Justice across cultures

Ron Fischer

Psyc338

Reward Allocation and Justice

• Perceptions of justice• Distributive Justice & Reward Allocation

– Contextual model of reward allocation– Review of research related to this model– Some generalizations to organizations

• Procedural Justice (Perceptions of decisions made by authorities)– Importance of cultural values

• Justice in a broader context

Contextual Model of Reward Allocation (Leung, 1997)

• Culture interacts with situational variables

• Goal-directed view of allocation behaviour

• Interaction goals act as mediators between culture and allocation preferences

• Two important situational factors:– Role of recipient– Role of allocator

Role of allocator

• Allocator is recipient (dual role)– Importance of the role

of the recipient

– In-group/Out-group differentiation in more collectivistic cultures

– Harmony motive when allocating to in-group members

• Allocator not recipient (supervisory role)– Allocator not tied to

recipients in zero-sum situation

– Allocation norm reflects situational goal (e.g., productivity in work setting)

– No cultural differences

‘Allocator is recipient’ studies

• Some support for cultural differences• Hui et al. (1990):• IndCol can explain cultural differences for the

unlimited resource condition, but not for the limited resource condition

• Problems: – Equality – self-serving vs. other-serving/generosity– Availability of resources– IndCol too global and non-specific?

‘Allocator not recipient’ studies

Fischer & Smith (2003)

• Meta-analysis of previous studies• Goal: Quantitative review of cross-cultural studies

investigating differences in the use of reward allocation principles– 20 usable studies with 25 comparisons (23 independent

experiments) – 4646 participants from 14 countries

• Questions: – Are there cross-cultural differences?– If yes, do the effect sizes found co-vary with cultural

dimensions?

Method

• Experimental studies: scenario/laboratory studies

– Contrast analysis (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1985) to calculate effect size r (Rosenthal, 1992; 1994)

Analysis

• Potentially important variables:– Students versus employees– Study design– Cultural characteristics

Results

• Descriptive results– r = .07; p < .05

• Students prefer different allocation principles than do employees– Students’ r = .15– Employees’ r = -.49

• Correlation with Culture– GINI index: r = .46, p = .05– Hierarchy: r = .67, p < .01

Conclusions

• There are reliable, although small differences across nations

• Experiments with students not representative of employees

• Cultural dimensions covary with effect sizes– Hierarchical differentiation is associated with more

equitable allocations– Individualism not or only weakly related to cross-

cultural differences– Future studies need to include both variables!

Problems with previous studies

• Scenario studies (artificial, no real-life consequences)

• Student samples• Organization level variables (sector,

organizational culture, organizational performance) neglected (Fischer, 2004)

• Narrow focus on countries studied (Child et al., 2000)

• Ecological fallacies

What is happening in the ‘real’ world?

Fischer, Smith & Richey (in review); Fischer (2004)

Focus on full-time employees

Justice perceptions of allocation norms used in a company when various decisions (pay raise, promotion, dismissal) are made

Allocation norms

• Equity (performance)• Need • Equality (Deutsch, 1975)• Seniority

• How often used when company gave pay raises, promotions, asked employees to leave the organisation

Allocations in European organizations(Fischer, 2004)

• Equity more important in British organizations

• Need more important in British organizations

• Important sector differences (public versus private): equity, need, equality, seniority

Importance of allocation norms

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

UK US NZ

East G

erm

any

Wes

t Ger

man

y

Fre

qu

en

cy

Equity

Equality

Need

How to explain these differences?

• Importance of cultural, economic, and organizational variables

Survey measures

• Organizational success: alpha > .72 (exc. UK: .65)

• Organizational culture: economic and egalitarian culture (alphas above .60)

• Cultural values: Hierarchy (ICC = .16), Conservatism (ICC = .13)

• Average unemployment rate (International Labor Organization)

General results

• Differences across samples in reported use of allocation principles

• Organizational variables explain differences (mediators) (in the case of equity and equality), national values have little effect

• National values and socio-economic indicators (average unemployment rate) operate as mediators (in the case of need), organization level variables have little effect

Predicting reliance on equity

• Organization level variables: Δ R² = .19**– Private sector: β = .15, p < .01 – Economic culture: β = .09, p = .08 – Egalitarian culture: β = .41, p < .001

• Nation level variables: Δ R² = .02 ns.

Predicting reliance on equality

• Organization level variables: Δ R² = .22**– Egalitarian culture: β = .47, p < .001

• Nation level variables: Δ R² = .01 ns.

Predicting reliance on need

• Organization level variables: Δ R² = .01

• Nation level variables: Δ R² = .03**– East Germany: β = -.12, p < .05 – Mediators: Conservation & Hierarchy (Δ R²

= .02**)– Mediators: Unemployment rate: β = -.16, p

< .01

Cultural variables Economic variables

Organizational Practices,Culture and Structure

Reward Allocations

Theory-driven multi-level research(Fischer, 2003; Fischer et al., 2004)

How do people react?

Fischer & Smith (2004)

• What is seen as fair?– Smith et al. (1989)

• How do employees react when their manager uses certain allocation principles?

• Focus on values as standards to guide the selection or evaluation of behaviour, people and events

Values as moderators

Use of allocation principles

Equity & Seniority

Is this fair???

Values

Decision-Maker

Schwartz Value Survey (1992)Schwartz Value Survey (1992)

Sample

• East German (N = 184) and British (N = 120) full-time employees

• Equity & seniority: LISREL analysis (49.50 < χ² [15] 15.85; .92 < GFI < .98; .91 < CFI < 1.00)

• Justice: shortened Niehoff and Moorman (1993) scale; general perceptions of organizational justice (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman & Taylor, 2000); LISREL analysis (χ² (28) = 31.60, n.s.; CFI = 1.00, GFI = .98)

• Schwartz Value Survey (1992): 44 values, alphas > .75

Interaction between self-enhancement (high) versus self-transcendence (low) values and

consideration of work performance on justice

2.50

2.70

2.90

3.10

3.30

3.50

3.70

3.90

1 SD below mean 1 SD above mean

Work performance

Per

ceiv

ed ju

stic

e

Low

High

Interaction between self-enhancement (high) versus self-transcendence (low) values and consideration of

seniority on justice

2.50

2.60

2.70

2.80

2.90

3.00

3.10

3.20

3.30

3.40

3.50

1 SD below mean 1 SD above mean

Seniority

Pe

rce

ive

d ju

sti

ce

Low

High

Conclusions

• Values influence how we perceive organizational events (moderation effects)

• Ethnic and cultural diversity in the workforce create challenges, because value differences will lead to different perceptions of the same event

• Managers need to build consensus to ensure harmonious and productive work atmosphere

Updated summary

Cultural values Socio-economic condition

Organizational cultureSector & Industry

Work attitudes & behavior

HRDecisions

A broader perspective

• Justice important social constructions

• Issues of accountability and social justice

• Mikula & Wenzel (2000):– Injustices can elicit or invoke social conflicts

(trigger function)– Justice as a rhetorical function– Justice as a conflict resolution principle

Take home message

• There are differences in what people people perceive as fair (importance of values)

• Both socio-cultural (power distance), economic (unemployment rate) and organizational factors (organizational culture, sector) are important for understanding justice

• We need to get a better understanding of the social, cultural and temporal processes going on

• Issues of justice are important!!!!