who cares about justice? values as moderators of justice effects
DESCRIPTION
Overview Importance of organizational justice for work behaviour Procedural justice in context: the importance of values Method Moderated Multiple Regression Results ConclusionsTRANSCRIPT
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