Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Moderating Effect of Personality on Employees’ Reactions to Procedural Fairness and Outcome Favorability

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

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine how personality moderates the interactive effect of procedural fairness perceptions and outcome favorability on employees’ job attitudes.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Longitudinal data were collected from seniors enrolled at a mid-Atlantic university via questionnaires that were administered to students prior to graduation and after beginning their full-time jobs (n = 1,581).

Findings

Employees with high levels of conscientiousness report higher levels of job satisfaction when they perceive their work environment as having low levels of extrinsic rewards but high levels of procedural fairness. Employees with high levels of extraversion report greater intentions to remain when they perceive their work environment as having high levels of social rewards but low levels of procedural fairness.

Implications

Understanding that conscientious employees develop positive attitudes even in work settings where there are less than optimal levels of extrinsic rewards shows that even when organizations cannot provide high levels of pay or promotion opportunities, highly conscientious employees are likely to maintain positive perceptions of their work environments as long as practices are fair. In situations where the work context offers high levels of social support but some organizational procedures are viewed as unpopular, and as a result unfair, managers should focus on selecting applicants who score high on extraversion.

Originality/Value

This is one of the first studies to challenge an implicit assumption of prior research that employees view procedural fairness and outcome favorability as equally salient cues when attempting to make sense of their work environment.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The incremental variance explained by our interactions accounted for 1–2% of the variance in respondents’ job attitudes. However, many researchers have noted that: (1) interactions can be very difficult to detect in non-experimental field studies (Bing et al. 2007; Morris et al. 1986), (2) when interactions are found in field studies they routinely explain 1–3% of incremental variance (Champoux and Peters 1987; McClelland and Judd 1993), and (3) interactions explaining as little as 1% of criterion variance can have important practical implications (see Bing et al. 2007; Martell et al. 1996; McClelland and Judd 1993). Thus, we view the level of variance explained in our models as consistent with prior non-experimental field research.

References

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose, M. L., & Cropanzano, R. (2003). A longitudinal analysis of organizational fairness: An examination of reactions to tenure and promotion decisions. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 266–275. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.266.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 267–285. doi:10.1002/job.138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., Paronto, M. E., Weekley, J. A., & Campion, M. A. (2004). Applicant reactions to different selection technology: Face-to-face, interactive voice response, and computer-assisted telephone screening interviews. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 135–148. doi:10.1111/j.0965-075X.2004.00269.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belsky, J. (1996). Parent, infant, and social-contextual antecedents of father-son attachment security. Developmental Psychology, 32, 905–913. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.5.905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bing, M. N., Stewart, S. M., Davison, H. K., Green, P. D., McIntyre, M. D., & James, L. R. (2007). An integrative typology of personality assessment for aggression: Implications for predicting counterproductive workplace behavior. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 722–744. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.722.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bluedorn, A. C. (1982). A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human Relations, 35, 135–153. doi:10.1177/001872678203500204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bretz, R. D., Jr., Boudreau, J. W., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Job search behavior of employed managers. Personnel Psychology, 47, 275–301. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994.tb01725.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, J. (2002). Making sense of procedural fairness: How high procedural fairness can reduce or heighten the influence of outcome favorability. Academy of Management Review, 27, 58–76. doi:10.2307/4134369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189–208. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.120.2.189.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. (2009). Rewards for fairness: How much bonus is enough? Personnel Today. Sutton: Jan 27, 2009, p. 14.

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternate ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Champoux, J. E., & Peters, W. S. (1987). Form, effect size and power in moderated regression analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 243–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599–609. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.599.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., & Greenberg, J. (2003). Organizational justice: A fair assessment of the state of the literature. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 165–210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2006). Justice and personality: Using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 110–127. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.09.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connell, J., Ferres, N., & Travaglione, T. (2003). Engendering trust in management-subordinate relationships: Predictors and outcomes. Personnel Review, 32, 569–589. doi:10.1108/00483480310488342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dineen, B. R., Noe, R. A., & Wang, C. (2004). Perceived fairness of web-based applicant screening procedures: Weighing the rules of justice and the role of individual differences. Human Resource Management, 43, 127–145. doi:10.1002/hrm.20011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. J. (2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 802–827. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Justice and leader-member exchange: The moderating role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 395–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esen, E. (2004). SHRM/CNNfn Job Satisfaction Series: Job Compensation/Pay Survey Report. Society for Human Resource Management/CNNfn. Virginia: Society for Human Resource Management.

  • Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115–130. doi:10.2307/256422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forret, M. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (2001). Correlates of networking behavior for managerial and professional employees. Group & Organization Management, 26, 283–311. doi:10.1177/1059601101263004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A. (1992). Personality at work: The role of individual differences in the workplace. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, D. G., Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). The effects of pay level on organization-based self-esteem and performance: A field study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 307–322. doi:10.1348/0963179041752646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gellatly, I. R. (1996). Conscientiousness and task performance: Test of a cognitive process model. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 474–482. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S. L., & Crooker, K. J. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource policies: The impact of family friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents and non-parents. Personnel Psychology, 48, 271–288. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01757.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haar, J., & Spell, C. S. (2003). Where is the justice? Examining work-family backlash in New Zealand: The potential for employee resentment. New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations, 28, 59–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henle, C. A. (2005). Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between organizational justice and personality. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17, 247–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtz, B. C., Ployhart, R. E., & Dominguez, A. (2005). Testing the rules of justice: The effects of frame-of-reference and pre-test validity information on personality test responses and test perceptions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13, 75–86. doi:10.1111/j.0965-075X.2005.00301.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. R., & Schaubroeck, J. (2004). Mediators of the relationship between race and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 505–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. SSI.

  • Konrad, A. M., Corrigall, E., Lieb, P., & Ritchie, J. E. (2000). Sex differences in job attribute preferences among managers and business students. Group & Organization Management, 25, 108–131. doi:10.1177/1059601100252002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C., Pillutla, M., & Law, K. S. (2000). Power-distance, gender and organizational justice. Journal of Management, 26, 685–704. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00052-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, H., Joshi, A., & Chuang, A. (2004). Sticking out like a sore thumb: Employee dissimilarity and deviance at work. Personnel Psychology, 57, 969–1000. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00012.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. (2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: A cross-level multifoci framework. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 242–256. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martell, R. F., Lane, D. M., & Emrich, C. (1996). Male–female differences: A computer simulation. The American Psychologist, 51, 157–158. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738–748. doi:10.2307/1556364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, D. M., Nishii, L. H., Schneider, B., & Goldstein, H. W. (2009). The precursors and products of fair climates: Group leader antecedents and employee attitudinal consequences. Personnel Psychology, 60, 929–963.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.376.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 626–637. doi:10.2307/256489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medsker, G. J., Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P. J. (1994). A review of current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management research. Journal of Management, 20, 439–464. doi:10.1016/0149-2063(94)90022-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. P., Irving, P. G., & Allen, N. J. (1998). Examination of the combined effects of work values and early work experiences on organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 29–52. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199801)19:1<29::AID-JOB818>3.0.CO;2-U.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J. H., Sherman, J., & Mansfield, E. R. (1986). Failures to detect moderating effects with ordinary least squares-moderated multiple regression: Some reasons and a remedy. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 282–288. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.99.2.282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mossholder, K. W., Settoon, R. P., & Henagan, S. C. (2005). A relational perspective on turnover: Examining structural, attitudinal, and behavioral predictors. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 607–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., & Christiansen, N. D. (1997). Support for affirmative action, justice perceptions, and work attitudes: A study of gender and racial-ethnic group differences. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 376–389. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.376.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perlow, L. A. (1998). Boundary control: The social ordering of work and family time in a high-tech corporation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 328–357. doi:10.2307/2393855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, A. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (1994). Leader-follower exchange quality: The role of personal and interpersonal attributes. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 990–1001. doi:10.2307/256608.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychological contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 350–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramamoorthy, N., & Flood, P. C. (2004). Gender and employee attitudes: The role of organizational justice perceptions. British Journal of Management, 15, 247–258. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2004.00417.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaubroeck, J., May, D. R., & Brown, F. W. (1994). Procedural justice explanations and employee reactions to economic hardship: A field experiment. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 455–460. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.3.455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 118–135. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(89)90060-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seers, A., McGee, G. W., Serey, T. T., & Graen, G. B. (1983). The interaction of job stress and social support: A strong inference investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 273–284. doi:10.2307/255975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., Mitra, A., Lockhart, D. E., & Bowler, M. (2003). Reactions to merit pay increases: A longitudinal test of a signal sensitivity perspective. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 538–544. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.538.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sherony, K. M., & Green, S. G. (2002). Coworker exchange: Relationships between coworkers, leader-member exchange, and work attitudes. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 542–548. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.542.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Wright, J. C. (1989). Intuitive interactionism in person perception: Effects of situation-behavior relations on dispositional judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 41–53. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: The effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 432–443. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.432.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 100–108. doi:10.2307/256877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1997). Process and outcome: Gender differences in the assessment of justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 83–98. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199701)18:1<83::AID-JOB779>3.0.CO;2-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tekleab, A. G., Bartol, K. M., & Liu, W. (2005). Is it pay levels or pay raises that matter to fairness and turnover? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 899–921. doi:10.1002/job.352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevor, C. O. (2001). Interactions among actual ease-of-movement determinants and job satisfaction in the prediction of voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 621–638. doi:10.2307/3069407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., Campion, M. A., & Paronto, M. E. (2006). A field study of the role of big five personality in applicant perceptions of selection fairness, self, and the hiring organization. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 269–277. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00351.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westerman, J. W., & Simmons, B. L. (2007). The effects of work environment on the personality- performance relationship: An exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 19, 288–305.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management & International Business, College of Business Administration, Florida International University, 11200 S.W. 8th Street, Miami, FL, 33199, USA

    Meredith F. Burnett

  2. Melbourne Business School, The University of Melbourne, 200 Leicester St, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia

    Ian O. Williamson

  3. Department of Management and Organization, Robert H. Smith School of Business, The University of Maryland, 2410 Van Munching Hall, College Park, MD, 20742-1815, USA

    Kathryn M. Bartol

Authors
  1. Meredith F. Burnett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ian O. Williamson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathryn M. Bartol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meredith F. Burnett.

Additional information

Received and reviewed by former editor, George Neuman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burnett, M.F., Williamson, I.O. & Bartol, K.M. The Moderating Effect of Personality on Employees’ Reactions to Procedural Fairness and Outcome Favorability. J Bus Psychol 24, 469–484 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9120-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9120-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation