Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mapping the Main Roads to Fairness: Examining the Managerial Context of Fairness Promotion

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the managerial context surrounding fairness promotion using a multi-method examination that employs interviews and a survey of practicing managers. The results of these examinations describe how managers tend to focus their efforts to promote fairness on fairly allocating rewards and responsibilities (i.e., promoting distributive fairness), accurately and consistently applying organizational policies (i.e., promoting procedural fairness) and providing representation and understanding to their subordinates around key organizational issues (i.e., promoting informational fairness and voice). Analyses of the interview and survey data show how managers’ efforts to promote employee development, enact managerial propriety, and demonstrate moral leadership mediate relationships between their fundamental desires to develop positive working relationships with their subordinates and the efforts they make to promote fairness. This paper concludes with a discussion about how this work refines and extends research on how and why managers promote fairness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1For example, organizational theorists have identified how managers’ fundamental desires to motivate subordinates by exerting control over their work activities often lead them to use methods that violate fairness standards (Rousseau et al. 2006; Spreitzer and Mishra 1999). Regarding developing positive superior-subordinate relationships, Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory emphasizes how leaders often treat groups of employees unequally in their development of different quality relationships with members of their in-groups and out-groups (Bauer and Green 1996; Scandura et al. 1986; Schriesheim et al. 1998).

  2. Interestingly, none of the managers interviewed mentioned issues related to interpersonal fairness (i.e., promoting dignity and respect through, for example, efforts to maintain propriety) in their descriptions of how they promote fairness. While surprising, examinations of the extant literature confirmed that this finding was consistent with those reported in previous qualitative research on the topic (e.g., Sheppard and Lewicki 1987; Kim and Mauborgne 1997). While the interviewees in this study generally agreed that promoting their employees’ dignity and respect is important, they viewed these activities as qualitatively different from the actions that they took to promote fairness. “I think those (i.e., actions promoting the dignity and respect of others) are even above fairness. I think dignity and respect are core human things that you...that I think you have to have. I think it transcends just working...it has to be in your values that you respect people...I think it goes beyond just work.”

  3. Please note that this technique differs from Baron and Kenny (1986) in that it does not require a path between independent and dependent variables to first be significant (the “c” path), then insignificant (the “c’” path) for mediation to be established (Preacher and Hayes 2004, 2008).

References

  • Anderson, S. W., Christ, M. H., Dekker, H. C., & Sedatole, K. L. (2013). The use of management controls to mitigate risk in strategic alliances: Field and survey evidence. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423–1440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). The development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538–1567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, T. E. (1998). Integrity in organizations: Beyond honesty and conscientiousness. Academy of Management Review, 23, 154–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 289–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y.-R. (2012). Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 994–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brebels, L., De Cremer, D., Van Dijke, M., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Fairness as a social responsibility: A moral self-regulation account of procedural justice enactment. British Journal of Management, 22, 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, J. (2006). Why it’s so hard to be fair. Harvard Business Review, 84, 122–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunderson, S., & Thompson, J. A. (2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 32–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, T. F. (1972). Content Analysis: A technique for systematic inference from communications. Winnapeg: University of Manitoba Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y.-R., & Church, A.-H. (1993). Reward allocation preferences in groups and organizations. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 4, 25–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A Meta-Analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Yee, N. K. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conger, J. (1998). Qualitative research as the cornerstone methodology for understanding leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 107–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 821–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B. M., & Folger, R. (2003). Deontic justice: The role of moral principles in workplace fairness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 1019–1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D., Mohler, C., & Schminke, M. (2001). Three roads to organizational justice. Research in personnel and human resources management, 20, 1–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis for distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann, K. (1997). Implicit justifications and self-serving group allocations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann, K., Samuels, S., Ross, L., & Bazerman, M. (1997). Self-interest and fairness in problems of resource allocation: Allocators versus recipients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1061–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 303–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1992). A due process metaphor for performance appraisal. Research in Organizational Behavior, 14, 129–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. (2001). Fairness as a dependent variable: Why tough times can lead to bad management. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (pp. 97–118). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. (1998). When tough times make tough bosses: Managerial distancing as a function of layoff blame. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 100–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. (1972). Designing complex organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S., & Moran, P. (1996). Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 1, 13–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilliland, S. W., & Paddock, L. (2005). Organizational justice across human resource management decisions. In J. K. Ford & G. Hodgkinson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 149–175). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1990). Look fair vs. being fair: Managing impressions of organizational justice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 111–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogervorst, N., DeCremer, D., & van Dijke, M. (2013). When do leaders grant voice? How leaders’ perceptions of follwers belongingness needs affect the enactment of fair procedures. Human Relations, 66, 973–992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jepson, D. (2009). Leadership context: The importance of departments. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30, 36–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (1997). Fair process: Managing in the knowledge economy. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 65–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch, L., Sambamurthy, V., Ko, D. G., & Purvis, R. L. (2002). Controlling information systems development projects: The view from the client. Management Science, 48, 484–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, M. A., Roberson, L., & Rymph, R. D. (1998). What motivates fairness? The role of subordinate assertive behavior on managers’ interactional fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 731–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive: some hypotheses as to its origins and forms. Journal of Personality, 45, 1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M. J. (1981). The justice motive in human relations: Some thoughts on what we know and need to know about justice. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 11–35). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 91–131). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167–218). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S., & Whiteside, H. D. (1973). Equity and the use of reward to elicit high performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lissak, R. L., & Sheppard, B. H. (1983). Beyond fairness: The criterion problem in research on dispute resolution. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, C. P. (2010). Control to cooperation: Examining the role of managerial authority in portfolios of managerial action. In S. Sitkin, L. B. Cardinal, & K. Bijlsma-Frankema (Eds.), Organizational control (pp. 265–295). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, C. P., Bendersky, C., & Morrill, C. (2011). Fairness monitoring: Contextualizing fairness judgments in organizations”. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1045–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. D., & Molinsky, A. (2008). Navigating the bind of necessary evils: Psychological engagement and the production of interpersonally sensitive behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 847–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masterson, S. S., Byrne, Z. S., & Mao, H. (2005). Interpersonal and informational justice: Identifying the differential antecedents of interactional justice behaviors. In S. Gilliland, D. Steiner, D. Skarlicki, & K. van den Bos (Eds.), Research in social issues in management (Vol. 4, pp. 79–103). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meindl, J. R. (1989). Managing to be fair: An exploration of values, motives and leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 252–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2001). Applying regression and correlation: A guide for students and researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, R. H., Darnold, T. C., Dunn, C. P., & Priesemuth, M. (2013). Toward the measurement of perceived leader integrity: Introducing a multidimensional approach. Journal of Change Management, 12, 383–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G., & Jauch, L. R. (2002). Toward a contextual theory of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 797–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25, 833–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patient, D., & Skarlicki, D. (2005). Why managers don’t always do the right thing when delivering bad news. In S. Gilliland, D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in management (pp. 149–278). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, Y.-E., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 36(4), 717–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M., Ho, V. T., & Greenberg, J. (2006). I-deals: Idiosyncratic terms in employment relationships. Academy of Management Review, 31, 977–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M., & McLean Parks, J. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 15, 1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scandura, T., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986). When managers decide not to decide autocratically: An investigation of leader-member exchange and decision influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7, 579–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., & Scandura, T. A. (1998). A within-and between-groups analysis of leader-member exchange as a correlate of delegation and as a moderator of delegation relationships with performance and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 298–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Paddock, E. L. (2009). An actor-focused model of justice rule adherence and violation: The role of managerial motives and discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 756–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seppala, T., Lipponen, J., Pirttila, A.-M., & Lipsanen, J. (2012). A trust-focused model of leaders’ fairness enactment. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11, 20–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, B. H., & Lewicki, R. J. (1987). Toward general principles of managerial fairness. Social Justice Research, 1, 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitkin, S. B., & Bies, R. J. (1993). Social Accounts in conflict situations: Using explanations to manage conflict. Human Relations, 46, 349–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skitka, L. (2003). Of different minds: An accessible identity model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 286–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snell, S. A. (1992). Control theory in strategic human resource management: The mediating effect of administrative information. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 292–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snell, S. A., & Dean, J. W. (1992). Integrated manufacturing and human resource management: A human capital perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 467–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spreitzer, G. M., & Mishra, A. K. (1999). Giving up control without losing control: Trust and its substitutes’ effects on managers’ involving employees in decision making. Group and Organization Management, 24, 155–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. A. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 830–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why do people help organizations?: Social identity and pro-organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 201–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 151–191). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiesenfeld, B., & Thibault, V. (1997). Managers are employees, too: Exploring the relationships between procedural fairness, managers’ self-perceptions, and managerial behaviors following a layoff. Academy of Management Proceedings, 97, 359–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, J., & Thye, S. (2011). A theoretical model and new test of managerial legitimacy in work teams. Social Forces, 90, 839–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks the members of the Justice Roundtable for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. In addition, the author wishes to thank the Georgetown Institute for the Study of Markets and Ethics (GISME) for its support of this research effort.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University, 37th and O Streets, Washington, DC, 20057, USA

    Chris P. Long

Authors
  1. Chris P. Long
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris P. Long.

Appendices

Because follow-up questions were tailored to address the issues raised by a particular manager, they were unique to each interview. The questions presented here reflect real follow-up questions asked of interview participants.

Appendix 1: Partial Interview Protocol (with Examples of Follow-up Questions)

Because follow-up questions were tailored to address the issues raised by a particular manager, they were unique to each interview. The questions presented here reflect real follow-up questions asked of interview participants.

(Note: this section of the interview was preceded by questions about the managers’ organizational contexts and work tasks)

  1. (1)

    How important is it that your employees believe that you treat them fairly?

    Examples of follow-up questions

    1. (a)

      ‘Why? What does this enable you to do?’

    2. (b)

      ‘What about the way you treat them is inherently fair?’

    3. (c)

      ‘What does that (fairness) mean?’

    4. (d)

      ‘What about this situation makes you think about fairness?’

  2. (2)

    “How do you promote fairness?” (probe for detailed examples)

    Examples of follow-up questions

    1. (a)

      ‘Do you take steps to actually distribute those opportunities fairly? What’s the criterion that you use to distribute those opportunities?’

    2. (b)

      ‘How do you communicate this (fairness) to people?’

    3. (c)

      ‘Do you actually ask people what’s fair to them?’

    4. (d)

      ‘With that in mind…how do you communicate to them that your decision-making criteria are fair as well?’

  3. (3)

    “Why do you promote fairness?” (probe for details)

    Examples of follow-up questions

    1. (a)

      ‘How does trying to be fair affect your ability to manage?’

    2. (b)

      ‘What would happen if your employees didn’t think you were fair?’

    3. (c)

      ‘Comparing people against their own metrics? What prompted you to institute this?’

    4. (d)

      ‘So this is an entirely ethical decision?’

  4. (4)

    “When you think about employees viewing you as fair, put yourself in their position and tell me how you would like them to view you?” (probe for details)

    Examples of follow-up questions

    1. (a)

      ‘What things would they think about? What would they say?’

    2. (b)

      ‘What are the “rules of fairness” that you want them to understand?’

    3. (c)

      ‘So if people think you are not fair, how would that affect your ability to manage?’

    4. (d)

      ‘If that subordinate isn’t given that opportunity, are you concerned that something might happen?’

  5. (5)

    “What do you do to get employees to feel that way?” (obtain specifics)

    Examples of follow-up questions

    1. (a)

      ‘What are the actions?…..How do you make sure they see it?’

    2. (b)

      ‘Are there times when you are more cautious about using that approach?’

    3. (c)

      ‘You actively try to be fair?’

    4. (d)

      ‘How do you rectify a situation like that?’

Appendix 2: Initial Item Testing

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

An exploratory factor analysis was performed on a sample of managers collected through MTurk (n = 300) who reported on the efforts they made to promote fairness. This analysis was used to perform preliminary tests on the factor structure and reliability of the measures used in this study. Factors with eigenvalues over 1.0 (principal component extraction) and items loading over .40 on one factor were retained and evaluated for reliability with other items that loaded onto that factor (equamax rotation). Table 5 displays the results of this factor analysis and initial reliability tests on this data. Eight factors with eigenvalues of 1.0 were obtained. Details about these scales are provided in the methods section of Study 2.

Table 5 Exploratory factor analysis of managers’ motivations and behaviors to promote fairness
Full size table

Predictor Variables. The five-item motivate employees’ work efforts and the five-item develop positive superior-subordinate relationships scales obtained Cronbach’s alphas of .88 and.87, respectively.

Mediating Variables. The six-item promote employee development, six-item demonstrate moral leadership, and the four-item scale enact managerial propriety scales achieved Cronbach’s alphas of .85, .89, and .89, respectively.

Criterion Variables. The five-item fairly allocate rewards and responsibilities, six-item accurately and consistently apply organizational procedures, and the six-item promote representation and understanding scales obtained Cronbach’s alpha of .87, .89, and .85.

Test of Construct Validity

To further evaluate the construct validity of these measures, an additional sample of managers collected through MTurk (n = 109) were asked to assess the extent to which each of the items comprising these scales effectively measured some significant aspect of their related concepts (i.e., items describing managers’ efforts to promote employee development, actually describe the efforts managers make to promote employee development). Findings (on a 7-point Likert scale) indicate that the items describing managers’ efforts to motivate their employees’ work efforts (mean values: 5.69–6.08), develop positive superior-subordinate relationships (mean values: 5.74–6.20), promote employee development (mean values: 5.69–6.01), demonstrate moral leadership (mean values: 5.64–5.93), enact managerial propriety (mean values: 5.77–5.94), fairly allocate rewards and responsibilities (mean values: 5.61–6.07), accurately and consistently apply organizational procedures (mean values: 5.86–6.22), and promote representation and understanding (mean values: 5.44–5.84), serve as appropriate indicators of their related concepts.

Tests of Convergent and Discriminant Validity

A “Modified MTMM” was used to examine convergent and discriminant validity (Kirsch et al. 2002) with an additional sample of 202 managers collected through MTurk. Using this technique, convergent validity is established if correlations between items measuring the same construct are relatively large and statistically significant. Discriminant validity is established if the number of within-construct correlations exceeds the number of cross-construct correlations and the cross-construct correlations are relatively small in number. As can be observed from the results reported in Table 6, the within-construct correlations on every factor was relatively large and significant. In addition, in comparisons where each within-construct correlation was evaluated against each cross-construct correlation, the number of cross-construct correlations were found to be relatively small, thus providing evidence of discriminant validity. The one exception was the promote representation and understanding measure. However this measure was retained for further analysis, in part, because the within-construct correlations far exceeded the cross-construct correlations.

Table 6 Results of MTMM-modified analysis
Full size table

Appendix 3: Survey Items

Motivate Employees’ Work Efforts

  1. 1.

    I actively encourage subordinates to devote a lot of energy to their jobs.

  2. 2.

    It is important to me that my subordinates exert full effort in doing their jobs.

  3. 3.

    I want my subordinates to be proud of their work.

  4. 4.

    I want my subordinates to be excited about their jobs.

  5. 5.

    I attempt to motivate my subordinates to exert efforts into their work.

Develop Positive Superior-Subordinate Relationships

  1. 1.

    I want my subordinates to feel that I take good care of them.

  2. 2.

    I want my subordinates to feel like I am sensitive to their needs.

  3. 3.

    I want to make sure I have subordinates who will want to listen to me when I talk to them.

  4. 4.

    I want my subordinates to describe me as a giving person who is willing to share my time with others.

  5. 5.

    I want to be able to both trust my subordinates and know that they trust me.

Promote Employee Development

  1. 1.

    I work hard to ensure that subordinates are fully prepared to perform all aspects of their jobs.

  2. 2.

    I am actively committed to training and developing my subordinates.

  3. 3.

    I work to develop my subordinates’ work capabilities.

  4. 4.

    I work to ensure that my employees use high-quality production materials.

  5. 5.

    I work to develop good staffing procedures.

  6. 6.

    I take direct steps to help my subordinates fit into my unit.

Demonstrate Moral Leadership

  1. 1.

    I discipline employees who violate ethical standards.

  2. 2.

    I conduct my personal life in an ethical manner.

  3. 3.

    I discuss business ethics or values with my employees.

  4. 4.

    I set an example of how to do things the right way in terms of ethics.

  5. 5.

    I define success not just by results but also the way that they are obtained.

  6. 6.

    When making decisions, I ask “what is the right thing to do?”

Enact Managerial Propriety

  1. 1.

    I work to ensure that my subordinates believe that I deserve to be their leader/manager.

  2. 2.

    I work to ensure that my subordinates approve of me as their leader/manager.

  3. 3.

    I work to ensure that my subordinates accept me as their leader/manager.

  4. 4.

    I work to ensure that my subordinates want me to continue to be their leader/manager.

Fairly Allocate Rewards and Responsibilities

  1. 1.

    I am very careful to assign each of my subordinates their fair share of the work.

  2. 2.

    I make sure that each of my subordinates receives their equitable share of rewards.

  3. 3.

    I make absolutely sure that I distribute workloads equitably among my subordinates.

  4. 4.

    I compensate each of my subordinates fairly, according to their contributions.

  5. 5.

    I make sure that job responsibilities are distributed fairly among my subordinates.

Accurately and Consistently Apply Organizational Procedures

  1. 1.

    I make sure I obtain accurate and complete information regarding my subordinates’ job performances.

  2. 2.

    I try to never allow my personal preferences for some of employees to bias my decisions.

  3. 3.

    I try to treat all of my employees in similar ways.

  4. 4.

    I am careful to use consistent standards to evaluate subordinates who perform similar jobs.

  5. 5.

    I always apply work procedures consistently to my employees.

  6. 6.

    I make sure I base my managerial decisions on accurate information.

Promote Representation and Understanding

  1. 1.

    I always make sure I thoroughly explain my positions to employees.

  2. 2.

    I always provide my employees with reasonable explanations about my decisions.

  3. 3.

    I always communicate details about my decisions in a timely manner to my employees.

  4. 4.

    I try and always tailor my communications to my employees’ specific needs.

  5. 5.

    Before making important managerial decisions, I make sure that I hear the opinions of all parties who will be affected by them.

  6. 6.

    I am always encouraging my subordinates to give input into decisions that affect them.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Long, C.P. Mapping the Main Roads to Fairness: Examining the Managerial Context of Fairness Promotion. J Bus Ethics 137, 757–783 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2749-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2749-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation