchical levels (leadership climate) or to prescribe the best means for changing the style involved when climate does occur. Self-esteem of the lower-level supervisor is investigated as a mediating variable in this problem, in the context of an organization in which no formal human relations training had taken place. Variables were measured by questionnaires submitted to 17 foremen and their 330 male subordinates in a packaging materials plant. Hypotheses, all confirmed by the data, relate supportiveness of the foreman's supervisor to the foreman's behavior toward his subordinates through the attendant consequences of the foreman's self-esteem. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures.

The authors suggest that procedural and distributive factors interactively combine to influence individuals' reactions to their encounters with other people, groups, and organizations. Results from 45 independent samples (reviewed herein) show that (1) level of procedural justice is more positively related to individuals' reactions when outcome fairness or valence is relatively low and (2) level of outcome fairness or valence is more positively related to individuals' reactions when procedural justice is relatively low. They present various explanations of the interaction effect. Theoretical progress may be achieved through future efforts to delineate the conditions under which each of the explanations is more versus less likely to account for the interaction. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect

On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, the authors provide an explanation of the frequently replicated fair process effect (the finding that perceived procedural fairness positively affects how people react to outcomes). The authors argue that, in many situations, people may find it difficult to assess whether their outcome is fair or unfair and satisfying or unsatisfying because they only have information about their own outcome and they do not know the outcomes of others and that, in these situations, people use the fairness of the procedure as a heuristic substitute to assess how to judge their outcome. The results of 2 experiments corroborate the authors' line of reasoning. Findings are discussed in terms of recent developments toward an integration of the procedural and distributive justice domains.