Abstract
While organizational justice continues to garner attention by researchers, why perceptions of justice influence a variety of outcomes is still in need of explanation. In this paper, we examine one type of social exchange process that may provide a better link between perceptions of fairness and important organizational outcomes. Specifically, we examine how leader–member exchange (LMX) affects the relationship between employee perceptions of fairness and supervisor-rated performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). Data from our study demonstrates that LMX fully mediates the relationship between interactional justice and performance and OCBs. In addition, the results demonstrate that LMX moderates the relationship between both distributive and procedural justice and OCBs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Although the relationship between LMX and interactional justice is very strong (as expected), confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated the discriminant validity of these constructs.
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2) (pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.
Ambrose, M. L. (2002). Contemporary justice research: A new look at familiar questions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 803–812.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organizational structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 295–305.
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SmallWaters Corporation.
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, 1173–1182.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader–member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538–1567.
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. (1988). Practical issues in structural modeling. In J. S. Long (Ed.), Common problems/proper solutions: Avoiding errors in quantitative research (pp. 161–192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communications criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1) (pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
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.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Yee, Ng. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytical review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.
Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology. New York: Wiley Publishers.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group and Organization Management, 27, 324–351.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., Mohler, C. J., & Schminke, M. (2001). Three roads to organizational justice. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 20, pp. 1–113). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Dansereau, F., Cashman, J., & Graen, G. (1973). Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10, 184–200.
Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader–member exchange, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 315–326.
Ferris, G. R. (1985). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process: A constructive replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 777–781.
Folger, R. (1998). Fairness as a moral virtue. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Morally managing people and processes (pp. 13–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gellatly, I. R. (1995). Individual and group determinants of employee absenteeism: Test of a causal model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 469–485.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
Graen, G. B. (1989). Unwritten rules for your career. New York: Wiley.
Graen, G. B., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader–member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109–131.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9) (pp. 175–208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599–610.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
Kinicki, A. J., & Vecchio, R. P. (1994). Influences on the quality of supervisor—subordinate relations: The role of time-pressure, organizational commitment, and locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 75–82.
Klein, H., & Kim, J. S. (1998). A field study of the influence of situational constraints, leader–member exchange, and goal commitment on performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 88–95.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader–member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43–72.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader–member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 15) (pp. 47–119). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on early development of leader–member-exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662–674.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
Mitchell, T. R. (1985). An evaluation of the validity of correlation research conducted in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 10, 192–205.
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.
Olsen-Buchanan, J. B. (1996). Voicing discontent: what happens to the grievance filer after the grievance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 52–63.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Mackenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 351–363.
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from mulitfoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925–946.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader–member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63–113.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., Zhou, X., & Yammarino, F. J. (2001). The folly of theorizing “A” but testing “B”: A selective level-of-analysis review of the field and a detailed leader–member exchange illustration. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 515–551.
Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., & Scandura, T. A. (1998). Delegation and leader–member exchange: Main effects, moderators, and measurement issues. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 298–318.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, J. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology Vol. 25 (pp. 115–192). New York: Academic Press.
Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Kraimer, M. L., & Graf, I. K. (1999). The role of human capital, motivation and supervisor sponsorship in predicting career success. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 577–595.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader–member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 590:598.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.
Williams, S. (1999). The effects of distributive and procedural justice on performance. Journal of Psychology, 133, 183–193.
Yukl, G., & Fu, P. P. (1999). Determinants of delegation and consultation by managers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 219–232.
Acknowledgments
This research was conducted while James P. Burton was at the University of Washington, Bothell. This research was supported in part by a Worthington Scholar Award granted by the University of Washington, Bothell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Scale Items
LMX7:
-
I usually know where I stand with my supervisor.
-
My immediate supervisor understands my problems and needs.
-
My immediate supervisor recognizes my potential.
-
Regardless of how much power my immediate supervisor has built into his or her position, he or she would be personally inclined to use his or her power to help me solve my problems at work.
-
Again, regardless of the amount of power my immediate supervisor has, I can count on him or her to “bail me out” at his or her expense when I really need it.
-
My immediate supervisor has enough confidence in me that he or she would defend and justify my decision if I was not present to do so.
-
On a scale of 1–7, how would you characterize your working relationship with your immediate supervisor? (1 = extremely ineffective; 7 = extremely effective).
Interactional Justice:
-
Your supervisor considers your viewpoint.
-
Your supervisor is able to suppress personal biases.
-
Your supervisor treats you with dignity.
-
Your supervisor treats you with respect.
-
Your supervisor treats you with kindness and consideration.
-
Your supervisor shows concern for your rights as an employee.
-
Your supervisor takes steps to deal with you in a truthful manner.
-
Your supervisor treats you in a polite manner.
Distributive Justice:
-
Fairly rewarded considering my responsibilities.
-
Fairly rewarded in view of the amount of experience I have.
-
Fairly rewarded for the amount of effort I put forth.
-
Fairly rewarded for the work I have done well.
-
Fairly rewarded for the stress and strain of my job.
Procedural Justice:
The procedures at XXX are designed to...
-
Collect accurate information necessary for making decisions.
-
Provide opportunities to appeal or challenge the decision.
-
Generate standards so that decisions could be made with consistency.
-
Hear the concerns of all those affected by the decision.
-
Provide useful feedback regarding the decision and its implementation.
-
Allow for requests for clarification or additional information about the decision.
Performance:
-
This particular employee...adequately completes his/her assigned job duties.
-
...fulfills responsibilities specified in his/her job description.
-
...meet formal performance requirements of the job.
-
...neglect aspects of the job he/she is obligated to perform (Reverse Coded).
-
...fail to perform essential duties (Reverse Coded).
OCBS:
-
This particular employee ...attends and actively participates in organizational meetings.
-
...willingly gives his/her time to help others in the organization who have work-related problems.
-
...willingly takes time out of his/her busy schedule to help others.
-
...attends company functions that are not required, but help the company.
-
...volunteers to do things that are not required.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Burton, J.P., Sablynski, C.J. & Sekiguchi, T. Linking Justice, Performance, and Citizenship via Leader–Member Exchange. J Bus Psychol 23, 51–61 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-008-9075-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-008-9075-z