The Effects of Justice and Top Management Beliefs and Participation: An Exploratory Study in the Context of Digital Supply Chain Management

  • Shaobo Wei
  • Weiling KeEmail author
  • Augustine A. Lado
  • Hefu Liu
  • Kwok Kee Wei
Original Paper


Drawing on justice theory and upper echelons perspective, this study develops and tests an integrative model linking justice to the implementation of IT-enabled supply chain information integration (IeSCII) through the top management. Specifically, the study investigates the effects of the three facets of justice—distributive, procedural, and interactional justice—on the two dimensions of IeSCII (information sharing and collaborative planning), and examines the mediating influences of top management beliefs (TMB) and top management participation (TMP) in these relationships. Using structural equation modeling to analyze data collected from 190 firms in China, the study documents that interactional justice positively affects both TMB and TMP, while procedural justice positively affects TMB (but not TMP) in the IeSCII implementation process. In contrast, distributive justice is not significantly related to either TMB or TMP, but is positively associated with information sharing. The results also show that procedural justice positively affects TMB, which then positively affects TMP in IeSCII. Furthermore, the study finds significant mediating effects of TMB and TMP in the relationship between interactional justice and IeSCII. The theoretical and managerial implications of this study are discussed.


IT-enabled supply chain information integration Justice Upper echelons theory Top management 



IT-enabled supply chain information integration




Supply chain management


Top management beliefs


Top management participation


Confirmative factor analysis



This study was funded by the Grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC: 71701194, 71731010, 71622009 and 71571169) and Anhui Provincial Natural Science Foundation (1808085QG226). It was also supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (WK2040160030) and Singapore Ministry of Education Grant (WBS R-253-000-133-112).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the authors’ institution and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in experimental social psychology, 2, 267–299.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 447–456. Scholar
  5. Cai, S., Jun, M., & Yang, Z. (2010). Implementing supply chain information integration in China: The role of institutional forces and trust. Journal of Operations Management, 28(3), 257–268. Scholar
  6. Cao, Q., Gan, Q. W., & Thompson, M. A. (2013). Organizational adoption of supply chain management system: A multi-theoretic investigation. Decision Support Systems, 55(3), 720–727. Scholar
  7. Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M. Y. (2009). How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 207–218. Scholar
  8. Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. (2004). Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30(6), 749–778. Scholar
  9. Certo, S. T., Busenbark, J. R., Woo, H., & Semadeni, M. (2016). Sample selection bias and Heckman models in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(13), 2639–2657. Scholar
  10. Chin, W. W. (2003). A permutation procedure for multi-group comparison of PLS models. In PLS and related methods—proceedings of the international symposium PLS03, Lisbon, Portugal, 2003 (pp. 33–43).Google Scholar
  11. Chiu, C.-M., Lin, H.-Y., Sun, S.-Y., & Hsu, M.-H. (2009). Understanding customers’ loyalty intentions towards online shopping: an integration of technology acceptance model and fairness theory. Behaviour & Information Technology, 28(4), 347–360. Scholar
  12. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The Role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321. Scholar
  13. Collins, J. D., Uhlenbruck, K., & Rodriguez, P. (2008). Why firms engage in corruption: A top management perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 89–108. Scholar
  14. Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2015). Measuring justice and fairness. In Oxford Handbook of Justice in the Workplace (pp. 187–202) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2011). Justice, trust, and trustworthiness: A longitudinal analysis integrating three theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1183–1206. Scholar
  17. Cugueró-Escofet, N., & Fortin, M. (2013). One justice or two? A model of reconciliation of normative justice theories and empirical research on organizational justice. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(3), 435–451. Scholar
  18. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. Scholar
  19. Davidson, R., & MacKinnon, J. G. (1993). Estimation and Inference in Econometrics. Oxford: OUP Catalogue.Google Scholar
  20. Devaraj, S., Krajewski, L., & Wei, J. (2007). Impact of eBusiness technologies on operational performance: The role of production information integration in the supply chain. Journal of Operations Management, 25(6), 1199–1216. Scholar
  21. Dong, S. T., Xu, S. X., & Zhu, K. X. G. (2009). Information technology in supply chains: The value of IT-enabled resources under competition. Information Systems Research, 20(1), 18–32. Scholar
  22. Ellis, K. M., Reus, T. H., & Lamont, B. T. (2009). The effects of procedural and informational justice in the integration of related acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 30(2), 137–161. Scholar
  23. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115–130. Scholar
  24. Freeman, R. E. Jr., & Hartman, E. (1988). Values and the foundations of strategic management. Journal of Business Ethics, 7(11), 821–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gao, S., Xu, K., & Yang, J. (2008). Managerial ties, absorptive capacity, and innovation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(3), 395–412. Scholar
  26. Goldman, B., & Cropanzano, R. (2015). “Justice” and “fairness” are not the same thing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(2), 313–318. Scholar
  27. Greene, W. (2003). Econometric Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Griffith, D. A., Harvey, M. G., & Lusch, R. F. (2006). Social exchange in supply chain relationships: The resulting benefits of procedural and distributive justice. Journal of Operations Management, 24(2), 85–98. Scholar
  29. Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206. Scholar
  31. Hamilton, B. H., & Nickerson, J. A. (2003). Correcting for endogeneity in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 1(1), 51–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heckman, J. (1979). Sample bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–162. Scholar
  33. Hosmer, L. T., & Kiewitz, C. (2015). Organizational justice: A behavioral science concept with critical implications for business ethics and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(01), 67–91. Scholar
  34. Hu, Q., Dinev, T., Hart, P., & Cooke, D. (2012). Managing employee compliance with information security policies: The critical role of top management and organizational culture. Decision Sciences, 43(4), 615–660. Scholar
  35. Hudson, S., González-Gómez, H. V., & Claasen, C. (2017). Legitimacy, particularism and employee commitment and justice. Journal of Business Ethics. Scholar
  36. Jambulingam, T., Kathuria, R., & Nevin, J. R. (2009). How fairness garners loyalty in the pharmaceutical supply chain. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 3(4), 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kanashiro, P., & Rivera, J. (2017). Do chief sustainability officers make companies greener? The moderating role of regulatory pressures. Journal of Business Ethics. Scholar
  38. Kor, Y. Y., & Mesko, A. (2013). Dynamic managerial capabilities: Configuration and orchestration of top executives’ capabilities and the firm’s dominant logic. Strategic Management Journal, 34(2), 233–244. Scholar
  39. Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1995). The effects of supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(1), 54. Scholar
  40. Lai, V. S., Lai, F., & Lowry, P. B. (2016). Technology evaluation and imitation: Do they have differential or dichotomous effects on ERP adoption and assimilation in China? Journal of Management Information Systems, 33(4), 1209–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? Boston: Social Exchange.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Li, P. Y. K., & Lai, F. J. (2010). Market orientation, ownership type, and e-business assimilation: Evidence from Chinese firms. Decision Sciences, 41(1), 115–145. doi: Scholar
  43. Liang, H. G., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. J. (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 59–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. (2001). Primacy effects in justice judgments: Testing predictions from fairness heuristic theory. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process, 85(2), 189–210. Scholar
  45. Lind, E. A., & van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 181–223. Scholar
  46. Liu, H. F., Huang, Q., Wei, S. B., & Huang, L. Q. (2015). The impacts of IT capability on internet-enabled supply and demand process integration, and firm performance in manufacturing and services. International Journal of Logistics Management, 26(1), 172–194. Scholar
  47. Liu, H. F., Wei, S. B., Ke, W. L., Wei, K. K., & Hua, Z. S. (2016). The configuration between supply chain integration and information technology competency: A resource orchestration perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 44, 13–29. Scholar
  48. Liu, Y., Huang, Y., Luo, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2012). How does justice matter in achieving buyer–supplier relationship performance? Journal of Operations Management, 30(5), 355–367. Scholar
  49. Long, C. P., Bendersky, C., & Morrill, C. (2011). Fairness monitoring: Linking managerial controls and fairness judgments in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 1045–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Luo, Y. (2005). How important are shared perceptions of procedural justice in cooperative alliance? Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 695–709. Scholar
  51. Luo, Y. (2008). Procedural fairness and interfirm cooperation in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 27–46. Scholar
  52. Luo, Y., Liu, Y., Yang, Q., Maksimov, V., & Hou, J. (2015). Improving performance and reducing cost in buyer–supplier relationships: The role of justice in curtailing opportunism. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 607–615. Scholar
  53. Luo, Y. D. (2007). The independent and interactive roles of procedural, distributive, and interactional justice in strategic alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 644–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mason, C. H., & Perreault, W. D. (1991). Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 268–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mishra, A. N., & Agarwal, R. (2010). Technological frames, organizational capabilities, and IT use: An empirical investigation of electronic procurement. Information Systems Research, 21(2), 249–270. Scholar
  56. Mitra, S., & Singhal, V. (2008). Supply chain integration and shareholder value: Evidence from consortium based industry exchanges. Journal of Operations Management, 26(1), 96–114. Scholar
  57. Mjoen, H., & Tallman, S. (1997). Control and performance in international joint ventures. Organization Science, 8(3), 257–274. Scholar
  58. Monin, P., Noorderhaven, N., Vaara, E., & Kroon, D. (2013). Giving sense to and making sense of justice in postmerger integration. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 256–284. Scholar
  59. Narasimhan, R., Narayanan, S., & Srinivasan, R. (2013). An investigation of justice in supply chain relationships and their performance impact. Journal of Operations Management, 31(5), 236–247. Scholar
  60. O’Leary-Kelly, S. W., & Vokurka, R. J. (1998). The empirical assessment of construct validity. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 387–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Paulraj, A., Chen, I. J., & Blome, C. (2015). Motives and performance outcomes of sustainable supply chain management practices: A multi-theoretical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(2), 239–258. Scholar
  62. Paulraj, A., Lado, A. A., & Chen, I. J. (2008). Inter-organizational communication as a relational competency: Antecedents and performance outcomes in collaborative buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Operations Management, 26(1), 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2005). Review: IT-dependent strategic initiatives and sustained competitive advantage: A review and synthesis of the literature. MIS Quarterly, 29(4), 747–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Poppo, L., & Zhou, K. Z. (2014). Managing contracts for fairness in buyer-supplier exchanges. Strategic Management Journal, 35(10), 1508–1527. Scholar
  65. Priem, R. L. (1999). Inherent limitations of demographic proxies in top management team heterogeneity Research. Journal of Management, 25(6), 935–953. Scholar
  66. Rai, A., Patnayakuni, R., & Seth, N. (2006). Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply chain integration capabilities. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 225–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rai, A., & Tang, X. (2010). Leveraging IT capabilities and competitive process capabilities for the management of interorganizational relationship portfolios. Information Systems Research, 21(3), 516–542. Scholar
  68. Rai, A., & Tang, X. (2014). Research commentary: Information technology-enabled business models—A conceptual framework and a coevolution perspective for future research. Information Systems Research, 25(1), 1–14. Scholar
  69. Ring, P. S., & Van De Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90–118. Scholar
  70. Saeed, K. A., Malhotra, M. K., & Grover, V. (2011). Interorganizational system characteristics and supply chain integration: An empirical assessment. Decision Sciences, 42(1), 7–42. Scholar
  71. Saraf, N., Liang, H., Xue, Y., & Hu, Q. (2013). How does organisational absorptive capacity matter in the assimilation of enterprise information systems? Information Systems Journal, 23(3), 245–267. Scholar
  72. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32(11), 1492–1512. Scholar
  73. Stoverink, A. C., Umphress, E. E., Gardner, R. G., & Miner, K. N. (2014). Misery loves company: Team dissonance and the influence of supervisor-focused interpersonal justice climate on team cohesiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1059–1073. Scholar
  74. Tangirala, S., & Alge, B. J. (2006). Reactions to unfair events in computer-mediated groups: A test of uncertainty management theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 1–20. Scholar
  75. van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 1–60. Scholar
  76. Vannoy, S. A., & Salam, A. F. (2010). Managerial interpretations of the role of information systems in competitive actions and firm performance: A Grounded Theory Investigation. Information Systems Research, 21(3), 496–515. Scholar
  77. Villena, V. H., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Revilla, E. (2009). The decision of the supply chain executive to support or impede supply chain integration: A multidisciplinary behavioral agency perspective. Decision Sciences, 40(4), 635–665. Scholar
  78. Wang, Q., Craighead, C. W., & Li, J. J. (2014). Justice served: Mitigating damaged trust stemming from supply chain disruptions. Journal of Operations Management, 32(6), 374–386. Scholar
  79. Whitman, D. S., Caleo, S., Carpenter, N. C., Horner, M. T., & Bernerth, J. B. (2012). Fairness at the collective level: a meta-analytic examination of the consequences and boundary conditions of organizational justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 776–791. Scholar
  80. Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 548–577. Scholar
  81. Wong, C. W. Y., Lai, K., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2012). Value of information integration to supply chain management: Roles of internal and external contingencies. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(3), 161–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wu, I. L., & Chang, C. H. (2012). Using the balanced scorecard in assessing the performance of e-SCM diffusion: A multi-stage perspective. Decision Support Systems, 52(2), 474–485. Scholar
  83. Yilmaz, C., Sezen, B., & Kabadayı, E. T. (2004). Supplier fairness as a mediating factor in the supplier performance–reseller satisfaction relationship. Journal of Business Research, 57(8), 854–863. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shaobo Wei
    • 1
  • Weiling Ke
    • 2
    Email author
  • Augustine A. Lado
    • 2
  • Hefu Liu
    • 3
  • Kwok Kee Wei
    • 4
  1. 1.International Institute of Finance, School of ManagementUniversity of Science and Technology of ChinaHefeiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Reh School of BusinessClarkson UniversityPotsdamUSA
  3. 3.School of ManagementUniversity of Science and Technology of ChinaHefeiPeople’s Republic of China
  4. 4.Department of Information Systems and Analytics, School of ComputingNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations