Karriker & Williams 2009

112

Organizational Justice and OrganizationalCitizenship Behavior: A Mediated

Multifoci Model†

Joy H. Karriker*College of Business, East Carolina University, Greenville

Margaret L. WilliamsSchool of Business, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond

This research explores the differential effects of multifoci organizational justice perceptions onorganizational citizenship behavior. Based on data collected from 217 employee–supervisordyads, our findings clarify the bi-focal nature of distributive and procedural justice, illuminatethe mono-focus of interpersonal justice, and support the premise that justice investments yieldexponential behavioral responses that are sometimes mediated by the quality of the employee–supervisor relationship.

Keywords: organizational justice; organizational citizenship behavior; social exchange

Contemporary justice research has been rich and diverse. This flourishing literature indi-cates that, clearly, fairness is important to individuals in everyday life and, particularly, in thework setting (Ambrose, 2002). One role fairness plays in the workplace involves our incli-nation to form close relationships at work with those people and organizations that treat usfairly. Social exchange theory suggests that, in turn, we are likely to perform in ways thatbenefit the individuals and organizations with which we are in these positive relationships(Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). The implication that fairness “investments”yield positive and targeted performance outcomes is provocative for practioners. Researchers

†This article was accepted under the editorship of Russell Cropanzano.

*Corresponding author: Tel.: 252-328-5693; fax: 252-328-4094

E-mail address: [email protected]

Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, February 2009 112-135DOI: 10.1177/0149206307309265© 2009 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved.

have also found this model intriguing and, therefore, have identified several areas wheremore work is needed to enhance our understanding of the consequences of, and processesrelated to, workplace justice. Among them are the effects associated with the sources of jus-tice (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002), the differential outcomes of justice perceptions based onjustice type (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002),and, as suggested by the relationship effects mentioned above, the mechanisms (e.g.,exchange relationships) through which justice perceptions are translated into behaviors(Colquitt & Greenberg, 2003).

In this effort, we contribute to these research needs by integrating the literatures of orga-nizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) through an application ofsocial exchange theory (Blau, 1964). We explore the effects of organizational- and individual-referenced justice perceptions (i.e., justice “foci”) on behaviors that are directed at, and ben-efit, the organization as a whole (OCB-organization, or OCBO; Williams & Anderson, 1991)and those that benefit the supervisor (OCB-supervisor, or OCBS; Malatesta, 1995).Furthermore, our model includes mediators that assist our understanding of how each of thedimensions of justice is translated into each kind of citizenship behavior. Specifically, wenote that workplace justice is instrumental in the development of strong, positive exchangerelationships, as operationalized by trust, organizational commitment, perceived organiza-tional support (POS), and leader–member exchange (LMX; Coyle-Shapiro & Conway, 2004;Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Shore et al., 2004). As suggested by Blau, these socialexchange relationships are characterized by “feelings of personal obligations, gratitude, andtrust” (1964: 94), and individuals act on these feelings to benefit the individual and/or theorganization that is investing in relationships with them. Thus, specifically, and based onextant literature, we expect that individual perceptions of the trustworthiness of the organi-zation, organizational commitment, and POS will mediate the relationships between specificdimensions of organization- and supervisor-referenced justice perceptions and extra-rolebehaviors that are intended to benefit the organization (OCBO). We also expect that LMX(Graen & Scandura, 1987) will mediate the relationships between certain dimensions ofsupervisor-referenced justice perceptions and extra-role behaviors that are intended to bene-fit the supervisor (OCBS) and the organization (OCBO).

Consistent with Blau (1964), Organ (1988) suggested that employees may perceive theirrelationships with their organizations in terms of social exchange, thereby promptingexchange responses to perceptions of fairness. The reciprocal nature of social exchange, sim-ilar to an economic exchange in which the expenditure and the return are relatively equal,leads to the expectation that employees will perform in-role tasks in exchange for fair treat-ment. However, the exponential nature of social exchange (Karriker, Ireland, & Coombs,2004; Lin, 2001) offers support for the assertion that, given justice inputs or investments, anemployee will perform above and beyond formal job expectations in the fulfillment of hisperceived “unspecified obligations” (Blau, 1964: 93). The term “investments” may be under-stood in terms of the economic market. If an investor purchases a stock, he does not expectto recoup an equal amount from that outlay. In fact, the investor expects a multiplied returnfrom his expenditure. In the workplace, an organization that makes an investment in itsemployees, perhaps in terms of training, professional development, or in their general healthand welfare, may expect that these employees will experience psychological considerationsleading to their sense of loyalty to the organization. In turn, these employees not only

Karriker, Williams / Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior 113

114 Journal of Management / February 2009

reciprocate by performing contractual tasks, but they also may perform in ways that aredisproportionate to the original investment.

Moorman states that, “OCB appears to be a reasonable and likely way in which anemployee can exchange the social rewards brought on by perceptions of fairness” (1991: 846).Thus, an individual who believes he or she has been treated fairly, yet who recognizes aninequity between his or her inputs and organizational fairness outcomes in relation to others’,will alter his or her extra-role, discretionary behaviors in an effort to reduce this dissonance. Insuch a case, he or she would be expected to respond to this fairness with positive, extra-rolebehavioral inputs. This relationship between organizational justice and OCB has been exploredand supported in many studies, including Tansky’s (1993) findings regarding perceptions ofoverall fairness and categories of OCB; Moorman, Niehoff, and Organ’s (1993) national cabletelevision company study involving procedural justice and OCB; Bies, Martin, and Brockner’s(1993) examination of the perceived fairness of a layoff process and its influence on OCB afterthe layoff announcement; and Podsakoff and MacKenzie’s (1993) summary and discussion ofthe effects of fairness on citizenship behaviors. Other research supports the role of socialexchange in facilitating various fairness–OCB relationships (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).

Furthermore, different dimensions of justice may differentially affect the kind of positive,extra-role behaviors displayed. The beginnings of a justice source model are found inGreenberg (1993) and in subsequent works (Ambrose & Hess, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001;Colquitt & Greenberg, 2003) in which organizational justice researchers began to examinewhether the object of the justice judgments (e.g., the supervisor or the organization) pre-dicted specific outcomes. In particular, these studies addressed the predictive power of thesource of justice. If the justice act originates from an individual, it is classified as agent-referenced; if the justice act originates from the organization itself, it is called system-referenced. We examine agent- and system-referenced justice perceptions for their potentialdifferential effects on attitudes and behaviors (Ambrose & Hess, 2001; Rupp & Cropanzano,2002). In other words, the focus of the dispensation of justice is integral to the focus of itsoutcomes, be they attitudinal and/or behavioral. The following sections will provide moredetail related to the development of the theoretical model shown in Figure 1.

Organizational Justice

As shown in Figure 1, our model begins with perceptions of organizational justice. Theterm “organizational justice” was coined by French (1964) to describe individuals’ percep-tions of fairness in organizations. Widely accepted justice dimensions include distributivejustice, procedural justice, and interactional justice. Distributive justice addresses the fair-ness of outcomes (Greenberg, 1987). Often focused on pay and other forms of compensationas outcomes, distributive justice also includes examinations of perceptions of fairness withregard to other outcomes, such as office assignment, promotions, job titles, and the like.Thibaut and Walker (1975) introduced the concept of procedural justice, which addresses theprocesses through which outcome distributions are made. Typically, individuals are askedhow fair the procedures used to determine their outcomes (whether specified or in general)are, and they make their procedural fairness judgments with regard to their beliefs of howthe systems or procedures “should” operate.

Chris

Highlight

Chris

Highlight


Bies and Moag described interactional justice as comprising “concerns about the fairnessof interpersonal communication” (1986: 44), allowing distinction between procedures andtheir enactments and including communication as an “interactional matter” (1986: 46).However, almost from its introduction, the interactional justice construct has suffered fromlack of clarity (Colquitt et al., 2001; Colquitt & Greenberg, 2003; Greenberg, 1993).Although some scholars view interactional justice as a single construct, others have proposedtwo dimensions of interactional justice (Bies, 1986; Lind & Tyler, 1988). Informational jus-tice speaks to the fairness of information provided during the procedures and outcome dis-tributions related to issues such as the accuracy of the information and the timeliness withwhich the information was provided. Interpersonal justice addresses the fairness of person-oriented treatment such as the respect with which one has been treated. Perhaps indicativeof the lack of clarity regarding the interactional justice construct, Cropanzano, Prehar, andChen simply refer to interactional justice as “usually operationalized as one-to-one transac-tions between individuals” (2002: 329).

Colquitt (2001) developed a 20-item measure and used confirmatory factor analysis to findsupport for four distinct dimensions of organizational justice (distributive, procedural, infor-mational, and interpersonal). Additional empirical findings are mixed. Karriker and Williams(2003) used Colquitt’s items combined with other, direct justice items to find support for onlythree justice dimensions: distributive, interpersonal, and a combined procedural/informational

Figure 1Theoretical Model

System-ReferencedDistributive Justice

OCBS

OCBO

LMX

OMX

Agent-ReferencedProcedural Justice

Agent-ReferencedDistributive Justice

Agent-ReferencedInterpersonal Justice

Procedural Justice

H1

H3

H2

H4

H4, H5, H6

H7

H8

H9

H10

H11

H12, H13

H10, H11, H12

H5

H6

H13

System-Referenced

Chris

Highlight

dimension. Karriker (2006) found support for four dimensions; however the correlationbetween procedural and informational justice approached one, suggesting a single construct.These recent findings are related to Roch and Shanock’s (2006) study, in which theresearchers developed a new interactional justice scale based on Bies’ (2001) reconceptual-ization of interactional justice as strictly interpersonal. Their results yielded a unidimen-sional interactional justice measure that was indistinguishable from interpersonal justice butthat was different from informational justice, essentially saying that interactional justice andinterpersonal justice are the same construct, and that informational justice is distinct frominteractional (interpersonal) justice.

The implication of the aforementioned research is this: Informational justice appears tobe distinct from interpersonal justice, yet its relationship with procedural justice is stillunclear. Multifoci justice researchers have combined informational and interpersonal justiceexplicitly to form an interactional justice construct (Byrne & Cropanzano, 2000) or haveincluded informational items in interactional justice measures (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002).For clarity, our focus in this research is on the three clearly established, distinct justicedimensions: distributive, procedural, and interpersonal.

Another emphasis of this project is the focus of justice perceptions. Following Bies andMoag (1986), Tyler and Bies (1990) posited a two-factor, agent-system perspective on jus-tice (Colquitt et al., 2001; Colquitt & Greenberg, 2003; Greenberg, 1993). Here, the sourceof the justice dispensation determines the dimension under which it falls. Justice is viewedas related either to the system (i.e., organization) or to the agent (i.e., the supervisor, orperson responsible for making the distributions). In this two-factor model, the procedures arerelated to the organization itself in the justice recipient’s perception, and the interpersonaltreatment surrounding these procedures is related to the justice agent, often the recipient’ssupervisor.

Ambrose and Hess (2001) extended the two-factor model by categorizing the four dimensionsof justice (distributive, procedural, informational, and interpersonal) as either system- orperson-focused. They proposed that procedural and informational justice predict system-referenced outcomes, and distributive and interpersonal justice predict person-referencedoutcomes. Similarly, other research has classified each source of justice as directly related toa certain kind of justice (Malatesta & Byrne, 1997; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor,2000). A limitation of this approach, however, is that justice source and justice content areconfounded in such models (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002).

Byrne (1999) addressed this concern by offering a multifoci justice model, proposing thatinterpersonal treatment and formal procedures could stem from both supervisors and orga-nizations. Specifically, she categorized two kinds of justice—procedural and interactional—as both system- and supervisor-referenced. This four-factor model was not supported inByrne’s study, but Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) retested it through a series of confirmatoryfactor analyses. They found that the four-factor model fit their data well and was superior toa single justice factor model and two 2-factor models based on foci and source, respectively.These findings support the assertion that various types of justice may, indeed, be classifiedas multifoci; yet Rupp and Cropanzano did not address the possible multifoci nature of dis-tributive justice, nor did they test a purely interpersonal, rather than interactional, multifociconstruct.


Chris

Highlight

Chris

Highlight

Rupp and Cropanzano’s (2002) results demonstrated cross-foci effects with regard tointeractional justice. Jones, Fassina, and Uggerslev refer to such findings as indicative of an“agent dominance model” (2006: 1). Unlike the agent-system model, in which the justicesource strictly dictates the target of the justice outcome, the agent-dominance model pro-poses that interactional justice is the strongest predictor of unique variance in both OCBI andOCBO. We infer a proxy phenomenon, where the agent is more proximal to the employeethan is the organization, and he or she is the only interpersonal link with the organization asa whole. The organization can publish and enforce procedures and can determine outcomes,but, for interpersonal justice inputs, the supervisor, literally, is the “face” of the organization.Thus, the employee perceives the supervisor’s interactional (in this study, interpersonal) jus-tice inputs as representative of, and integral to, his or her “interpersonal” relationship withthe system. As shown in Figure 1, our theoretical model extends this line of research byaddressing the source(s) of the distributive, procedural, and interpersonal dimensions oforganizational justice and their corresponding behavioral outcomes. Figure 1 includessystem- and agent-referenced procedural and distributive justice, and interpersonal justice,which is expected to exhibit cross-foci, or agent-dominance, effects.

OCB

As shown in Figure 1, the outcomes in our model are aspects of OCB. The dramaticincrease in research attention to OCB in past decades has produced a number of refinementsto the definition and application of the construct (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach,2000). One such refinement is a focus on the beneficiary, or target, of OCB. Williams andAnderson (1991) demonstrated support for a three-factor model of performance, emphasizingtwo broad categories of OCB (in addition to in-role behavior). Behaviors that target the indi-vidual are called OCBI (individual), and behaviors that target the organization as a whole arecalled OCBO (organization). This conceptualization includes no dysfunctional behaviors, andit poses no constraints on the rewards issue, such that it is entirely consistent with the socialexchange premise that an individual will respond to positive fairness perceptions with posi-tive extra-role behaviors that are targeted toward the justice referent. Justice researchers havemodified the OCBI construct in terms of the particular individual who is the target of theOCB, the supervisor. Malatesta (1995) refers to this specific form of OCBI as OCBS.

The Current Study

Exactly how justice perceptions are translated into OCB is a provocative topic in the eyesof justice scholars, and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) provides a theoretical basis forthis process. The relationships that develop because of justice inputs have the effect of mov-ing the exchanges from a transactional, quid pro quo status to exchanges based on mutualfulfillment of unspecified obligations (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). In thisstudy, we focus on two sets of mediators: those between system-referenced justice andOCBO and agent-referenced justice and OCBS.


Chris

Highlight

Chris

Highlight

Organization–Member Exchange (OMX)

In their review of the justice literature, Colquitt and Greenberg (2003) suggest mediators betweenjustice and behavioral outcomes, naming organizational commitment and organizational trustamong them. Consistently, Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) note the mediating roles of organiza-tional trust, organizational commitment, POS, and LMX as operationalizations of exchange rela-tionships. Yet previous social exchange research has not examined these separate constructs withina single study. We suggest that LMX represents social exchange between an employee and his orher supervisor (or agent) and that organizational trust, organizational commitment, and POS repre-sent social exchange between an employee and his or her organization. Of note is Masterson et al.’s(2000) operationalization of POS as representative of the quality of the employee–organization rela-tionship, much like LMX measures the quality of the employee–supervisor relationship (Graen &Scandura, 1987). In contrast, Liao and Rupp (2005) conceptualize organizational commitment asthe system-related counterpart of LMX, and we assert that organizational trust might also be so con-strued. Our contention is that POS is only part of the exchange equation, in that it measuresemployee perceptions of the organization’s devotion to them, but does not include employee devo-tion to the organization, as do organizational trust and organizational commitment. We examinethese three system-related constructs for their relative roles as indicators of an overall organizationalsocial exchange construct, which we will term organization-member exchange, or OMX.

The constructs that we will examine as potential indicators of OMX include organizationaltrust, organizational commitment, and POS. Trust is “a psychological state that provides arepresentation of how individuals understand their relationship with another party in situa-tions that involve risk or vulnerability” (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001: 456). Konovsky and Pugh(1994) found support for trust as a mediator between procedural justice and OCB, using trustin an individual, one’s supervisor, as proxy for trust in an organization. Recently, Greenbergand Wiethoff suggested that justice researchers need to understand more about the relation-ships between trust and justice perceptions: “Further exploration of the link between trust-based expectations and justice perceptions promises to enhance our understanding of whenand how people are willing to respond in accordance with their perceptions of justice or injus-tice” (2001: 284). Because it facilitates one’s interpretations of past justice allocations andassessments of future justice phenomena and maintains the individual’s focus on the organi-zation as a whole, we expect that organizational trust represents an aspect of OMX.

Organizational commitment “represents a global, systemic reaction that people have tothe company for which they work” (Colquitt et al., 2001: 429). Although many studies haveaddressed organizational commitment as affect (e.g., identification), its cognitive componentis also germane to the current research because of the role of cognition in OCBO (Organ &Konovsky, 1989; Williams & Anderson, 1991). Lowe and Vodanovich (1995) and Greenberg(1994) found a strong relationship between distributive justice and global organizationalcommitment; Masterson et al. (2000) found procedural justice to be a stronger predictor ofglobal organizational commitment than was interactional justice. Colquitt et al. (2001) sug-gest that these findings support the agent-system model discussed in the current work. Yet theagent-dominance approach would dictate a relationship between interpersonal justice andboth organizational commitment and OCBO. We suggest that organizational commitmentrepresents an additional component of OMX, helping to maintain the individual’s cognitive



focus on the organization as he or she reacts behaviorally to justice perceptions, thus medi-ating the relationships between system-referenced distributive and procedural justice andOCBO, and between interpersonal justice and OCBO.

POS is “a general perception concerning the extent to which the organization values[employees’] general contributions and cares for their well-being” (Eisenberger, Fasolo, &David-LaMastro, 1990: 51). Podsakoff et al. (2000) provided meta-analytic support for thePOS–OCB relationship, citing findings by Settoon, Bennett, and Liden (1996) and Wayne,Shore, and Liden (1997). Further, setting precedent for the current study, Masterson et al.(2000) found support for the mediating role of POS in the procedural justice–OCBO rela-tionship. In the context of a social exchange relationship between the employee and the orga-nization, an employee’s perception of fairness in their organization-determined outcomes, andthe procedures used by the organization to specify those outcomes, results in the employee’spositive evaluation of the value placed by the organization on their contributions and theirwelfare and, in turn, the employee’s system-referenced performance of citizenship behaviors.POS is expected to serve as the final component of OMX, maintaining the focus of the indi-vidual on the organization and mediating the relationships between system-referenced dis-tributive and procedural justice and OCBO and between interpersonal justice and OCBO.

Rupp and Cropanzano’s (2002) four-factor model did not address the possibility of dis-tributive justice as a multifoci construct and, particularly, as one having system-referencedoutcomes. We extend their work by proposing that distributive justice is a multifoci construct.More specifically, we hypothesize a positive relationship between system-referenced distrib-utive justice and OCBO. (For ease of reference, our hypotheses are labeled in Figure 1.)

Hypothesis 1: System-referenced distributive justice is positively related to OCBO.

With respect to procedural justice, Masterson et al. (2000) characterized procedural jus-tice as system-focused (Ambrose & Hess, 2001) and found a relationship between system-referenced procedural justice and OCBO. We attempt to replicate their finding here.

Hypothesis 2: System-referenced procedural justice is positively related to OCBO.

Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) found a positive, mediated relationship between interac-tional justice and OCBO. By focusing on the more clearly defined interpersonal justice con-struct, we attempt to explore the potential for agent-dominance effects in our model, aswould be indicated by a positive relationship between interpersonal justice and OCBO.

Hypothesis 3: Interpersonal justice is positively related to OCBO.

In addition, we propose that employee reactions to system-referenced distributive andsystem-referenced procedural justice and interpersonal justice are targeted at the organiza-tion, as OCBO, through the mediator OMX, represented by trust, commitment, and POS.

Hypothesis 4: OMX mediates the relationship between system-referenced distributive justice andOCBO.

Hypothesis 5: OMX mediates the relationship between system-referenced procedural justice andOCBO.

Hypothesis 6: OMX mediates the relationship between interpersonal justice and OCBO.

LMX

One facet of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) addresses the relationship between theemployee and the supervisor. Graen, Novak, and Sommerkamp (1982) referred to thedynamic inherent in this dyadic relationship as LMX, ushering in a myriad of studies basedon the tenet that either member of the dyad invests in the other and in their relationship inan effort to reap both tangible and social rewards. Graen and Scandura (1987) posited thatLMX reflects the quality of the supervisor–employee relationship. More specifically, LMXsuggests that the supervisor cultivates his or her relationship with each of his or her employ-ees, in a series of dyadic exchange relationships designed to enhance both the in-role per-formance of the employee and to benefit the supervisor him- or herself, as well as thebroader organization the supervisor represents. Following empirical findings by Settoonet al. (1996) and Wayne et al. (1997), Masterson et al. further explored the assertion that“high-quality LMX relationships lead employees to engage in behaviors that are directlyrelated to their supervisors, such as in-role behavior and organizational citizenship behav-iors” (2000: 740). They found that LMX mediated the relationships between interactionaljustice and both job satisfaction and supervisor-focused citizenship behaviors, OCBS.

Researchers have also suggested that the supervisor acts as proxy for the organization interms of interpersonal exchanges. This suggestion is related to what Jones et al. term the “agent-dominance model” (2006: 1), in which cross-foci effects of interpersonal justice and supervi-sory social exchange, or LMX, would be evident. Consistent with such a model, Rupp andCropanzano (2002) found that supervisory social exchange partially mediated the relationshipbetween interactional justice and OCBS and, with regard to cross-foci effects, that supervisorysocial exchange fully mediated the relationship between interactional justice and OCBO.

In an effort to explore the possible multifoci nature of distributive justice in a multivari-ate model, we include an examination of the proposed positive relationship between agent-referenced distributive justice and agent-focused outcomes, or OCBS.

Hypothesis 7: Agent-referenced distributive justice is positively related to OCBS.

Masterson et al. (2000) examined organization or system-referenced procedural justice,yet we found no published articles that examined relationships between agent-referencedprocedural justice and behavioral outcomes. Therefore, we explore the relationship betweenagent-referenced procedural justice and OCBS.

Hypothesis 8: Agent-referenced procedural justice is positively related to OCBS.

The relationship between interactional justice and OCBS has been established in otherstudies (Malatesta & Byrne, 1997; Masterson et al., 2000); however, these studies were


not multifoci in nature. Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) found a positive, partially mediatedrelationship between interactional justice and OCBS in their multifoci study, yet none ofthese studies tested the more clearly defined interpersonal justice construct as it relates toOCBS. Here, based on the relationship between interactional justice and OCBS, we expectto find a positive relationship between interpersonal justice and OCBS.

Hypothesis 9: Interpersonal justice is positively related to OCBS.

By including the agent-focused aspect of both distributive and procedural justice dimen-sions, as well as the bi-focal, agent-dominance aspect of interpersonal justice and interpersonalsocial exchange, our model sets forth the expectation that LMX will mediate the relationshipsbetween each agent-focused justice dimension and agent-focused extra-role behaviors(OCBS). In addition, it seeks to replicate Rupp and Cropanzano’s (2002) cross-foci results,proposing that LMX will mediate the relationship between interpersonal justice and OCBO.

Hypothesis 10: LMX mediates the relationship between agent-referenced distributive justice andOCBS.

Hypothesis 11: LMX mediates the relationship between agent-referenced procedural justice andOCBS.

Hypothesis 12: LMX mediates the relationship between interpersonal justice and OCBS.Hypothesis 13: LMX mediates the relationship between interpersonal justice and OCBO.

Colquitt and Greenberg (2003) proposed that future organizational justice research shouldinclude, among other things, a stronger integration of organizational justice within the field oforganizational behavior. Our research contributes to that goal by addressing and differentiat-ing the behavioral outcomes of organizational justice, driven by social exchanges. In so doing,it may increase our understanding of the role and importance of justice in organizations.Moreover, the potential contribution of this work is enhanced by its multifoci perspective onjustice, as well as its employment of mediators in an effort to more fully explicate not onlythe relationships between multifoci justice and behavioral outcomes but also to examine howthese social exchange influences operate. The attention to multifoci justice in the context ofthe three clear dimensions of justice is also an innovative approach and one that offers thepromise of a more comprehensive and explanatory model than has previously been presented.

Method

Participants

Data were collected from 536 working adults in the United States using two main sources.First, with permission of their instructors, working business students from five large univer-sities were approached in person or via e-mail and asked to respond to employee-orientedquestions. Second, employees of two large organizations in the Eastern United States wereoffered the opportunity to participate. In addition, the first author recruited participants fromseveral smaller organizations and individual employees, based on personal contacts.



Consenting participants completed either paper and pencil or online surveys and were askedto provide their work supervisors’ names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses,and consent to contact them. The supervisors, for whom contact information and consent tocontact were provided, were sent an e-mail including a link to an electronic survey.

This effort yielded three samples. Sample 1 (N = 319) is composed of employees whocompleted questionnaires but either did not provide consent for their supervisors to be senta questionnaire (n = 105) or whose supervisors did not complete a questionnaire (n = 214).This sample was used for exploratory factor analysis of the justice measures. Samples 2 and3 consist of the 217 employees who completed questionnaires and their 217 supervisors whocompleted behavioral ratings of their employees, respectively. The employee data from thissample were used for confirmatory factor analysis of the justice measures. In addition, thesupervisor-provided ratings of the dependent variables were merged with the employee-provided ratings of the justice dimensions and mediators to form 217 dyads for testing thehypothesized relationships.

Demographics for each sample are shown in Table 1. A comparison of Samples 1 and 2shows that the group of employees whose supervisors did not respond (either because nocontact information was provided for the supervisor or because the supervisor who was con-tacted did not respond—Sample 1) differed from the group of employees whose supervisorsdid respond (Sample 2). As a whole, employees in Sample 2 are older, have more work expe-rience and a higher level of education, and are more likely to work as managers or profes-sionals than employees in Sample 1. Also, there is a higher proportion of women in Sample2. As would be expected, the supervisors who provided performance ratings for employees(Sample 3) tended to be older and have more work experience and education than theemployees they rated.

Measures

Each employee completed scales measuring agent- and system-referenced distributiveand procedural justice and interpersonal justice, as well as organizational trust, organiza-tional commitment, POS, and LMX. The supervisors rated their respective subordinates onOCBO and OCBS. Items were assessed on a 5-point Likert-type scale from (1) strongly dis-agree to (5) strongly agree unless indicated otherwise.

We followed the examples given in Byrne and Cropanzano (2000), which are consistentwith procedures followed by Masterson, Moye, and Bartol (2003) to assess agent- and system-referenced distributive and procedural justice. We created scales for each of the four dimen-sions using the distributive and procedural justice items from Colquitt (2001). Each item wascategorized as either agent- or system-focused, and, where needed, changed to reflect a jus-tice source. Next, an item with the other focus was written for each source-focused item, toincorporate both justice sources in each justice scale. For example, Colquitt’s “My outcomeis justified, given my performance” became both “My outcomes that are controlled by mysupervisor are justified, given my performance” and “My outcomes that are controlled by myorganization are justified, given my performance.” We used Colquitt’s four interpersonal jus-tice items to assess interpersonal justice.


Employees rated their level of organizational trust using Robinson’s (1996) 7-item scale,reflective of Gabarro and Athos’ (1976) dimensions of trust. We excluded one reverse-codeditem that specifically addressed fairness: “I don’t think my employer treats me fairly.”Employees rated their global organizational commitment by responding to Mowday, Steers,and Porter’s (1979) 9-item scale. Employees reported POS using items from Eisenberger,Huntington, Hutchinson, and Sowa (1986). We selected three items from those with the sixhighest loadings in the original scale development study, not including any reverse-codeditems: “The organization strongly considers my goals and values”; “Help is available from the

Table 1Demographics of Samples

Sample 1: Employees Sample 2: EmployeesWhose Supervisor Did Whose Supervisor

Not Complete a Completed a Sample 3:Questionnaire Questionnaire Supervisors

(N = 319) (N = 217) (N = 217)

Ethnic backgroundAsian 9.8 5.1 2.4Black/African American 14.8 15.8 8.5White/Caucasian 68.8 73.0 84.0Hispanic 2.2 4.7 2.8Other 4.4 1.4 2.4

Age25 or less 64.6 40.5 4.226 to 30 16.6 15.8 7.531 to 35 9.2 12.1 17.336 to 40 3.2 10.2 19.2Over 40 6.4 21.4 51.9

GenderFemale 47.9 56.7 39.9

Work experienceLess than 1 year 3.5 0.9 01 to 4 years 30.6 19.6 2.35 to 7 years 35.0 27.1 5.68 to 10 years 12.1 13.6 5.1More than 10 years 18.8 38.8 87.0

EducationHigh school graduate 1.3 1.4 4.7Some college 68.4 47.9 17.3College graduate 15.0 21.6 36.0Some graduate work 10.9 17.8 11.7Graduate degree 4.5 11.3 30.4

Job typeSales 14.7 8.5 —Service 40.7 25.0 —Clerical 10.6 14.6 —Production 5.1 5.2 —Managerial/professional 28.8 46.7 100


organization when I have a problem”; “The organization is willing to extend itself in order tohelp me perform my job to the best of my ability” (Eisenberger et al., 1986: 502). Employeesrated the quality of their relationships with their supervisors (LMX) with an 8-item scale fromWakabayashi, Graen, and Uhl-Bien (1990), which was used by Cropanzano et al. (2002) injustice research. Several response scales are used in this LMX measure (in addition to thestrongly disagree/strongly agree format): (1) not at all, (5) a great deal; (1) rarely, (5) veryoften; (1) none, (5) very high; and (1) extremely ineffective, (5) extremely effective.

We used Williams and Anderson’s (1991) 6-item OCBO scale plus one (reverse-coded)item similar to Williams and Anderson’s telephone-use item written to reflect personalInternet use on the job (“Great deal of time spent with personal Internet searches and com-munications”) for a total of 7 items addressing OCBO. (An example item is “attendance atwork is above the norm.”) We used Malatesta’s (1995) 5-item OCBS scale, derived fromWilliams and Anderson, to measure OCBS. (An example item is “passes along work-relatedinformation to you.”)

Results

Measurement Evaluation

Because we modified the items from Colquitt’s (2001) justice scale to represent eitheragent- or system-referenced distributive and procedural justice, we conducted exploratoryfactor analysis of the distributive and procedural justice items for each justice focus. We fac-tor analyzed data from Sample 1 using principal axis factoring with a direct oblimin (i.e.,oblique) rotation using SPSS 13.0 (SPSS, 2005). For agent-referenced justice, three eigen-values greater than 1.0 were obtained. The four distributive justice items loaded together, butthe procedural justice items were split between two factors. The results for system-referencedjustice were similar in that the distributive justice items loaded on a single factor, but the pro-cedural justice items loaded on two separate factors. A comparison of the results for agent-referenced and system-referenced procedural justice indicated that the same grouping ofitems occurred in each case. We chose to retain the grouping that included the larger numberof items (four). The items we used for agent-referenced procedural justice are: “My super-visor’s procedures have been applied consistently”; “My supervisor’s procedures have beenfree of bias”; “My supervisor’s procedures have been based on accurate information”; and“My supervisor’s procedures have upheld ethical and moral standards.” The items for sys-tem-referenced procedural justice are: “My organization’s procedures have been appliedconsistently”; “My organization’s procedures have been free of bias”; “My organization’sprocedures have been based on accurate information”; and “My organization’s procedureshave upheld ethical and moral standards.”

We used Sample 2 to examine the dimensionality of the justice measures using confir-matory factor analysis in LISREL 8.52 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2002). A 5-factor model fit thedata well (Comparative Fit Index [CFI; Bentler, 1990] = .98, Root Mean Square Error ofApproximation [RMSEA; Steiger, 1990] = .07, χ2 = 324.62, df = 160). Two agent-referencedjustice factors were supported based on significant loadings of 6 items on two factors: dis-tributive and procedural. A 2-factor model of system-referenced justice was supported based


on significant loadings of all 8 items on two factors: distributive and procedural justice. Allfour interpersonal justice items loaded significantly on that factor. Support for the unidi-mensionality of organizational trust, organizational commitment, POS, and LMX was foundthrough confirmatory factor analyses as well.

We conducted an exploratory factor analysis of the items used to measure OCBO andOCBS using the data provided by the 217 supervisors. A 2-factor model of OCB such as theone we propose has been validated in previous work. We chose to use exploratory instead ofconfirmatory factor analysis because our OCBO and OCBS items came from differentsources and also because we added a new item to the measure. Exploratory factor analysisallows each item to load on either factor (or both) which provides more information aboutthe scale at the item level than does confirmatory factor analysis. We again used principalaxis factoring with a direct oblimin (i.e., oblique) rotation using SPSS 13.0. Two eigenval-ues greater than 1.0 (5.15, 1.58) that accounted for 56.14% of the variance were obtained.The five OCBS items loaded cleanly on the first factor. Six of the seven OCBO items loadedcleanly on the second factor. One item, “adheres to informal rules devised to maintain order”had approximately equal loadings on the two factors (.34, .32), so we excluded this itemfrom our OCBO scale, yielding a 6-item scale for OCBO.

We developed scales for each of the 11 variables by taking the mean of all items retainedduring the factor analyses. Scale intercorrelations, means, standard deviations, and reliabili-ties may be found in Table 2.

Structural Model Specification and Hypothesis Evaluation

We examined the structural equation model that included the hypothesized paths shownin Figure 1 using LISREL 8.52 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2002). We used a single indicatorapproach for all latent variables except OMX for which the multiple indicators were organi-zational trust, organizational commitment, and POS. We allowed correlated residuals amongthe endogenous variables. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation and ComparativeFit Index for this model were .08 and .98, respectively (χ2 = 69.44, df = 25), indicating agood fit to the data.

Because previous research has suggested that some relationships between justice andOCB are fully mediated by constructs representing social exchange (Rupp & Cropanzano,2002), we examined a second structural equation model in which the relationships betweenjustice and OCB were fully mediated by either OMX or LMX. This model restricted the sixdirect paths from justice dimensions to OCB, shown in Figure 1, to 0, and, thus, provides atest of the null hypothesis that, as a set, these six paths are equal to 0. This model yielded aχ2 of 93.88 (df = 31). The χ2 difference between this model and our original model is 24.44.This value exceeds the critical χ2 value of 12.59 (p < .05) for a difference of 6 degrees offreedom. Thus, the null hypothesis that, as a set, the six paths from justice dimensions toOCB were equal to 0 was rejected (i.e., at least one of these paths is likely to be significant),and our original, partially mediated model shown in Figure 1 was supported.

We used the results from the partially mediated structural model (shown in Figure 1)to examine the viability of organizational trust, organizational commitment, and POS as

Tabl

e 2

Mea

ns,S

tand

ard

Dev

iati

ons,

and

Cor

rela

tion

s fo

r Sc

aled

Var

iabl

es

Var

iabl

eM

SD1

23

45

67

89

1011

1. S

yste

m-d

istr

ibut

ive

just

ice

3.28

1.07

(.92

)2.

Sys

tem

-pro

cedu

ral j

ustic

e3.

520.

94.6

0**

(.89

)3.

Age

nt-i

nter

pers

onal

just

ice

4.38

0.77

.18 *

*.3

0**

(.92

)4.

Age

nt-d

istr

ibut

ive

just

ice

3.78

0.90

.52*

*.3

8**

.57*

*(.

95)

5. A

gent

-pro

cedu

ral j

ustic

e3.

870.

85.3

4**

.52*

*.6

5**

.64*

*(.

91)

6. O

CB

O4.

220.

65.1

3.0

6.3

0 **

.21*

*.2

5**

(.83

)7.

OC

BS

4.07

0.62

.14*

.09

.20*

*.3

3**

.30*

*.5

2**

(.81

)8.

Org

aniz

atio

nal c

omm

itmen

t3.

550.

85.6

0**

.57*

*.3

9**

.51*

*.4

6**

.16*

*.1

6*(.

93)

9. O

rgan

izat

iona

l tru

st3.

700.

88.6

4**

.75*

*.3

6**

.42*

*.4

3**

.12

.12

.71*

*(.

86)

10. P

OS

3.42

0.92

.68*

*.6

8**

.36*

*.4

6**

.46*

*.0

8.1

6*.7

9**

.75*

*(.

90)

11. L

MX

3.85

0.77

.26*

*.3

2**

.59*

*.5

9**

.69*

*.1

9**

.40*

*.4

8**

.33*

*.4

7**

(.90

)

Not

e:C

oeff

icie

nt a

lpha

sho

wn

on d

iago

nal.

N =

217.

*p<

.05.

**p

<.0

1.

126


indicators of OMX and to test our hypotheses. First, our decision to use organizational trust,organizational commitment, and POS as indicators of a single latent variable is supported bythe correlations among the indicators (see Table 2): .71 between organizational trust andorganizational commitment, .75 between organizational trust and POS, and .79 betweenorganizational commitment and POS. The squared multiple correlations from the LISRELoutput for organizational trust, organizational commitment, and POS were .74, .71, and .83,respectively. These values are interpreted as the percentage of variance in the indicator (e.g.,organizational trust) that is accounted for by the OMX latent variable, and they represent thereliability of each scale as an indicator of OMX. We also calculated the reliability of theOMX composite to be .90. Thus, the OMX latent variable is reliable and each of its indica-tors is strongly associated with the latent variable.

Figure 2 shows the significant completely standardized path coefficients from the par-tially mediated structural equation model. The first three hypotheses relate to direct rela-tionships between organizational justice and OCBO. Hypotheses 1 and 2, thatsystem-referenced distributive justice and system-referenced procedural justice are posi-tively related to OCBO, were not supported. Hypothesis 3, that interpersonal justice ispositively related to OCBO, was supported (γ = .34, p < .001). For our hypotheses of medi-ation to be supported, both the path from the justice dimension to the mediator and thepath from the mediator to OCB must be significant. The three paths from system-referenceddistributive justice, system-referenced procedural justice, and interpersonal justice to

Figure 2Significant Completely Standardized Path Coefficients

From the Partially Mediated Model

System-Referenced

Distributive Justice

OCBS

OCBO

LMX

OMX

Agent-Referenced

Procedural Justice

Agent-Referenced

Distributive Justice

Interpersonal Justice

System-Referenced

Procedural Justice

.48***

.19**

.54*** .21*

.51***

.20***

.01

.34***

-.07

.42***

.13

For simplicity, nonsignificant direct paths between justice dimensions and OCB are excluded.*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001


OMX were significant; however, OMX was not significantly related to OCBO. Therefore,Hypotheses 4 through 6, that OMX mediates the relationships between the justice dimen-sions and OCBO, were not supported (see Figure 2).

Hypothesis 7, that agent-referenced distributive justice is positively related to OCBS wassupported (γ = .21, p < .05); however, Hypotheses 8 and 9, that agent-referenced proceduraljustice and interpersonal justice would be positively related to OCBS, were not supported.The final set of hypotheses concerned LMX as a mediator between justice dimensions andOCBS and OCBO. Hypothesis 10 was supported: LMX mediated the relationship betweenagent-referenced distributive justice and OCBS (γdistributive justice → LMX = .19, p < .01 and β LMX →

OCBS = .51, p < .001). Hypothesis 11, that LMX mediates the relationship between agent-referenced procedural justice and OCBS, was also supported (γprocedural justice → LMX = .54, p < .001and βLMX → OCBS = .51, p < .001). Hypotheses 12 and 13 were not supported. Interpersonal jus-tice was not significantly related to LMX, so LMX did not mediate the relationship betweeninterpersonal justice and either OCBS (Hypothesis 12) or OCBO (Hypothesis 13).

Discussion

Applying social exchange theory, this research explored further the possible differentialeffects of multifoci organizational justice perceptions (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002) on OCB.This work also examined the mechanisms through which particular justice perceptions aretranslated into OCBs (Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998), and attempted to delineatewhether behavioral outcomes are targeted at the supervisor (OCBS) or at the organization asa whole (OCBO; Williams & Anderson, 1991). The multifoci perspective on justice and theemployment of mediators offered the potential of explicating more fully the relationshipsbetween multifoci justice and behavioral outcomes, as well as examining how these influ-ences operate. We were most careful in our study to give attention to the current state ofjustice measurement, deciding that the “cleanest” model would include only the most well-established dimensions and measures. The relationships in the final model, therefore, are notonly distinguished by construct clarity, but are also consistent with a multifoci approach.

Rather than an agent-system model, we found support for an agent-dominance patternbased on the cross-foci influence of interpersonal justice on OMX and OCBO. These find-ings served to clarify further the bi-focal nature of distributive and procedural justice, whileilluminating the potential mono-focus of interpersonal justice and the possible proxy effectof the supervisor in implementing procedures. The social exchange foundation of LMX wasevident as this variable mediated two agent-referenced justice–performance relationshipsand supported the premise of this research that justice inputs and investments yield both rec-iprocal and exponential behavioral responses, largely because of, and through, theemployee’s perceptions of the quality of his or her relationship with the supervisor.

Multidimensional Justice Foci and OCB Dimensions

The hypotheses relating justice source to behavioral outcomes, that is, those proposingthat system-referenced justice perceptions have an impact on OCBO and those proposingthat agent (supervisor)-referenced justice perceptions have significant relationships with


OCBS, received mixed support. Specifically, system-referenced distributive and proceduraljustice were not significantly related to OCBO, yet agent-referenced distributive justice hada significant direct relationship with OCBS, and agent-referenced distributive and proceduraljustice had significant indirect relationships with OCBS. In addition, interpersonal justicewas directly related to OCBO. Taken together, these results lead us to conclude that thesupervisor serves as proxy for the organization in the eyes of the employee. These results are,indeed, consistent with an agent-dominance model, in which interactional justice is expectedto predict both OCBS and OCBO. Here, our focus on interpersonal justice, rather than aninteractional construct that includes both interpersonal justice and informational justice,helps us see that the agent is the “face” of the organization to the employee. Removing theinfluence of informational justice on the interactional justice measure may have been thebasis for revealing this agent-dominance phenomenon in our study.

Second, by crossing three justice types with both referents (with the exception of interper-sonal justice) and allowing the nonconfounded dimensions to emerge, the current research pro-vided information about the differential behavioral outcomes of the five justice dimensions.Although Byrne and Cropanzano (2000) found support for relationships between system-referenced interactional justice and OCBO and between agent-referenced procedural justiceand OCBS, their findings regarding multifoci distributive justice were inconclusive.Furthermore, Byrne (1999) and Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) did not test for a multifoci dis-tributive justice construct, and Rupp and Cropanzano dropped multifoci procedural justicefrom their model tests. The current research offers an extension of the previous work, as ithypothesized OCBO as the system-referenced outcome for each system-referenced percep-tion and interpersonal justice and OCBS as the agent-referenced outcome for each agent-referenced perception and interpersonal justice. Our findings support the multifoci nature ofdistributive justice, in addition to providing evidence to support positive direct and indirectrelationships between agent-referenced distributive justice and OCBS and between agent-referenced procedural justice and OCBS. These results may indicate that employees ascribe thefairness of organizational procedures and outcomes to their supervisors who implement themand respond to benefit the supervisor when their procedures and outcomes are fair. Thus, thedifferential behavioral outcomes related to multifoci justice dimensions that were demonstratedin this model offer us a more detailed description of the nuanced justice perception–behavioraloutcome relationship than has previously been presented.

We contend that the cross-foci, agent-dominance results in our study are entirely consis-tent with the theoretical premise of this research, as based in social exchange theory. Theidea that social exchange processes both facilitate and encourage behaviors that reciprocateand/or yield enhanced behavioral responses to social inputs and investments has beenapplied both to individuals and to organizations. The underlying premise of social exchangeis that the organization can enter into an exchange relationship with an individual, theemployee, wherein the employee perceives his or her relationship with the organization asone of a series of exchanges. Our research essentially juxtaposed the idea that an individualwould not serve as proxy for the organization, consistent with the agent-system model, withthe assertion that a person in a formal organizational role may, indeed, be capable of repre-senting, or acting as, the organization in the eyes of the perceivers, consistent with the agent-dominance model. Thus, it would have been reasonable to expect that interpersonal justicewould have effects that, because of this proxy relationship, are focused on the organization.


In fact, the responses of employees to perceptions of interpersonal justice appear to be exhib-ited through behaviors that help the organization in general rather than helping behavior tar-geted toward the supervisor. Perhaps, then, one implication of these results is that, whereasdistributive and procedural justice constructs may be distinguished by their respective referentsand are, therefore, bi-focal variables, interpersonal justice is more of a monocle. That is, itsits over one “eye,” or point of reference, but serves to inform and instigate behavioralresponses on behalf of the other referent. That other eye, or point of reference, has no lens,so that all of the input regarding interpersonal justice comes in through this singular, agent-referenced construct. On a day-to-day basis, the employee’s experience with the supervisoris more salient, more proximal than is the employee’s experience with the broader organiza-tion. The behavioral outcomes, however, are directed not at the first referent, but, by proxy,they target the other, which, in this case, is the organization itself. With this clarification,future research regarding multifoci justice constructs may benefit from the omission of aspecific referent for interpersonal justice.

Mediation

In addition to examining the differential impacts of multifoci, multidimensional justicejudgments on OCBO and OCBS, this research addressed the possible mediating roles of cer-tain constructs that were hypothesized to maintain the individual’s focus on the justicesource and, thereby, to facilitate these differential effects. First, we examined the role of sev-eral constructs that have been included in previous research to represent what we refer to asOMX. Organizational trust, organizational commitment, and POS were not only stronglyrelated to each other but also served as clear and balanced indicators of OMX. Takentogether these constructs capture not only the support employees receive from the organiza-tion but also the psychological returns provided to the organization by employees in termsof trust and loyalty. Some researchers have wondered where the “exchange” in LMX is(Rousseau, 1998). The inclusion of both POS and organizational trust and commitment inOMX elucidates this exchange process. Although OMX did not mediate justice–OCB rela-tionships, our conceptualization of social exchange between employee and organization hasrelevance for future social exchange research.

With respect to mediation, we found support for LMX as a mediator of justice–OCB relation-ships, specifically the agent-referenced distributive and agent-referenced procedural justice–OCBSrelationships. Thus, the quality of the employee’s relationship with his or her supervisorserves to facilitate the employee’s extra-role behaviors that are targeted at the justice source,the supervisor. By practical extension, an organization might expect that extra-role behaviorstargeted at the supervisor will also benefit the organization.

OMX did not have a significant relationship with OCBO in this sample, so it did not serveas a mediator. One interpretation of this result is related to the Konovsky and Pugh (1994)research that set the precedent for the mediating role of trust in justice–performance relation-ships using the supervisor as proxy for the organization, rather than directly addressing theindividual’s level of trust in the organization itself. Perhaps the aforementioned relativestrength of the interpersonal factor has some bearing here, in that, when the supervisor is theface of the organization, the employee trusts the supervisor-as-organization and acts to benefit


the organization through his or her supervisor (i.e., OCBS). In this sample, agent-referencedinterpersonal justice was positively related to both OMX and OCBO, leading us to considerwhether the proxy phenomenon may have confounded the nature of the exchange relationship.These findings are interesting in light of Liao and Rupp’s (2005) recent explorations of cross-foci justice effects, and, again, are consistent with an agent-dominance approach.

Limitations

One limitation of this research lies with its design. Even though extant research supports theunidirectional progression of justice judgments to outcomes, the possibility of recursive rela-tionships still exists. It is reasonable to expect, for example, that the quality of an employee’srelationship with his or her supervisor has a great deal of bearing on his or her justice percep-tions. Furthermore, positive reinforcement, rewards, or satisfaction an employee may receiveas a result of performing in-role and extra-role tasks may impact both the LMX relationshipand justice perceptions. As prior cross-sectional studies have done, however, this researchexamined the relationships of justice perceptions and behavioral outcomes as if they werecausal and unidirectional. Furthermore, examination of these relationships may benefit from alongitudinal approach in which their possible recursive natures may become evident. Anotherlimitation of this study involves the use of employee–supervisor dyads. This approach servesto introduce performance and behavioral data from a relatively objective source, the supervi-sor, rather than relying on self-reports, which may be biased. However, we did not collect dataregarding the reason(s) why an employee did not share his or her supervisor’s contact infor-mation, why an employee who shared this information requested that their supervisor not becontacted, or why a contacted supervisor did not respond to the survey. The latter reason maybe impossible to obtain, simply because a nonresponding supervisor is, by definition, not oneto provide such information. With the exception of employees who choose not to participate atall, however, employees could be asked for their reasoning in prohibiting contact with theirsupervisors. Because we did not have this data, we could not determine if there were specificintergroup differences that covaried systematically with other constructs of interest.

We note, however, that any differences in willingness to allow contact with the supervisor arelikely because of the fact that individuals who have advanced within their organizations, andwho have more experience and more education, are likely to have more stable relationships withtheir supervisors. This possibility leads us to suspect a restriction of range issue with regard toour outcome variables, OCBO and OCBS, as employees were more likely to provide permis-sion for their supervisors to be contacted if they had good relationships with their supervisors.Also, the supervisors may be more likely to respond to the OCB questionnaire if they can offerpositive ratings of their employees. We do not have data to determine whether a high qualityemployee–supervisor relationship has a suppressing effect on perceptions and salience of theemployee–organization relationship, as might be inferred from the proxy phenomenon dis-cussed in this work. If this is the case, the respondents would be expected to rate their relation-ships with their supervisors (i.e., LMX) highly, perhaps to the neglect of the OMX relationship,thus inhibiting what was expected to be a significant relationship between OMX and OCBO.

Another limitation of this research is the absence of a system-referenced interpersonaljustice measure. By deliberately assessing system-referenced interpersonal justice andagent-referenced interpersonal justice, researchers could remove any bias toward viewing


interpersonal justice as a mono-focus construct. Comparing items using “supervisor” andsome other “interpersonal” referent might prove interesting in future research.

Future Research

Future research should continue to examine the justice construct empirically, paying care-ful attention to issues of justice source, justice type, and their interactions. The fact that jus-tice researchers have used various dimensional models to study the antecedents andconsequences of fairness perceptions, even in relatively recent efforts, highlights the need foradditional empirical research to establish a fixed and durable representation of the justiceconstruct. Specifically, future research may benefit from inclusion of a system-referenced“interpersonal” construct when the agent-referenced construct is applied, so that each of thejustice dimensions has a focal counterpart.

Once this measurement feat is accomplished, further attention to mediators and moderators ofjustice–outcome relationships should be explored. In particular, our conceptualization of the system-related counterpart of LMX, OMX, could be examined empirically to determine the extent to whichit represents the construct of relationship quality regarding the organization-member exchange.

Other outcome variables, including those representing performance, should be considered.These performance variables might include individual-, team-, and organization-level outcomes.

Managerial Implications

The impact of interpersonal justice on both OMX and OCBO indicates the strength ofinterpersonal fairness in predicting outcomes. Certainly, interpersonal justice is the most“social” factor in this social exchange based model. Perhaps, interpersonal justice simply out-performs other forms and sources of justice because of these obvious social inputs into theemployee–supervisor relationship versus the more mechanistic inputs of organizational pro-cedures and outcome distributions. The implication for practitioners is that fair interpersonaltreatment leads to perceptions of high quality relationships with the organization and also toextra-role behaviors that benefit the organization directly. In addition, when the supervisormakes procedural and outcome fairness investments in his or her relationship with theemployees, these relationships are enhanced, leading to employee behaviors that benefit thesupervisor. We assert that, as a matter of practice, extra-role behaviors that benefit the super-visor eventually benefit the organization as a whole, and managers would do well to note that,when an organization’s culture is characterized by high-quality supervisor–employee rela-tionships, the ramifications for overall productivity and performance are impressive.

References

Ambrose, M. 2002. Contemporary justice research: A new look at familiar questions. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 89: 803-812.

Ambrose, M. L., & Hess, R. L., Jr. 2001. Individuals’ responses to fairness: A consideration of management andmarketing models. Paper presented at the International Roundtable on Innovations in Organizational JusticeResearch, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Bentler, P. M. 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 238-246.


Bies, R. J. 1986. Identifying principles of interactional justice: The case of corporate recruiting. In R. J. Bies(Chair), Moving beyond equity theory: New directions in research on justice in organizations. Symposium con-ducted at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL.

Bies, R. J. 2001. Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.),Advances in organizational justice: 89-118. San Francisco: Stanford University Press.

Bies, R. J., Martin, C. L., & Brockner, J. 1993. Just laid off, but still a “good citizen?” Only if the process is fair.Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. 6: 227-238.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. 1986. Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H.Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on Negotiations in Organizations: 43-55. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.Byrne, Z. S. 1999. How do procedural and interactional justice influence multiple levels of organizational out-

comes? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,Atlanta, GA.

Byrne, Z. S., & Cropanzano, R. 2000. To which source do I attribute this fairness? Differential effects of multifocijustice on organizational work behaviors. Paper presented at the 15th annual conference of the Society forIndustrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.

Colquitt, J. A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journalof Applied Psychology, 86: 386-400.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. 2001. Justice at the millennium: Ameta-analysis of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 425-445.

Colquitt, J. A., & Greenberg, J. 2003. Organizational justice: A fair assessment of the state of the literature. InJ. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (2nd ed.): 165-210). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., & Conway, N. 2004. The employment relationship through the lens of social exchangetheory. In J. Coyle-Shapiro, L. M. Shore, M. S. Taylor, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), The employment relationship:Examining psychological and contextual perspectives: 5-28. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal ofManagement, 31: 874-900.

Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. 2002. Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural frominteractional justice. Group & Organization Management, 27: 324-351.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. 2001. The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12: 450-469.Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & David-LaMastro, V. 1990. Perceived organizational support and employee diligence,

commitment and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 51-59.Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 71: 500-507.French, W. 1964. The personnel management process: Human resources administration. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Gabarro, J. J., & Athos, J. 1976. Interpersonal relations and communications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Graen, G. B., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. 1982. The effects of leader–member exchange and job design on pro-

ductivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,30: 109-131.

Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. 1987. Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings and B. Staw(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: 175-208. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Greenberg, J. 1987. A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12: 9-22.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: 79-103.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Greenberg, J. 1994. Using socially fair treatment to promote acceptance of a work site smoking ban. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 79: 288-297.

Greenberg, J., & Wiethoff, C. 2001. Organizational justice as proaction and reaction: Implications for research andapplication. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in Human ResourceManagement: 271-302. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jones, D. A., Fassina, N. E., & Uggerslev, K. L. 2006. Meta-analytic tests of justice and OCB: Agent-system, agent-dominance, and shared-variance models. In K. M. Weaver (Ed.), Best paper proceedings of the sixty-sixthannual meeting of the Academy of Management. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management.


Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. 2002. LISREL 8.52. Chicago: Scientific Software.Karriker, J. H. 2006, August. Organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.Karriker, J. H., Ireland, R. D., & Coombs, J. E. 2004, April. Human resources strategy and entrepreneurial firm

performance: A causal model of the resource based view. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Societyfor Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.

Karriker, J. H., & Williams, M. L. 2003, April. Understanding direct and indirect perspectives on organizationaljustice. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,Orlando, FL.

Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. 1994. Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal,37: 656-669.

Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. 2005. The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: A cross-levelmultifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 242-256.

Lin, N. 2001. Social capital. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.Lowe, R. H., & Vodanovich, S. J. 1995. A field study of distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satis-

faction and organizational commitment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10: 99-114.Malatesta, R. M. 1995. Understanding the dynamics of organizational and supervisory commitment using a social

exchange framework. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, MI.Malatesta, R. M., & Byrne, Z. S. 1997. The impact of formal and interactional procedures on organizational outcomes.

Paper presented at the 12th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.St. Louis, MO.

Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. 2000. Integrating justice and social exchange: Thediffering effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43:738-748.

Masterson, S. S., Moye, N. A., & Bartol, K. M. 2003. Social exchange and justice: Further examining the sourceof justice. Paper presented at the 18th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, Orlando, FL.

Moorman, R. H. 1991. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Dofairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 845-855.

Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. 1998. Does perceived organizational support mediate the rela-tionship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal,41: 351-357.

Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. 1993. Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenshipbehavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural justice. EmployeeResponsibilities and Rights Journal, 6: 209-225.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. 1979. The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 14: 224-247.

Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: LexingtonBooks.

Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. A. 1989. Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenshipbehavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 157-164.

Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 1993. Citizenship behavior and fairness in organizations: Issues and direc-tions for future research. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6: 257-269.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors: Acritical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal ofManagement, 26: 513-539.

Robinson, S. L. 1996. Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41:574-599.

Roch, S. G., & Shanock, L. R. 2006. Organizational justice in an exchange framework: Clarifying organizationaljustice distinctions. Journal of Management, 32: 299-322.

Rousseau, D. M. 1998. LMX meets the psychological contract: Looking inside the black box of leader–memberexchange. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches: Vol. 2, 149-154.Stamford, CT: JAI.

Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. 2002. The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting work-place outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,89: 925-946.

Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. 1996. Social exchange in organizations: The differential effects of per-ceived organizational support and leader–member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 219-227.

Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Taylor, M. S., Coyle-Shapiro, J., Liden, R. C., & McLean-Parks, J. 2004. Theemployee–organization relationship: A timely concept in a period of transition. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.),Research in personnel and human resources management: 1-113. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

SPSS, Inc. (2005). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. v 13.0. Chicago, IL: Author.Steiger, J. H. 1990. Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate

Behavioral Research, 25: 173-180.Tansky, J. W. 1993. Justice and organizational citizenship behavior: What is the relationship? Employee Responsibilities

and Rights Journal, 6: 195-207.Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. 1975. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. 1990. Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In Carroll,

J. S. (Ed.), Applied social psychology in organizational settings: 77-98. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Wakabayashi, M., Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1990. Generalizability of the hidden investment hypothesis among

line managers in five leading Japanese corporations. Human Relations, 43: 1099-116.Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. 1997. Perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange:

A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 82-111.Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organi-

zational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17: 601-617.

Biographical Notes

Joy H. Karriker earned her PhD degree at Virginia Commonwealth University. She is an assistant professor ofmanagement at East Carolina University. Her research interests include organizational justice, social exchange,antecedents of firm performance, and human resource strategy.

Margaret L. (Peg) Williams earned her PhD degree at Indiana University. She is an associate professor of managementat Virginia Commonwealth University. Her current research interests include organizational justice, compensation, andwork life issues.


Karriker & Williams 2009

Documents

workplace justice

procedural justice

interpersonal justice

justice foci

thedimensions of justice

effects of organizational

kind of citizenship

rupp cropanzano