Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 203–217 | Cite as

Workplace justice outcomes as a function of adversaries' gender composition: A field assessment

  • Dan R. Dalton
  • William D. Todor
  • Crystal L. Owen
Articles

Abstract

There is extensive documentation that the sex of organizational members may bias a wide variety of managerial decisions and workplace outcomes. While such effects have been persuasively demonstrated, the “sex context” of these effects has received little attention. It is argued here that it is not merely the sex of the actor, but the nature of the dyadic match (male/male; female/female; male/female; female/male) that is a critical influence on outcomes. This hypothesis is strongly supported by gross differences in workplace justice outcomes based on the dyadic composition of the actors involved in dispute proceedings (n=369) in a field setting. These results are tempered, however, inasmuch as analysis also indicates differences in the severity of disputed issues across these dyadic compositions.

Keywords

Social Psychology Social Issue Managerial Decision Organizational Member Gender Composition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aram, J. D. & Salipante, P. F. (1981). An evaluation of organizational due process in the resolution of employee/employer conflict.Academy of Management Review, 6, 197–204.Google Scholar
  2. Bem, S. L. & Lenney, E. (1976). Sex typing and the avoidance of cross-sex behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 48–54.Google Scholar
  3. Beyer, J. M. & Trice, H. M. (1984). A field study of the use and perceived effects of discipline in controlling work performance.Academy of Management Journal, 27, 743–764.Google Scholar
  4. Bieri, J. (1955). Cognitive complexity-simplicity and predictive behavior.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 263–268.Google Scholar
  5. Cook, K. S. & Hegtvedt, K. A. (1983). Distributive justice, equity, and equality. In R. H. Turner & J. F. Short (Eds.)Annual review of sociology. Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews, Inc. 217–241.Google Scholar
  6. Cosier, R. A. & Dalton, D. R. (1983). Equity theory and time: A reformulation.Academy of Management Review, 8, 311–319.Google Scholar
  7. Curran, D. A. (1983). Judicial discretion and defendant's sex.Criminology, 21, 41–58.Google Scholar
  8. Dalton, D. R. & Todor, W. B. (1979). Manifest needs of stewards: Propensity to file a grievance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 654–659.Google Scholar
  9. Dalton, D. R. & Todor, W. D. (1981). Win, lose, draw: The grievance process in practice.Personnel Administrator, 6, 54–59.Google Scholar
  10. Dalton, D. R. & Todor, W. D. (1982a). Antecedents of grievance filing behavior: Attitude/behavioral consistency and the union steward.Academy of Management Journal, 25, 158–169.Google Scholar
  11. Dalton, D. R. & Todor, W. D. (1982b). Union steward locus of control, job, union involvement, and grievance behavior.Journal of Business Research, 10, 85–101.Google Scholar
  12. Dalton, D. R. & Todor, W. D. (1985a). Gender and workplace justice: A field assessment.Personnel Psychology, 38, 133–151.Google Scholar
  13. Dalton, D. R. & Todor, W. D. (1985b). Composition of dyads as a factor in the outcomes of workplace justice: Two field assessments.Academy of Management Journal, 28, 704–712.Google Scholar
  14. Davidson, L. R. & Duberman, L. (1982). Friendship: Communication and interactional patterns in same-sex dyads.Sex Roles, 8, 809–822.Google Scholar
  15. Deaux, K. (1985). Sex and gender.Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 49–81.Google Scholar
  16. Dobbins, G. H. (1985). Effects of gender on leaders' responses to poor performers: An attributional interpretation.Academy of Management Journal, 28, 587–598.Google Scholar
  17. Dobbins, G. H., Pence, E. C., Orban, J. A., & Sgro, J. A. (1983). The effects of sex of the leader and sex of the subordinate on the use of organizational control policy.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 325–343.Google Scholar
  18. Eagly, A. H. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis.American Psychologist, 38, 971–981.Google Scholar
  19. Folger, R. & Greenberg, G. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretative analysis of personnel systems. In K. Rowland and G. Ferris (Eds.)Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Vol. 3. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 141–184.Google Scholar
  20. Frodi, A., Macaulay, J., & Thome, P. R. (1977). Are women always less aggressive than men? A review of the experimental literature.Psychological Bulletin, 84, 634–660.Google Scholar
  21. Gordon, M. E. & Miller, S. J. (1984). Grievances: A review of research and practice.Personnel Psychology, 37, 117–146.Google Scholar
  22. Greenberg, J. & Cohen, R. L. (1982).Equity and Justice in Social Behavior. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The loack of fit model.Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269–298.Google Scholar
  24. Jacobsen, M. B., Antonelli, J., Winning, P. U., & Opeil, D. (1977). Women as authority figures: The use and nonuse of authority.Sex Roles, 3, 365–375.Google Scholar
  25. Jago, A. G. & Vroom, V. H. (1982). Sex differences in the incidence and evaluation of participative leader behavior.Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 776–783.Google Scholar
  26. Kimble, C. E., Yoshikawa, J. C., & Zehr, H. D. (1981). Vocal and verbal assertiveness in same-sex and mixed-sex groups.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 1047–1054.Google Scholar
  27. Kimmel, M. J., Pruitt, D. G., Magenau, J. M., Konar-Goldband, E., & Carnevale, P. J. J. D. (1980).Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 9–22.Google Scholar
  28. Kissler, G. D. (1977). Grievance activity and union membership: A study of government employees.Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 459–462.Google Scholar
  29. Larwood, L., Rand, P., & Hovanessian, D. (1979). Sex differences in response to simulated employee discipline cases.Personnel Psychology, 32, 539–550.Google Scholar
  30. Leonard, E. B. (1982).Women, crime, and society. New York: Longman, 1982.Google Scholar
  31. Lerner, M. J. & Lerner, S. C. (1981).The Justice Motive in Social Behavior. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lykken, D. T. (1968). Statistical significance in psychological research.Psychological Bulletin, 70, 151–179.Google Scholar
  33. Mai-Dalton, R. R., Feldman-Summers, & Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Effect of employee gender and behavioral style on the evaluations of male and female banking executives.Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 221–226.Google Scholar
  34. Messick, D. M. & Cook, K. S. (1983).Theories of Equity: Psychological and Sociological Perspectives. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  35. Osborn, R. N. & Vicars, W. M. (1976). Sex stereotypes: An artifact in leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction analysis.Academy of Management Journal, 19, 439–449.Google Scholar
  36. Pence, E. C., Pendleton, W. C., Dobbins, G. H., and Sgro, J. A. (1982).Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 227–240.Google Scholar
  37. Piliavin, J. A., & Martin, R. R. (1978). The effects of the sex composition of groups on style of social interaction.Sex Roles, 4, 281–296.Google Scholar
  38. Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. (1975). Effects of employee's sex and threatening versus pleading appeals on managerial evaluations of grievances.Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 442–445.Google Scholar
  39. Schroder, H. M., Driver, M. J., & Strefert, S. (1967).Human information processing: Individuals and groups functioning in complex social situations. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  40. Steffensmeier, D. J. (1980). Assessing the impact of the women's movement on sex-based differences in the handling of adult criminal defendants.Crime and Delinquency, 26, 344–357.Google Scholar
  41. Stitt, C., Schmidt, S., & Price, K. (1983). Sex of leader, leader behavior, and subordinate satisfaction.Sex Roles, 9, 31–42.Google Scholar
  42. Terborg, J. R., & Shingledecker, P. (1983). Employee reactions to supervision and work evaluation as a function of subordinate and manager sex.Sex Roles, 9, 813–824.Google Scholar
  43. Tjaden, P. G. & Tjaden, C. D. (1981). Differential treatment of the female felon: Myth or reality. In M. Q. Warren (Ed.).Comparing Female and Male Offenders. Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage Publications, 73–88.Google Scholar
  44. Walker, L., Lind, E. A., & Thibaut, J. (1979). The relation between procedural and distributive justice.Virginia Law Review, 41, 1401–1420.Google Scholar
  45. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., Sechrest, L., & Grove, J. B. (1981).Nonreactive Measures in the Social Sciences (2nd Edition). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  46. Wendelkin, D. J. & Inn, A. (1981). Nonperformance influences of performance evaluations: A laboratory phenomenon?Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 149–158.Google Scholar
  47. Wiley, M. G. & Eskilson, A. (1982). Coping in the corporation: Sex role constraints.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 1–11.Google Scholar
  48. Yamada, E. M., Tjosvold, D., Draguns, J. G. (1983). Effects of sex-linked situations and sex composition on cooperation and style of interaction.Sex Roles, 9, 541–554.Google Scholar
  49. Zammuto, R. F., London, M., Rowland, K. M. (1979). Effects of sex on commitment and conflict resolution.Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 227–231.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dan R. Dalton
    • 1
  • William D. Todor
    • 2
  • Crystal L. Owen
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Management, Graduate School of BusinessIndiana UniversityBloomington
  2. 2.College of Administrative ScienceThe Ohio State UniversityUSA
  3. 3.College of Administrative ScienceThe Ohio State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations