The Moderating Effect of Personality on Employees’ Reactions to Procedural Fairness and Outcome Favorability
- 398 Downloads
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsExtraversion Conscientiousness Extrinsic rewards Intrinsic rewards Intention to remain Job satisfaction Procedural fairness Outcome favorability
- Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Brown, D. (2009). Rewards for fairness: How much bonus is enough? Personnel Today. Sutton: Jan 27, 2009, p. 14.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.Google Scholar
- Furnham, A. (1992). Personality at work: The role of individual differences in the workplace. New York: Routledge.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.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
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.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
- 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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