Who cares about justice? Values as moderators of justice

effectsRon Fischer

Psyc325

Overview

• Importance of organizational justice for work behaviour

• Procedural justice in context: the importance of values

• Method– Moderated Multiple Regression

• Results• Conclusions

Importance of justice

• Perceived procedural justice is an important determinant of work behaviour (Colquitt et al., 2003)

• Relational model of authorities (Tyler & Lind, 1992)– Relational concerns: Neutrality, trust in

benevolence & status recognition

Procedural justice in context

• Lind, Tyler & Huo (1997)• Status recognition less important in

societies with greater power distance (Japan)

• Values as moderators – Evaluative and guiding beliefs about right and

wrong that transcend specific situations (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987)

Schwartz Value Survey (1992)

Values as moderators

• CONSERVATION• Acceptance of their position in

society; obedience to authorities

• Focus less on quality of relationship with supervisor

• Procedural injustice carries important relational information for those with less conservative values

• OPENNESS TO CHANGE

• Seek stimulation and excitement, but are less closely attached to their groups

• Need social approval to maintain positive self-image

• Focus on social standing within their work groups because provides important relational information

Hypothesis

• The association between procedural justice and work outcome variables will be stronger among those who endorse openness to change and weaker among those who endorse conservation values

Outcome variables

• Affective organizational commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990)

• Extra-role behaviour– Proactive behaviour: Voice– Passive behaviour: Conscientiousness

Method

• Focus on full-time employees• Snowball sampling• N = 130 (UK); N = 187 (EG)

– German sample older (39 vs 32 years)– More Germans were employed in public

organisations (32%) compared with Britons (25%)

Questionnaire

• Schwartz value survey (alphas: .75 - .87) • Global justice evaluations (alpha: .89)• Affective organizational commitment

(alpha UK: .86; G: .82)• Conscientiousness (alpha UK: .85; G: .80)• Voice (alpha UK: .70; G: .75).

Method for moderator analysis

• Moderated Multiple Regression– Using mean centred values (Aiken & West, 1992;

Stone, 1986)– Dependent variable: Work variables– First step: Demographic variables– Second step: Country– Third step: centred main effects (value + justice)– Fourth step: two-way interaction effects (interaction of

interest: value x justice)– Fifth step: three-way interaction

Problems in detecting significant moderators (Villa et al., 2003)

• Less power (increase in Type II error) when– Small sample size– Range restriction– Measurement error in predictor variables that make up

the interaction term– Predictor intercorrelation

– Problem!!!• Often no theoretical rationale; large number of atheoretical

tests with large numbers of predictors

UK

M SD

1 2 3 4 5 6 Germany

M SD

1. Justice 3.22 0.75 - .05 -.01 .49** .17* .25** 3.02 0.76

2. Conservation 3.66 1.04 .09 - .37** .22** .19* .20** 3.58 0.88

3. Openness to

change

4.73 1.09 .12 .19* - -.02 -.12 .28** 3.99 1.16

4. Organisational

commitment

2.94 0.85 .46** .04 -.16 - .25** .36** 3.66 0.81

5. Conscientiousness 3.36 0.87 .15 .39** -.23* .26** - .10 3.86 0.70

6. Voice 3.59 0.54 .14 -.12 -.00 .19* .30** - 3.51 0.60

Conservation as moderator Variables Organizational commitment Conscientiousness (passive ERB) Voice

(proactive ERB) Sector -.07 .12* .02 Age .35*** .43*** .13 Tenure .06 .03 .07 ΔR2 = .17

F(3,284) = 19.39*** ΔR2 = .18***

F(3,284) = 20.87*** ΔR2 = .03***

F(3,284) = 3.03* Country .30*** .21*** -.13* ΔR2 = .08

F(1,283) = 31.61*** ΔR2 =.04

F(1,283) = 14.80*** ΔR2 =.01

F(1,283) = 4.28* Justice .42*** .12* .19** Value .05 .23*** .02 ΔR2 = .18

F(2,281) = 43.08*** ΔR2 = .07

F(2,281) = 13.92*** ΔR2 = .04

F(2,281) = 5.68** Country x Justice -.03 .02 .07 Country x Value .13* -.15* .23** Justice x Value -.03 -.02 -.03 ΔR2 =.01

F(3,278) = 1.55 ΔR2 = .01

F(3,278) = 1.44 ΔR2 = .03

F(3,278) = 3.15* Country x Value x Justice -.16* .03 -.06 ΔR2 =.01

F(1,277) = 4.84* ΔR2 = .00

F(1,277) = .11 ΔR2 = .00

F(1,277) = .38

Interaction effect of procedural justice and conservation on

organisational commitment in the German sample

2

2.5

3

3.5

1 SD below mean 1 SD above mean

Procedural justice

Org

aniz

atio

nal

com

mitm

ent

HighLow

Openness to change as moderator Variables Organizational

commitment Conscientiousness

(passive ERB) Voice

(proactive ERB) Sector -.07 .12* .02 Age .35*** .43*** .13 Tenure .06 .03 .07 ΔR2 = .17

F(3,284) = 19.39*** ΔR2 = .18***

F(3,284) = 20.87*** ΔR2 = .03***

F(3,284) = 3.03* Country .30*** .21*** -.13* ΔR2 = .08

F(1,283) = 31.61*** ΔR2 =.04

F(1,283) = 14.80*** ΔR2 =.01

F(1,283) = 4.28* Justice .42*** .14** .17** Value .04 -.03 .32*** ΔR2 = .17

F(2,281) = 43.58*** ΔR2 = .02

F(2,281) = 3.57* ΔR2 = .11

F(2,281) = 18.53*** Country x Justice -.02 -.02 .10 Country x Value .09 .07 .17 Justice x Value .10* .11* .04 ΔR2 =.01

F(3,278) = 1.77 ΔR2 = .01

F(3,278) = 1.47 ΔR2 = .02

F(3,278) = 1.83 Country x Value x Justice -.09 -.14 -.16 ΔR2 =.00

F(1,277) = 1.28 ΔR2 = .01

F(1,277) = .2.72 ΔR2 = .01

F(1,277) = 3.46

1.51.71.92.12.32.52.72.9

1 SD below mean 1 SD above mean

Procedural justice

Org

aniz

atio

nal

com

mitm

ent

HighLow

Interaction effect of procedural justice and openness to

change on organisational commitment.

Interaction effect of procedural justice and openness to

change on conscientiousness

2

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

1 SD below mean 1 SD above mean

Procedural justice

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss

High

Low

Implications

• Cultural values influence how individuals react to work place (e.g., justice issues)

• Importance for:– Managing culturally diverse work force– Assignment of managers to overseas posts– Mergers and acquisitions – Co-operations and partnerships between organizations

from different cultural backgrounds

Implications for research

• What is seen as fair or just in different societies?

• What is the link between national culture, organizational practices and behaviour and attitudes of employees in organizations?

Challenges for research: Understanding the link between national culture,

organizational practices and work behaviour

Cultural values

Organizational practices

Work behaviour and attitudes

Organizations, Culture and Behaviour Project

Power distance Participation Procedural justice

Individualism

Power distance

Emphasis on rewards

Distributive justice

Power distance

Uncertainty avoidance

Open communication

Informational justice

Individualism

Paternalism

People orientation

Interpersonal justice