Docstoc

Perceptions of justice _or fairness_ in organizational decision

Document Sample
Perceptions of justice _or fairness_ in organizational decision Powered By Docstoc
					The International Journal of Conflict Management
2001, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 333–349




     DO JUSTICE RELATIONSHIPS WITH
ORGANIZATION-DIRECTED REACTIONS DIFFER
 ACROSS U.S. AND BANGLADESH EMPLOYEES?

                                M. Afzalur Rahim
                    Center for Advanced Studies in Management
                                 Nace R. Magner
                            Western Kentucky University
                                 David Antonioni
                         University of Wisconsin, Madison
                                 Sahidur Rahman
                       University of Chittagong, Bangladesh

     We examined relationships between distributive, procedural, and inter-
     actional justice and two types of organization-directed reactions—
     organizational commitment and turnover intention—across two
     employee samples each from the U.S. and Bangladesh. Regression
     analyses of questionnaire data indicated that the three forms of justice
     were related to the organization-directed reactions of both the U.S. and
     Bangladesh employees. The specific nature of the justice relationships
     varied primarily when comparing employees across the four samples,
     rather than across the two countries.
      Employee perceptions of organizational justice—in terms of fair formal deci-
sion-making procedures (procedural justice), fair decision outcomes (distributive
justice), and fair interpersonal treatment by decision makers (interactional jus-
tice)—have been found to be related to a variety of work-related attitudes and
behaviors (see, for example, the recent review by Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Por-
ter, & Ng, 2001). Organizational justice research has predominately involved
employees from Western countries, particularly the U.S. (McFarlin & Sweeney,
2001; Morris, Leung, Ames, & Lickel, 1999). As such, the current thinking
regarding reactions to organizational justice may not generalize to employees from
societies that have cultural and economic characteristics which differ significantly
from those commonly found in North American and Western European societies.
Our purpose in this study is to examine relationships between organizational justice
and organization-directed reactions across both U.S. employees and employees
from a non-Western country, Bangladesh.
334                    JUSTICE IN THE U.S. AND BANGLADESH


                      Empirical and Conceptual Background
Types of Justice Effects
      Research to date has generally supported a main effects model of organiza-
tional justice in which distributive, procedural, and interactional justice have
unique (or independent) relationships with organization-directed reactions and
other types of employee attitudes and behaviors (Barling & Phillips, 1993; Konov-
sky & Cropanzano, 1991). An increasingly large body of literature supports a two-
way interaction model of organizational justice in which distributive justice works
in tandem with procedural justice, or, in the same manner, with interactional jus-
tice, to influence how employees react to organizational decision making (Brock-
ner & Wiesenfeld, 1996). One way of describing the modal two-way interaction
between distributive justice and procedural (or interactional) justice is as follows:
Employees react most strongly to distributive justice when procedural (or interac-
tional) justice is low. In other words, procedural and interactional justice may
moderate the effects of distributive justice. In an extension of the literature regard-
ing interactions between the forms of organizational justice, Skarlicki and Folger
(1997) supported a three-way interaction model in which employees reacted most
strongly to distributive justice when both procedural and interactional justice were
low. This finding suggests that procedural and interactional justice can serve as
substitutes for one another in moderating the effects of distributive justice.
      Because the main effects, two-way interaction, and three-way interaction
models of organizational justice have all received support in the literature, the
prevalence of one model over the other two is likely contingent on factors such as
the nature of the dependent variable and cognitive and emotional characteristics of
the employee.
Justice and Culture
      The relatively small amount of justice research involving non-Western sub-
jects has generally focused on how certain dimensions of culture influence either
the consequences of justice judgments or the processes by which people make
these judgments. Two of Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions, power distance
and collectivism-individualism (or constructs conceptually related to these), have
received particular attention. Power distance addresses ―the extent to which the less
powerful members of institutions and organizations . . . expect and accept that
power is distributed unequally‖ (Hofstede, 1997, p. 28). Collectivism–individual-
ism addresses the extent to which group members will pursue the interests of the
group over their own self-interests, with group-interests predominate among col-
lectivists and self-interests predominate among individualists.
      Farh, Earley, and Lin (1997) examined how relationships between organiza-
tional justice and organizational citizenship behavior are influenced by the tradi-
tionality and modernity dimensions of culture. High traditionality people empha-
size values such as authority, filial piety, male-domination, and a general sense of
powerlessness (Yang, Yu, & Yeh, 1989). Given its emphasis on hierarchical rela-
tionships, traditionality is conceptually related to power distance (Farh et al., p.
425). High modernity people stress values such as egalitarianism, open-minded-

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001
           M. A. RAHIM, N. R. MAGNER, D. ANTONIONI, AND S. RAHMAN                  335


ness, assertiveness, and self-reliance (Yang et al., 1989). Individualism is the most
fundamental aspect of modernity (Yang, 1993), and thus modernity overlaps with
collectivism–individualism (Farh et al., p. 425). Farh et al. found that the three
forms of organizational justice generally had less of an effect on organizational
citizenship behavior among employees who scored higher on traditionality and
those who scored lower on modernity. They proposed that employees in more tra-
ditional and in less modern societies generally have a covenantal relationship with
the organization in which they support the organization because that is what soci-
ety expects of their organizational role, rather than because the organization has
treated them fairly. Employees in less traditional and in more modern societies, on
the other hand, generally have an instrumental relationship with the organization,
and in this environment organizational justice helps to enhance employees’ trust in
and support for the organization.
      Several studies have compared the norms that collectivists versus individual-
ists apply in making judgments of distributive justice (e.g., Bond, Leung, & Wan,
1982; Kim, Park, & Suzuki, 1990). On whole, these studies have indicated that
individualists generally prefer an equity norm, whereby outcomes are distributed to
group (e.g., organization) members in proportion to their contributions to the
group. Collectivists, on the other hand, prefer a more equal, less equitable,
distribution of outcomes. These results suggest that distributive justice in terms of
the equity norm will have a weaker relationship with the reactions of relatively
more collectivistic employees. Individualists’ preference for equity in the
distribution of outcomes is generally attributed to a concern with promoting
productivity and task achievement, while collectivists’ preference for equality is
attributed to a concern with maintaining group harmony (Leung, 1988).
      Brockner, Chen, Mannix, Leung, and Skarlicki (2000) examined whether the
modal two-way interaction between distributive justice and either procedural or
interactional justice is moderated by the cultural dimension of interdependent–
independent self-construals (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). The difference between
interdependent and independent self-construals relates to whether people see them-
selves as connected to, or, instead, distinct from others. Because people who see
themselves as more connected to others are likely to be relatively more concerned
with these others’ interests relative to their own self-interests, interdependent–
independent self-construals is conceptually related to collectivism–individualism.
Brockner et al. found that the interaction between distributive justice and proce-
dural or interactional justice was stronger among people with more interdependent
self-construals. They proposed that people with interdependent self-construals
place more importance on their social exchanges than do those with independent
self-construals. For this reason, people with interdependent self-construals are
more likely to be concerned with the trustworthiness of the other party in social
exchanges and to use procedural or interactional justice to assess trustworthiness.
When procedural or interactional justice is high, they will perceive the other party
as more trustworthy and attach less importance to the fairness of their current out-
comes. When procedural or interactional justice is low, they will question the
trustworthiness of the other party and attach more importance, and thus react more
strongly, to the fairness of their current outcomes.

                  The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001
336                    JUSTICE IN THE U.S. AND BANGLADESH


       While the results of the studies that have addressed both justice and culture do
not fit tightly together, they do suggest that the nature of the relationships between
the three forms of organizational justice and organization-directed reactions can
sometimes differ among employees who accept a high power distance and are col-
lectivistic as compared to those who accept a low power distance and are individu-
alistic.

                                    Current Study
      We examined relationships between distributive, procedural, and interactional
justice and organization-directed reactions using employees from two countries—
the U.S. and Bangladesh—whose people, on whole, are likely to differ signifi-
cantly on the cultural dimensions of power distance and collectivism–individual-
ism. Specifically, people from the U.S. will generally expect a smaller power dis-
tance and be more individualistic than those from Bangladesh. Hofstede (1980),
who classified culture by nationality, found that the U.S. ranked 38th among 53
countries and regions on his measure of power distance, with a score of 40 (the
range of scores was 11 to 104). The U.S. ranked first on individualism (i.e., last on
collectivism), with a score of 91 (the range of scores was 6 to 91). While Hofstede
did not include Bangladesh in his study, he did include two countries, India and
Pakistan, whose scores on power distance and collectivism–individualism may be
relevant to Bangladesh. Bangladesh was once (prior to 1972) a part of Pakistan,
which, in turn, was once (prior to 1948) a part of India. Hofstede found that India
ranked tenth (score of 77) and Pakistan 32nd (score of 55) on power distance,
while India ranked 21st (score of 48) and Pakistan 47th (score of 14) on individu-
alism. Thus the U.S. scored lower on power distance and higher on individualism
than did either India or Pakistan, suggesting that a similar pattern of results may
hold when the U.S. is compared with Bangladesh.
      We addressed organization-directed reactions in terms of two variables:
organizational commitment and turnover intention. Organizational commitment is
the degree to which employees take pride in the organization and its values and
adopt the organization’s values as their own (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Turn-
over intention is the degree to which employees are inclined to voluntarily exit the
organization. Colquitt et al. (2001) concluded that organizational commitment and
job withdrawal, under which turnover intention is subsumed, are two of the most
commonly studied employee reactions in the organizational justice literature.
      The justice literature indicates that distributive, procedural, and interactional
justice can have a variety of unique and interactive relationships with organiza-
tional commitment and turnover intention (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Brock-
ner, DeWitt, Grover, & Read, 1990; Brockner et al., 1994; Folger & Konovsky,
1989; Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor,
2000; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Schaubroeck, May, & Brown, 1994). Therefore,
we tested each of the three alternative models of organizational justice effects: a
main effects model, in which the three forms of organizational justice have unique
relationships with the two measures of organization-directed reactions; a two-way
interaction model, in which distributive justice works together with either proce-

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001
           M. A. RAHIM, N. R. MAGNER, D. ANTONIONI, AND S. RAHMAN                  337


dural or interactional justice to predict organizational commitment and turnover
intention; and a three-way interaction model, in which all three forms of organiza-
tional justice work together to predict organizational commitment and turnover
intention. Our primary focus was on determining whether the nature of the justice
relationships differed between the U.S. employees as compared to the Bangladesh
employees. The study is largely exploratory because we do not believe sufficient
empirical or theoretical support currently exists to hypothesize specific differences
in how the three forms of organizational justice are related to organizational com-
mitment and turnover intention across employees from the two countries. How-
ever, the research on justice and culture that was discussed above suggests that
some differences in justice relationships may emerge if U.S. employees on whole
expect a smaller power distance and are more individualistic than Bangladesh
employees.

                                      Method
      We collected questionnaire data from two employee samples each from the
U.S. and Bangladesh. University faculty members and business managers sepa-
rately comprised the U.S. samples; the Bangladesh samples were also separately
composed of university faculty members and business managers. The primary pre-
dictor variables (distributive, procedural, and interactional justice) and criterion
variables (organizational commitment and turnover intention) were measured with
common scales in all four samples. Respondents with missing data on one or more
of the study’s variables were deleted from the samples.
      While it is possible that university faculty members and business managers
differ in ways that influence how the forms of organizational justice are related to
organizational commitment and turnover intention, the specific nature of any such
differences is not evident.
Samples and Procedures
      U.S. Faculty. The questionnaire was mailed to 750 randomly selected mem-
bers of the Academy of Management who were listed as holding non-administra-
tive teaching positions at U.S. universities. Usable questionnaires were received
from 154 (21%) of these people. The average age of the respondents, who were
predominately (69%) male, was 48.4 (SD = 9.5) years. The respondents had, on
average, 22.5 (SD = 11.4) years of full-time work experience and 18.5 (SD = 12.7)
years of teaching experience. People with the rank of professor comprised 44%
percent of the respondents, while 34% were associate professors, and 20% were
assistant professors.
      U.S. Managers. The questionnaire was mailed to 427 managers in U.S. busi-
ness organizations, and we received 148 (35%) usable questionnaires in return. The
average age of the respondents, who were predominately (69%) male, was 42 (SD
= 7.7) years. The respondents had, on average, 19.2 (SD = 8.1) years of full-time
work experience. Middle-level managers comprised the majority (80%) of the
respondents, while 14% were lower-level managers. Half of the respondents
worked for manufacturing firms, and the remainder worked for service firms.

                  The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001
338                    JUSTICE IN THE U.S. AND BANGLADESH


      Bangladesh Faculty. One of the authors personally contacted and distributed
the questionnaire to 250 university faculty members in the cities of Dhaka, Chit-
tagong, and Rajshahi. Usable questionnaires were received from 156 (62%) of
these people. The questionnaire was written in English, as university faculty mem-
bers in Bangladesh commonly understand this language. The average age of the
respondents, who were predominately (87%) male, was 34.8 (SD = 7.7) years. The
respondents had, on average, 9.1 (SD = 8.0) years of full-time work experience and
8.1 (SD = 7.7) years of teaching experience. People with the rank of professor
comprised 43% percent of the respondents, while 31% were associate professors,
12% were assistant professors, and 14% were lecturers.
      Bangladesh Managers. One of the authors personally contacted and distrib-
uted the questionnaire to 250 managers in business organizations in Dhaka, Chit-
tagong, and Rajshahi, and received 133 (53%) usable questionnaires in return. The
questionnaire was written in English, as business managers in Bangladesh com-
monly understand this language. The average age of the respondents, who were
predominately (95%) male, was 33 (SD = 6.9) years. The respondents had, on
average, 8.2 (SD = 10.5) years of full-time work experience. Middle-level manag-
ers comprised the majority (71%) of the respondents, while 17% were upper-level
managers. Approximately three-quarters (76%) of the respondents worked for
service firms, and the remainder worked for manufacturing firms.
Measures
      Forms of Justice. We measured the three forms of organizational justice with
11 items adapted from the Organizational Justice Instrument (OJI) (Rahim, Mag-
ner, & Shapiro, 2000). The OJI is comprised of 23 items distributed across three
subscales that measure distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. As rec-
ommended by Colquitt (2001), the subscales are indirect measures of the forms of
justice in that they assess specific fairness criteria rather than directly asking how
fair something is. Each OJI item has a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), and the responses to the items within each subscale
were averaged. Higher scores on a subscale indicate a higher level of that form of
justice.
      Distributive justice was measured with three OJI items that addressed the per-
ceived fairness with respect to the equity norm of the rewards the respondent
received from his or her employer organization. Rewards are a particularly salient
type of organizational outcome to employees and are a common target of distribu-
tive justice perceptions in organizational justice studies (e.g., McFarlin &
Sweeney, 1992; Moorman, 1991). The scale items were: ―I believe that my rewards
accurately reflect my contributions to the organization (university),‖ ―The most
productive employees (faculty) in my organization (university) receive the highest
rewards,‖ and ―The rewards I receive from my organization (university) are in
accord with my level of performance.‖
      Procedural justice was measured with four OJI items that addressed the per-
ceived fairness of the formal decision-making procedures in the respondent’s
employer organization. The scale items were: ―My organization (university) has in
place formal channels that allow employees (faculty) to express their views and

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001
            M. A. RAHIM, N. R. MAGNER, D. ANTONIONI, AND S. RAHMAN                  339


opinions before decisions are made,‖ ―Formal procedures exist in my organization
(university) to ensure that officials do not allow personal biases to affect their deci-
sions,‖ ―There are formal means by which employees (faculty) in my organization
(university) can challenge decisions that they feel are erroneous,‖ and ―My organi-
zation (university) has formal procedures to ensure that officials have accurate
information on which to base their decisions.‖ These four items address, respec-
tively, the voice, bias suppression, correctability, and accuracy criteria that have
been established for procedural justice (e.g., Barrett-Howard & Tyler, 1986;
Greenberg, 1986; Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975).
      Interactional justice was measured with four OJI items that addressed the per-
ceived social sensitivity of the interpersonal treatment the respondent received
from his or her immediate supervisor. Greenberg (1993) referred to this aspect of
organizational justice that relates to the social sensitivity of authorities as interper-
sonal justice. The immediate supervisor is likely to be the organizational authority
that an employee interacts with most often and views as having a particularly
strong impact on the organizational rewards he or she receives. The scale items
were: ―I believe that my supervisor’s (department chairperson’s) actions show that
s/he respects me,‖ ―My supervisor (department chairperson) treats me in a kindly
manner,‖ ―In my relationship with my supervisor (department chairperson), s/he
shows a concern for the impact that his/her actions will have on me,‖ and ―In
dealings with my supervisor (department chairperson), I find him/her to be polite.‖
The items address criteria that have been established for socially-sensitive interper-
sonal treatment by decision makers (e.g., Bies & Moag, 1986; Tyler & Bies, 1990).
      Organizational Commitment. The respondent’s affective commitment to
the employer organization was measured with six items developed by O’Reilly and
Chatman (1986) to measure the identification and internalization bases of com-
mitment. They were grouped together in a single scale because prior research has
indicated they load on a single factor (e.g., Naumann, Bennett, Bies, & Martin,
1998; Vandenberg, Self, & Seo, 1994). Examples of the scale items used in the
current study are: ―My attachment to this organization (university) is primarily
based on the similarity of my values and those represented by this organization
(university),‖ and ―When someone praises my organization (university), it feels
like a personal compliment.‖ Each item had a seven-point scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) and the responses to the items were aver-
aged. Higher scores indicated greater organizational commitment.
      Turnover Intention. The respondent’s intention to voluntarily exit the
employer organization was measured with four items. Cammann, Fichman, Jen-
kins, and Klesh (1979) developed two of the items (―It is likely that I will actively
look for a new job in the next year,‖ and ―I often think about quitting"). The other
two items (―It would take very little change in my present circumstances to cause
me to leave this organization (university),‖ and ―There is not too much to be gained
by sticking with the organization (university) indefinitely‖) were adapted from
those developed by Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982). Beckler (1992) previously
used a scale comprised of the four items to measure turnover intention. Each item
in the current study had a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7


                   The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001
340                     JUSTICE IN THE U.S. AND BANGLADESH


(strongly agree) and the responses to the items were averaged. Higher scores indi-
cated greater turnover intention.

                                          Results
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
     Table 1 shows means, standard deviations, alpha reliability coefficients, and
correlations for the study's five primary variables in each of the four samples. The
alpha coefficients exceeded the minimum .70 level recommended by Nunnally
(1978), with the single exception of the alpha for procedural justice (.66) in the

                                   Table 1
      Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability Coefficients, and Correlations

Variable                                M      SD        1        2       3       4       5

U.S. faculty (n = 154)
 1. Distributive justice               4.05    1.81    (.92)
 2. Procedural justice                 4.22    1.36     .58 (.81)
 3. Interactional justice              5.60    1.43     .47  .47 (.91)
 4. Organizational commitment          4.06    1.35     .37  .49  .30 (.89)
 5. Turnover intention                 3.11    1.77    –.46 –.38 –.38 –.42 (.87)
U.S. managers (n = 148)
 1. Distributive justice               4.48    1.26    (.84)
 2. Procedural justice                 4.27    1.19     .51 (.81)
 3. Interactional justice              5.58    1.19     .53  .45 (.91)
 4. Organizational commitment          5.28    0.96     .38  .54  .35 (.85)
 5. Turnover intention                 2.82    1.52    –.41 –.36 –.55 –.42 (.89)
Bangladesh faculty (n = 156)
 1. Distributive justice               3.79    1.47    (.71)
 2. Procedural justice                 4.21    1.21     .48 (.71)
 3. Interactional justice              5.06    1.38     .33  .20 (.84)
 4. Organizational commitment          5.43    0.95     .21  .29  .19 (.76)
 5. Turnover intention                 3.30    1.58    –.30 –.25 –.22 –.33 (.82)
Bangladesh managers (n = 133)
 1. Distributive justice               4.58    1.64    (.74)
 2. Procedural justice                 4.33    1.44     .60 (.66)
 3. Interactional justice              5.43    1.28     .54  .39 (.81)
 4. Organizational commitment          5.54    1.01     .35  .36  .40 (.77)
 5. Turnover intention                 3.64    1.80    –.42 –.40 –.32 –.36 (.86)

Note: Alpha reliability coefficients are in parentheses on the diagonals. All correlations are
significant at p < .05.




The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001
           M. A. RAHIM, N. R. MAGNER, D. ANTONIONI, AND S. RAHMAN                  341


sample of Bangladesh managers. The correlations between the justice variables,
which ranged from .20 to .60, were within the range of those typically reported in
prior studies (e.g., Gilliland, 1994; Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991; McFarlin &
Sweeney, 1992). The moderate correlations between organizational commitment
and turnover intention, which ranged from –.33 to –.42, suggest that the dependent
variables were addressing separate constructs. All other correlations were also
moderate, with absolute values ranging from .19 to .54.
Hierarchical Regression
      The primary analytic technique used in the study was four-step hierarchical
regression. In Step 1, organizational commitment and turnover intention were each
regressed on two demographic control variables, gender and age. In Step 2, dis-
tributive, procedural, and interactional justice were added as a group to the two
regression models. The results of this step pertain to the main effects model of
organizational justice. In Step 3, the three possible two-way interactions between
the justice variables were added as a group to the regression models. The results of
this step pertain to the two-way interaction model of organizational justice. In Step
4, the three-way interaction between the justice variables was added to the regres-
sion models. The results of this step pertain to the three-way interaction model of
organizational justice. In conducting the regression analysis, the justice variables
were each put in deviation score form so that their means were zero, as recom-
mended by Aiken and West (1991).
      Table 2 shows the results of the hierarchical regression analysis. The regres-
sion coefficients represent the unique relationship that a predictor variable had with
the criterion variable after controlling for the other predictor variables in the
regression model. The significant unique relationships that emerged in Step 2 can-
not be interpreted when the justice variables are also involved in a significant two-
way interaction; similarly, the significant two-way interactions that emerged can-
not be interpreted when the justice variables are also involved in a significant
three-way interaction. Therefore, we will focus only on the highest order signifi-
cant effects that emerged for each justice variable in each sample.
      With regard to organizational commitment, a significant (p < .05) two-way
interaction between procedural and interactional justice emerged in the sample of
U.S. faculty. Follow-up procedures recommended by Aiken and West (1991) indi-
cated that procedural justice had a stronger positive relationship with organiza-
tional commitment when interactional justice was high (versus low). Procedural
justice had a significant unique and positive relationship with organizational com-
mitment in the samples of U.S. managers and Bangladesh faculty, and interactional
justice had a significant unique and positive relationship with organizational com-
mitment in the sample of Bangladesh managers.
      With regard to turnover intention, a significant three-way interaction between
the justice variables emerged in the sample of U.S. faculty. Follow-up procedures
indicated that distributive justice had the strongest negative relationship with turn-
over intention when procedural justice was low and interactional justice was high.
A significant two-way interaction between distributive and procedural justice
emerged in the sample of Bangladesh managers such that distributive justice had a

                  The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001
342                    JUSTICE IN THE U.S. AND BANGLADESH




tble 2
The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001
           M. A. RAHIM, N. R. MAGNER, D. ANTONIONI, AND S. RAHMAN                  343


stronger relationship with turnover intention when procedural justice was low.
Distributive and procedural justice each had moderately significant (p < .10)
unique relationships with turnover intention in the sample of Bangladesh faculty.
Interactional justice had a significant relationship with turnover intention in the
sample of U.S. managers, and a moderately significant relationship with turnover
intention in the samples of Bangladesh faculty and Bangladesh managers.

                                     Discussion
      The people of the U.S. and Bangladesh are, on whole, likely to be much dif-
ferent with regard to cultural dimensions such as power distance and collectivism-
individualism that have been proposed to moderate justice effects. However, a key
finding of our study is that U.S. versus Bangladesh nationality had little influence
on the nature of the relationships between distributive, procedural, and interac-
tional justice and employees’ organizational commitment and turnover intention.
Instead, differences in justice relationships emerged primarily when comparing
results across the four individual samples of employees.
      Two of the samples—U.S. managers and Bangladesh faculty—supported a
main effects model of organizational justice with regard to both criterion variables.
In each sample, procedural justice was the only form of organizational justice to
have a unique relationship with organizational commitment. The results regarding
turnover intention were less consistent. While only interactional justice had a
unique relationship with turnover intention in the sample of U.S. managers, all
three forms of organizational justice had a unique (albeit weak) relationship with
turnover intention in the sample of Bangladesh faculty.
      The sample of Bangladesh managers supported a main effects model of
organizational justice with regard to organizational commitment, and both a main
effects and two-way interaction model with regard to turnover intention. Specifi-
cally, interactional justice had a unique relationship with both organizational com-
mitment and turnover intention, while distributive and procedural justice had an
interactive relationship with turnover intention. The interaction pattern, in which
distributive justice had a stronger relationship with turnover intention when proce-
dural justice was low, is consistent with the modal pattern found in prior research
(Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996).
      The sample of U.S. faculty supported a two-way interaction model of organ-
izational justice with regard to organizational commitment and a three-way inter-
action model with regard to turnover intention. However, these interactions dif-
fered from those typically reported in the justice literature in terms of either the
justice variables involved in the interaction or the interaction pattern. For example,
the interaction between procedural and interactional justice that emerged on
organizational commitment, in which procedural justice had a stronger positive
relationship with organizational commitment when interactional justice was high,
contrasts with the typical two-way interaction involving distributive justice work-
ing in tandem with either procedural or interactional justice. The pattern of the
three-way interaction that emerged on turnover intention, in which distributive
justice had the strongest negative relationship with the criterion variable when pro-

                  The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001
344                    JUSTICE IN THE U.S. AND BANGLADESH


cedural justice was low and interactional justice was high, is contrary to that
reported by Skarlicki and Folger (1997), who found that distributive justice had its
strongest relationship with organization-directed reactions when both procedural
and interactional justice were low.
      Our results have several implications for cross-cultural justice research as
well as the more general justice literature. They suggest that broad aspects of
national culture such as power distance and collectivism-individualism do not
always moderate justice effects, or, at least, the influence of these cultural variables
is subtle and may be contingent on other factors. The results also affirm that the
nature of justice effects can vary widely from one sample to another, even when
the samples all come from a single national culture. For example, while only inter-
actional justice was related to turnover intention in the sample of U.S. managers,
all three justice variables worked together to predict turnover intention in the sam-
ple of U.S. faculty. Moreover, in comparing the two Bangladesh samples, only
procedural justice was related to organizational commitment among the faculty,
while only interactional justice was related to organizational commitment among
the managers. Our study also provides further evidence that the nature of justice
effects is often dependent on the specific criterion variable of interest, even when
comparing effects across criterion variables that address similar constructs. Our
criterion variables, organizational commitment and turnover intention, both likely
capture a general affective response to the organization (Masterson et al., 2000).
Yet we found that different types of justice relationships emerged across the two
criterion variables even within individual samples. In the sample of U.S. managers,
for example, only procedural justice was related to organizational commitment,
while only interactional justice was related to turnover intention. Finally, our
results contribute to the growing literature on interactions between justice variables
in that they (a) identified a two-way interaction between procedural and interac-
tional justice that has rarely been reported elsewhere, and (b) uncovered a pattern
for the three-way interaction between justice variables that is contrary to that found
previously. Future research should devote more attention to identifying the specific
factors that condition when particular justice variables will interact and the pattern
that these interactions will take.
Limitations
     Our results should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, we did
not explicitly measure either power distance or collectivism-individualism, and it is
possible that employees from a single country vary widely on these cultural dimen-
sions. Had we categorized our respondents on the basis of explicit measures of
power distance and collectivism-individualism, clear differences in justice relation-
ships may have been more likely to emerge across these two cultural dimensions.
Second, our three measures of organizational justice did not capture all dimensions
of their related constructs. For example, we measured distributive justice with
respect to the equity criterion, but other possible criteria for distributive justice
include equality and need (Deutsch, 1975). Also, we measured interactional justice
in terms of interpersonal justice. Another dimension of interactional justice is
informational justice, which focuses on the extent to which decision makers

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001
             M. A. RAHIM, N. R. MAGNER, D. ANTONIONI, AND S. RAHMAN                        345


explain and provide adequate justification for their decisions (Colquitt, 2001;
Greenberg, 1993). If our measures had addressed these other dimensions of the
justice variables, relationships between the forms of justice and the criterion vari-
ables may have been different from those reported here. Third, our study was etic
in nature (Morris, Leung, Ames, & Lickel, 1999) in that we used measurement
methods developed primarily for the U.S. to examine justice relationships in
Bangladesh. We cannot be assured about the equivalence of the measures across
the two countries. Berry (1990), however, has recommended that etic constructs be
used in the type of initial exploratory research of organizational phenomena found
in this study. Fourth, our justice scales had relatively lower reliability in the
Bangladesh samples than in the U.S. samples. Random measurement error in scales
tends to reduce measures of association (e.g., regression coefficients) between
variables (Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991). Therefore, it is likely that the regression
results for the Bangladesh samples understate the strength of some of the
relationships between the justice variables and the criterion variables to a greater
extent than the results for the U.S. samples. Fifth, we implied a direction of
causality from the justice variables to organizational commitment and turnover
intention that cannot be proved with the cross-sectional data used in the study. It is
possible that employees who are more committed to and have less intent to leave
their organization may, in turn, perceive a greater amount of organizational justice.

                                        Conclusions
      The limitations notwithstanding, strengths of this study include (a) its use of
two separate employee samples, each from both a Western country and a non-
Western country, and (b) the use of common measures of the justice and criterion
variables across all four samples. We believe the results provide compelling evi-
dence that officials of organizations in countries that have distinctly different cul-
tural and economic characteristics than those typically found in Western countries
like the U.S. must still concern themselves with fostering organizational justice in
terms of formal decision-making procedures, decision outcomes, and interpersonal
treatment.

                                         References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interac-
    tions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in
    organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177–198.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organiza-
    tional research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421–458.
Barling, J., & Phillips, M. (1993). Interactional, formal, and distributive justice in the work-
    place: An exploratory study. Journal of Psychology, 73, 199–207.
Barrett-Howard, E., & Tyler, T. R. (1986). Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation
    decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 296–304.
Beckler, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making?
    Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232–244.


                    The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001
346                      JUSTICE IN THE U.S. AND BANGLADESH


Berry, J. W. (1990). Imposed etics, emics, derived etics: Their conceptual and operational
    status in cross-cultural psychology. In P. C. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives
    on international industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 75–129). San Francisco: New
    Lexington Press.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness.
    In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in
    organizations (pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bond, M. H., Leung, K., & Wan, K. C. (1982). How does cultural collectivism operate? The
    impact of task and maintenance contribution on reward distribution. Journal of Cross-
    Cultural Psychology, 13, 186–200.
Brockner, J., Chen, Y., Mannix, E. A., Leung, K., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2000). Culture and
    procedural fairness: When the effects of what you do depend on how you do it. Admin-
    istrative Science Quarterly, 45, 138–159.
Brockner, J., DeWitt, R. L., Grover, S., & Reed, T. (1990). When it is especially important
    to explain why: Factors affecting the relationship between managers’ explanations of a
    layoff and survivors’ reactions to the layoff. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
    26, 389–407.
Brockner, J., Konovsky, M. A., Cooper-Schneider, R., Folger, R., Martin, C. L., & Bies, R.
    J. (1994). Interactive effects of procedural justice and outcome negativity on victims and
    survivors of job loss. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 397–409.
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to
    decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120,
    189–208.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan organizational
    assessment questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct valida-
    tion 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). Jus-
    tice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice
    research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.
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, 137–150.
Farh, J., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and
    organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quar-
    terly, 42, 421–444.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on
    reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115–130.
Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selec-
    tion system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 691–701.
Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Jour-
    nal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340–342.
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: Erlbaum.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related
    values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York:
    McGraw-Hill.
Kim, K. I., Park, H., & Suzuki, N. (1990). Reward allocations in the United States, Japan,
    and Korea: A comparison of individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Academy of
    Management Journal, 33, 188–198.

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001
             M. A. RAHIM, N. R. MAGNER, D. ANTONIONI, AND S. RAHMAN                       347


Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as
    a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
    76, 698–707.
Leung, K. (1988). Theoretical advances in justice behavior: Some cross-cultural inputs. In
    M. H. Bond (Ed.), The cross-cultural challenge to social psychology (pp. 218–229).
    Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the
    study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.),
    Social exchange: New advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum
    Press.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
    emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
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.
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors
    of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management
    Journal, 35, 626–637.
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (2001). Cross-cultural applications of organizational
    justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol.
    2, pp. 67–95). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
    citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal
    of Applied Psychology, 76, 845–855.
Morris, M. W., Leung, K., Ames, D., & Lickel, B. (1999). Views from inside and outside:
    Integrating emic and etic insights about culture and justice judgments. Academy of Man-
    agement Review, 24, 781–796.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The
    psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Naumann, S. E., Bennett, N., Bies, R. J., & Martin, C. L. (1998). Laid off, but still loyal:
    The influence of perceived justice and organizational support. International Journal of
    Conflict Management, 9, 356–368.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological
    attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial
    behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499.
Rahim, M. A., Magner, N. R., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). Do justice perceptions influence
    styles of handling conflict with supervisor? What justice perceptions, precisely? Inter-
    national Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 5–26.
Schaubroeck, J., May, D. R., & Brown, F. W. (1994). Procedural justice explanations and
    employee reactions to economic hardship: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psy-
    chology, 79, 455–460.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive,
    procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale,
    NJ: Erlbaum.
Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of
    procedural justice. In J. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational set-
    tings (pp. 77–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.



                    The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001
348                     JUSTICE IN THE U.S. AND BANGLADESH


Vandenberg, R. J., Self, R. M., & Seo, J. H. (1994). A critical examination of the internali-
   zation, identification, and compliance commitment measures. Journal of Management,
   20, 123–140.
Yang, K. (1993). Chinese social orientation: An integrative analysis. In L. Y. Cheng, F. M.
   C. Cheung, & C. Chen (Eds.), Psychotherapy for the Chinese: Selected papers from the
   first international conference (pp. 19–56). Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong
   Kong.
Yang, K., Yu, A., & Yeh, M. H. (1989). Chinese individual modernity and traditionality:
   Construct definition and measurement. Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Conference
   on Chinese Psychology and Behavior, pp. 287–354.

                                    Biographical Note
M. Afzalur Rahim
Center for Advanced Studies in Management
1574 Mallory Court
Bowling Green, KY 42103–1300
Phone/Fax: 270–782–2898/2601
Email: mgt2000@aol.com
Dr. Rahim is the Founding Editor of the International Journal of Organizational Analysis
and International Journal of Conflict Management. He is the founder of the International
Association for Conflict Management and International Conference on Advances in
Management. He is a Professor of Management at Western Kentucky University. Dr. Rahim
is the author/co-author of 18 books and 145 articles, book chapters, case studies, and
research instruments. His articles have been published, among others, in Academy of
Management Journal, Human Relations, International Journal of Conflict Management,
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of
Business Ethics, Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, Journal of
Management, Journal of Small Business Management, Journal of Social Psychology,
Multivariate Behavioral Research, and Perceptual and Motor Skills. His current research
interests are in the areas of cross-cultural emotional intelligence, organizational learning,
conflict management, organizational justice, and leader power.
Nace R. Magner is the J. C. Holland Professor of Accounting in the Gordon Ford College
of Business at Western Kentucky University. He received his DBA from Southern Illinois
University at Carbondale. His primary research interests are antecedents and consequences
of justice in organizational control systems. Dr. Magner's research has been published in
scholarly journals that include Accounting, Organizations and Society; Accounting and
Business Research; the Journal of Applied Psychology; Group and Organization Manage-
ment; Multivariate Behavioral Research; the Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology; the Journal of Applied Social Psychology; the Journal of Public Budgeting,
Accounting, and Financial Management; Public Administration Quarterly; the British
Accounting Review; Advances in Management Accounting; and the International Journal of
Conflict Management.
Dr. David Antonioni is an Associate Professor of Management at the University of Wis-
consin, Madison. He is the Chair of the Executive Education Unit in the School of Business
and is also the program director for the Mid-Management Development and Project Man-
agement Certificate Programs. He conducts applied research in the conflict management,
Big Five Personality, and 360-degree feedback. His publications have appeared in the Inter-
national Journal of Conflict Management, Personnel Psychology, Academy of Management


The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001
            M. A. RAHIM, N. R. MAGNER, D. ANTONIONI, AND S. RAHMAN                    349


Executive, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Organizational Dynamics, and Indus-
trial Management.
Sahidur Rahman is a Lecturer in Management at the University of Chittagong, Bangla-
desh. His research relates to cross-cultural organizational justice, organizational commit-
ment, and emotional intelligence.


                                                     Received: September 10, 2001
                   Accepted by Daniel P. Skarlicki after a revision January 20, 2002
                                                                                   




                   The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001