Perceptions of Justice (Or Fairness) in Organizational Decision Making Influence a Variety

The International Journal of Conflict Management 2001, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 333–349

DO JUSTICE RELATIONSHIPS WITH ORGANIZATION-DIRECTED REACTIONS DIFFER ACROSS U.S. AND BANGLADESH EMPLOYEES?

M. Afzalur Rahim Center for Advanced Studies in Management Nace R. Magner Western Kentucky University David Antonioni University of Wisconsin, Madison Sahidur Rahman University of Chittagong, Bangladesh

We examined relationships between distributive, procedural, and interactional justice and two types of organization-directed reactions— organizational commitment and turnover intention—across two employee samples each from the U.S. and Bangladesh. Regression analyses of questionnaire data indicated that the three forms of justice were related to the organization-directed reactions of both the U.S. and Bangladesh employees. The specific nature of the justice relationships varied primarily when comparing employees across the four samples, rather than across the two countries. Employee perceptions of organizational justice—in terms of fair formal decision-making procedures (procedural justice), fair decision outcomes (distributive justice), and fair interpersonal treatment by decision makers (interactional justice) —have been found to be related to a variety of work-related attitudes and behaviors (see, for example, the recent review by Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Organizational justice research has predominately involved employees from Western countries, particularly the U.S. (McFarlin & Sweeney, 2001; Morris, Leung, Ames, & Lickel, 1999). As such, the current thinking regarding reactions to organizational justice may not generalize to employees from societies that have cultural and economic characteristics which differ significantly from those 78 JUSTICE IN THE U.S. AND BANGLADESH commonly found in North American and Western European societies. Our purpose in this study is to examine relationships between organizational justice and organization-directed reactions across both U.S. employees and employees from a non-Western country, Bangladesh.

Empirical and Conceptual Background Types of Justice Effects Research to date has generally supported a main effects model of organizational justice in which distributive, procedural, and interactional justice have unique (or independent) relationships with organization-directed reactions and other types of employee attitudes and behaviors (Barling & Phillips, 1993; Konov- sky & Cropanzano, 1991). An increasingly large body of literature supports a two- way interaction model of organizational justice in which distributive justice works in tandem with procedural justice, or, in the same manner, with interactional justice, to influence how employees react to organizational decision making (Brock- ner & Wiesenfeld, 1996). One way of describing the modal two-way interaction between distributive justice and procedural (or interactional) justice is as follows: Employees react most strongly to distributive justice when procedural (or interactional) justice is low. In other words, procedural and interactional justice may moderate the effects of distributive justice. In an extension of the literature regarding interactions between the forms of organizational justice, Skarlicki and Folger (1997) supported a three-way interaction model in which employees reacted most strongly to distributive justice when both procedural and interactional justice were low. This finding suggests that procedural and interactional justice can serve as substitutes for one another in moderating the effects of distributive justice. Because the main effects, two-way interaction, and three-way interaction models of organizational justice have all received support in the literature, the prevalence of one model over the other two is likely contingent on factors such as the nature of the dependent variable and cognitive and emotional characteristics of the employee. Justice and Culture The relatively small amount of justice research involving non-Western sub- jects has generally focused on how certain dimensions of culture influence either the consequences of justice judgments or the processes by which people make these judgments. Two of Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions, power distance and collectivism-individualism (or constructs conceptually related to these), have received particular attention. Power distance addresses “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations . . . expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede, 1997, p. 28). Collectivism–individualism addresses the extent to which group members will pursue the interests of the group over their own self-interests, with group-interests predominate among collectivists and self-interests predominate among individualists. Farh, Earley, and Lin (1997) examined how relationships between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior are influenced by the tradi-

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001 M. A. RAHIM, N. R. MAGNER, D. ANTONIONI, AND S. RAHMAN 79 tionality and modernity dimensions of culture. High traditionality people empha- size values such as authority, filial piety, male-domination, and a general sense of powerlessness (Yang, Yu, & Yeh, 1989). Given its emphasis on hierarchical relationships, traditionality is conceptually related to power distance (Farh et al., p. 425). High modernity people stress values such as egalitarianism, open-minded- ness, assertiveness, and self-reliance (Yang et al., 1989). Individualism is the most fundamental aspect of modernity (Yang, 1993), and thus modernity overlaps with collectivism–individualism (Farh et al., p. 425). Farh et al. found that the three forms of organizational justice generally had less of an effect on organizational citizenship behavior among employees who scored higher on traditionality and those who scored lower on modernity. They proposed that employees in more traditional and in less modern societies generally have a covenantal relationship with the organization in which they support the organization because that is what society expects of their organizational role, rather than because the organization has treated them fairly. Employees in less traditional and in more modern societies, on the other hand, generally have an instrumental relationship with the organization, and in this environment organizational justice helps to enhance employees’ trust in and support for the organization. Several studies have compared the norms that collectivists versus individualists apply in making judgments of distributive justice (e.g., Bond, Leung, & Wan, 1982; Kim, Park, & Suzuki, 1990). On whole, these studies have indicated that individualists generally prefer an equity norm, whereby outcomes are distributed to group (e.g., organization) members in proportion to their contributions to the group. Collectivists, on the other hand, prefer a more equal, less equitable, distribution of outcomes. These results suggest that distributive justice in terms of the equity norm will have a weaker relationship with the reactions of relatively more collectivistic employees. Individualists’ preference for equity in the distribution of outcomes is generally attributed to a concern with promoting productivity and task achievement, while collectivists’ preference for equality is attributed to a concern with maintaining group harmony (Leung, 1988). Brockner, Chen, Mannix, Leung, and Skarlicki (2000) examined whether the modal two-way interaction between distributive justice and either procedural or interactional justice is moderated by the cultural dimension of interdependent– independent self-construals (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). The difference between interdependent and independent self-construals relates to whether people see themselves as connected to, or, instead, distinct from others. Because people who see themselves as more connected to others are likely to be relatively more concerned with these others’ interests relative to their own self-interests, interdependent– independent self-construals is conceptually related to collectivism–individualism. Brockner et al. found that the interaction between distributive justice and procedural or interactional justice was stronger among people with more interdependent self-construals. They proposed that people with interdependent self-construals place more importance on their social exchanges than do those with independent self-construals. For this reason, people with interdependent self-construals are more likely to be concerned with the trustworthiness of the other party in social

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001 80 JUSTICE IN THE U.S. AND BANGLADESH exchanges and to use procedural or interactional justice to assess trustworthiness. When procedural or interactional justice is high, they will perceive the other party as more trustworthy and attach less importance to the fairness of their current outcomes. When procedural or interactional justice is low, they will question the trustworthiness of the other party and attach more importance, and thus react more strongly, to the fairness of their current outcomes. While the results of the studies that have addressed both justice and culture do not fit tightly together, they do suggest that the nature of the relationships between the three forms of organizational justice and organization-directed reactions can sometimes differ among employees who accept a high power distance and are collectivistic as compared to those who accept a low power distance and are individualistic.

Current Study We examined relationships between distributive, procedural, and interactional justice and organization-directed reactions using employees from two countries— the U.S. and Bangladesh—whose people, on whole, are likely to differ significantly on the cultural dimensions of power distance and collectivism–individualism. Specifically, people from the U.S. will generally expect a smaller power distance and be more individualistic than those from Bangladesh. Hofstede (1980), who classified culture by nationality, found that the U.S. ranked 38th among 53 countries and regions on his measure of power distance, with a score of 40 (the range of scores was 11 to 104). The U.S. ranked first on individualism (i.e., last on collectivism), with a score of 91 (the range of scores was 6 to 91). While Hofstede did not include Bangladesh in his study, he did include two countries, India and Pakistan, whose scores on power distance and collectivism–individualism may be relevant to Bangladesh. Bangladesh was once (prior to 1972) a part of Pakistan, which, in turn, was once (prior to 1948) a part of India. Hofstede found that India ranked tenth (score of 77) and Pakistan 32nd (score of 55) on power distance, while India ranked 21st (score of 48) and Pakistan 47th (score of 14) on individualism. Thus the U.S. scored lower on power distance and higher on individualism than did either India or Pakistan, suggesting that a similar pattern of results may hold when the U.S. is compared with Bangladesh. We addressed organization-directed reactions in terms of two variables: organizational commitment and turnover intention. Organizational commitment is the degree to which employees take pride in the organization and its values and adopt the organization’s values as their own (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Turn- over intention is the degree to which employees are inclined to voluntarily exit the organization. Colquitt et al. (2001) concluded that organizational commitment and job withdrawal, under which turnover intention is subsumed, are two of the most commonly studied employee reactions in the organizational justice literature. The justice literature indicates that distributive, procedural, and interactional justice can have a variety of unique and interactive relationships with organizational commitment and turnover intention (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Brock- ner, DeWitt, Grover, & Read, 1990; Brockner et al., 1994; Folger & Konovsky,

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001 M. A. RAHIM, N. R. MAGNER, D. ANTONIONI, AND S. RAHMAN 81

1989; Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Schaubroeck, May, & Brown, 1994). Therefore, we tested each of the three alternative models of organizational justice effects: a main effects model, in which the three forms of organizational justice have unique relationships with the two measures of organization-directed reactions; a two-way interaction model, in which distributive justice works together with either procedural or interactional justice to predict organizational commitment and turnover intention; and a three-way interaction model, in which all three forms of organizational justice work together to predict organizational commitment and turnover intention. Our primary focus was on determining whether the nature of the justice relationships differed between the U.S. employees as compared to the Bangladesh employees. The study is largely exploratory because we do not believe sufficient empirical or theoretical support currently exists to hypothesize specific differences in how the three forms of organizational justice are related to organizational commitment and turnover intention across employees from the two countries. How- ever, the research on justice and culture that was discussed above suggests that some differences in justice relationships may emerge if U.S. employees on whole expect a smaller power distance and are more individualistic than Bangladesh employees.

Method We collected questionnaire data from two employee samples each from the U.S. and Bangladesh. University faculty members and business managers separately comprised the U.S. samples; the Bangladesh samples were also separately composed of university faculty members and business managers. The primary predictor variables (distributive, procedural, and interactional justice) and criterion variables (organizational commitment and turnover intention) were measured with common scales in all four samples. Respondents with missing data on one or more of the study’s variables were deleted from the samples. While it is possible that university faculty members and business managers differ in ways that influence how the forms of organizational justice are related to organizational commitment and turnover intention, the specific nature of any such differences is not evident. Samples and Procedures U.S. Faculty. The questionnaire was mailed to 750 randomly selected members of the Academy of Management who were listed as holding non-administrative teaching positions at U.S. universities. Usable questionnaires were received from 154 (21%) of these people. The average age of the respondents, who were predominately (69%) male, was 48.4 (SD = 9.5) years. The respondents had, on average, 22.5 (SD = 11.4) years of full-time work experience and 18.5 (SD = 12.7) years of teaching experience. People with the rank of professor comprised 44% percent of the respondents, while 34% were associate professors, and 20% were assistant professors.

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001 82 JUSTICE IN THE U.S. AND BANGLADESH

U.S. Managers. The questionnaire was mailed to 427 managers in U.S. business organizations, and we received 148 (35%) usable questionnaires in return. The average age of the respondents, who were predominately (69%) male, was 42 (SD = 7.7) years. The respondents had, on average, 19.2 (SD = 8.1) years of full-time work experience. Middle-level managers comprised the majority (80%) of the respondents, while 14% were lower-level managers. Half of the respondents worked for manufacturing firms, and the remainder worked for service firms. Bangladesh Faculty. One of the authors personally contacted and distributed the questionnaire to 250 university faculty members in the cities of Dhaka, Chit- tagong, and Rajshahi. Usable questionnaires were received from 156 (62%) of these people. The questionnaire was written in English, as university faculty members in Bangladesh commonly understand this language. The average age of the respondents, who were predominately (87%) male, was 34.8 (SD = 7.7) years. The respondents had, on average, 9.1 (SD = 8.0) years of full-time work experience and 8.1 (SD = 7.7) years of teaching experience. People with the rank of professor comprised 43% percent of the respondents, while 31% were associate professors, 12% were assistant professors, and 14% were lecturers. Bangladesh Managers. One of the authors personally contacted and distributed the questionnaire to 250 managers in business organizations in Dhaka, Chit- tagong, and Rajshahi, and received 133 (53%) usable questionnaires in return. The questionnaire was written in English, as business managers in Bangladesh commonly understand this language. The average age of the respondents, who were predominately (95%) male, was 33 (SD = 6.9) years. The respondents had, on average, 8.2 (SD = 10.5) years of full-time work experience. Middle-level managers comprised the majority (71%) of the respondents, while 17% were upper-level managers. Approximately three-quarters (76%) of the respondents worked for service firms, and the remainder worked for manufacturing firms. Measures Forms of Justice. We measured the three forms of organizational justice with 11 items adapted from the Organizational Justice Instrument (OJI) (Rahim, Mag- ner, & Shapiro, 2000). The OJI is comprised of 23 items distributed across three subscales that measure distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. As recommended by Colquitt (2001), the subscales are indirect measures of the forms of justice in that they assess specific fairness criteria rather than directly asking how fair something is. Each OJI item has a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), and the responses to the items within each subscale were averaged. Higher scores on a subscale indicate a higher level of that form of justice. Distributive justice was measured with three OJI items that addressed the perceived fairness with respect to the equity norm of the rewards the respondent received from his or her employer organization. Rewards are a particularly salient type of organizational outcome to employees and are a common target of distributive justice perceptions in organizational justice studies (e.g., McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Moorman, 1991). The scale items were: “I believe that my rewards accurately reflect my contributions to the organization (university),” “The most

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001 M. A. RAHIM, N. R. MAGNER, D. ANTONIONI, AND S. RAHMAN 83 productive employees (faculty) in my organization (university) receive the highest rewards,” and “The rewards I receive from my organization (university) are in accord with my level of performance.” Procedural justice was measured with four OJI items that addressed the perceived fairness of the formal decision-making procedures in the respondent’s employer organization. The scale items were: “My organization (university) has in place formal channels that allow employees (faculty) to express their views and opinions before decisions are made,” “Formal procedures exist in my organization (university) to ensure that officials do not allow personal biases to affect their decisions,” “There are formal means by which employees (faculty) in my organization (university) can challenge decisions that they feel are erroneous,” and “My organization (university) has formal procedures to ensure that officials have accurate information on which to base their decisions.” These four items address, respec- tively, the voice, bias suppression, correctability, and accuracy criteria that have been established for procedural justice (e.g., Barrett-Howard & Tyler, 1986; Greenberg, 1986; Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Interactional justice was measured with four OJI items that addressed the perceived social sensitivity of the interpersonal treatment the respondent received from his or her immediate supervisor. Greenberg (1993) referred to this aspect of organizational justice that relates to the social sensitivity of authorities as interpersonal justice. The immediate supervisor is likely to be the organizational authority that an employee interacts with most often and views as having a particularly strong impact on the organizational rewards he or she receives. The scale items were: “I believe that my supervisor’s (department chairperson’s) actions show that s/he respects me,” “My supervisor (department chairperson) treats me in a kindly manner,” “In my relationship with my supervisor (department chairperson), s/he shows a concern for the impact that his/her actions will have on me,” and “In dealings with my supervisor (department chairperson), I find him/her to be polite.” The items address criteria that have been established for socially-sensitive interpersonal treatment by decision makers (e.g., Bies & Moag, 1986; Tyler & Bies, 1990). Organizational Commitment. The respondent’s affective commitment to the employer organization was measured with six items developed by O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) to measure the identification and internalization bases of commitment. They were grouped together in a single scale because prior research has indicated they load on a single factor (e.g., Naumann, Bennett, Bies, & Martin, 1998; Vandenberg, Self, & Seo, 1994). Examples of the scale items used in the current study are: “My attachment to this organization (university) is primarily based on the similarity of my values and those represented by this organization (university),” and “When someone praises my organization (university), it feels like a personal compliment.” Each item had a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) and the responses to the items were averaged. Higher scores indicated greater organizational commitment. Turnover Intention. The respondent’s intention to voluntarily exit the employer organization was measured with four items. Cammann, Fichman, Jen- kins, and Klesh (1979) developed two of the items (“It is likely that I will actively

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001 84 JUSTICE IN THE U.S. AND BANGLADESH look for a new job in the next year,” and “I often think about quitting"). The other two items (“It would take very little change in my present circumstances to cause me to leave this organization (university),” and “There is not too much to be gained by sticking with the organization (university) indefinitely”) were adapted from those developed by Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982). Beckler (1992) previously used a scale comprised of the four items to measure turnover intention. Each item in the current study had a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) and the responses to the items were averaged. Higher scores indicated greater turnover intention.

Results Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Table 1 shows means, standard deviations, alpha reliability coefficients, and correlations for the study's five primary variables in each of the four samples. The alpha coefficients exceeded the minimum .70 level recommended by Nunnally (1978), with the single exception of the alpha for procedural justice (.66) in the

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability Coefficients, and Correlations

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5

U.S. faculty (n = 154) 1. Distributive justice 4.05 1.81 (.92) 2. Procedural justice 4.22 1.36 .58 (.81) 3. Interactional justice 5.60 1.43 .47 .47 (.91) 4. Organizational commitment 4.06 1.35 .37 .49 .30 (.89) 5. Turnover intention 3.11 1.77 –.46 –.38 –.38 –.42 (.87) U.S. managers (n = 148) 1. Distributive justice 4.48 1.26 (.84) 2. Procedural justice 4.27 1.19 .51 (.81) 3. Interactional justice 5.58 1.19 .53 .45 (.91) 4. Organizational commitment 5.28 0.96 .38 .54 .35 (.85) 5. Turnover intention 2.82 1.52 –.41 –.36 –.55 –.42 (.89) Bangladesh faculty (n = 156) 1. Distributive justice 3.79 1.47 (.71) 2. Procedural justice 4.21 1.21 .48 (.71) 3. Interactional justice 5.06 1.38 .33 .20 (.84) 4. Organizational commitment 5.43 0.95 .21 .29 .19 (.76) 5. Turnover intention 3.30 1.58 –.30 –.25 –.22 –.33 (.82) Bangladesh managers (n = 133) 1. Distributive justice 4.58 1.64 (.74) 2. Procedural justice 4.33 1.44 .60 (.66) 3. Interactional justice 5.43 1.28 .54 .39 (.81)

4. Organizational commitment 5.54 1.01 .35 .36 .40 (.77) 5. Turnover intention 3.64 1.80 –.42 –.40 –.32 –.36 (.86)

Note: Alpha reliability coefficients are in parentheses on the diagonals. All correlations are significant at p < .05.

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001 86 JUSTICE IN THE U.S. AND BANGLADESH sample of Bangladesh managers. The correlations between the justice variables, which ranged from .20 to .60, were within the range of those typically reported in prior studies (e.g., Gilliland, 1994; Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). The moderate correlations between organizational commitment and turnover intention, which ranged from –.33 to –.42, suggest that the dependent variables were addressing separate constructs. All other correlations were also moderate, with absolute values ranging from .19 to .54. Hierarchical Regression The primary analytic technique used in the study was four-step hierarchical regression. In Step 1, organizational commitment and turnover intention were each regressed on two demographic control variables, gender and age. In Step 2, distributive, procedural, and interactional justice were added as a group to the two regression models. The results of this step pertain to the main effects model of organizational justice. In Step 3, the three possible two-way interactions between the justice variables were added as a group to the regression models. The results of this step pertain to the two-way interaction model of organizational justice. In Step 4, the three-way interaction between the justice variables was added to the regression models. The results of this step pertain to the three-way interaction model of organizational justice. In conducting the regression analysis, the justice variables were each put in deviation score form so that their means were zero, as recommended by Aiken and West (1991). Table 2 shows the results of the hierarchical regression analysis. The regression coefficients represent the unique relationship that a predictor variable had with the criterion variable after controlling for the other predictor variables in the regression model. The significant unique relationships that emerged in Step 2 cannot be interpreted when the justice variables are also involved in a significant two- way interaction; similarly, the significant two-way interactions that emerged cannot be interpreted when the justice variables are also involved in a significant three-way interaction. Therefore, we will focus only on the highest order significant effects that emerged for each justice variable in each sample. With regard to organizational commitment, a significant (p < .05) two-way interaction between procedural and interactional justice emerged in the sample of U.S. faculty. Follow-up procedures recommended by Aiken and West (1991) indicated that procedural justice had a stronger positive relationship with organizational commitment when interactional justice was high (versus low). Procedural justice had a significant unique and positive relationship with organizational commitment in the samples of U.S. managers and Bangladesh faculty, and interactional justice had a significant unique and positive relationship with organizational commitment in the sample of Bangladesh managers. With regard to turnover intention, a significant three-way interaction between the justice variables emerged in the sample of U.S. faculty. Follow-up procedures indicated that distributive justice had the strongest negative relationship with turnover intention when procedural justice was low and interactional justice was high. A significant two-way interaction between distributive and procedural justice emerged in the sample of Bangladesh managers such that distributive justice had a

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001 M. A. RAHIM, N. R. MAGNER, D. ANTONIONI, AND S. RAHMAN 87 tble 2

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001 M. A. RAHIM, N. R. MAGNER, D. ANTONIONI, AND S. RAHMAN 89 stronger relationship with turnover intention when procedural justice was low. Distributive and procedural justice each had moderately significant (p < .10) unique relationships with turnover intention in the sample of Bangladesh faculty. Interactional justice had a significant relationship with turnover intention in the sample of U.S. managers, and a moderately significant relationship with turnover intention in the samples of Bangladesh faculty and Bangladesh managers.

Discussion The people of the U.S. and Bangladesh are, on whole, likely to be much different with regard to cultural dimensions such as power distance and collectivism- individualism that have been proposed to moderate justice effects. However, a key finding of our study is that U.S. versus Bangladesh nationality had little influence on the nature of the relationships between distributive, procedural, and interactional justice and employees’ organizational commitment and turnover intention. Instead, differences in justice relationships emerged primarily when comparing results across the four individual samples of employees. Two of the samples—U.S. managers and Bangladesh faculty—supported a main effects model of organizational justice with regard to both criterion variables. In each sample, procedural justice was the only form of organizational justice to have a unique relationship with organizational commitment. The results regarding turnover intention were less consistent. While only interactional justice had a unique relationship with turnover intention in the sample of U.S. managers, all three forms of organizational justice had a unique (albeit weak) relationship with turnover intention in the sample of Bangladesh faculty. The sample of Bangladesh managers supported a main effects model of organizational justice with regard to organizational commitment, and both a main effects and two-way interaction model with regard to turnover intention. Specifi- cally, interactional justice had a unique relationship with both organizational commitment and turnover intention, while distributive and procedural justice had an interactive relationship with turnover intention. The interaction pattern, in which distributive justice had a stronger relationship with turnover intention when procedural justice was low, is consistent with the modal pattern found in prior research (Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996). The sample of U.S. faculty supported a two-way interaction model of organizational justice with regard to organizational commitment and a three-way interaction model with regard to turnover intention. However, these interactions differed from those typically reported in the justice literature in terms of either the justice variables involved in the interaction or the interaction pattern. For example, the interaction between procedural and interactional justice that emerged on organizational commitment, in which procedural justice had a stronger positive relationship with organizational commitment when interactional justice was high, contrasts with the typical two-way interaction involving distributive justice work- ing in tandem with either procedural or interactional justice. The pattern of the three-way interaction that emerged on turnover intention, in which distributive justice had the strongest negative relationship with the criterion variable when pro-

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001 90 JUSTICE IN THE U.S. AND BANGLADESH cedural justice was low and interactional justice was high, is contrary to that reported by Skarlicki and Folger (1997), who found that distributive justice had its strongest relationship with organization-directed reactions when both procedural and interactional justice were low. Our results have several implications for cross-cultural justice research as well as the more general justice literature. They suggest that broad aspects of national culture such as power distance and collectivism-individualism do not always moderate justice effects, or, at least, the influence of these cultural variables is subtle and may be contingent on other factors. The results also affirm that the nature of justice effects can vary widely from one sample to another, even when the samples all come from a single national culture. For example, while only interactional justice was related to turnover intention in the sample of U.S. managers, all three justice variables worked together to predict turnover intention in the sample of U.S. faculty. Moreover, in comparing the two Bangladesh samples, only procedural justice was related to organizational commitment among the faculty, while only interactional justice was related to organizational commitment among the managers. Our study also provides further evidence that the nature of justice effects is often dependent on the specific criterion variable of interest, even when comparing effects across criterion variables that address similar constructs. Our criterion variables, organizational commitment and turnover intention, both likely capture a general affective response to the organization (Masterson et al., 2000). Yet we found that different types of justice relationships emerged across the two criterion variables even within individual samples. In the sample of U.S. managers, for example, only procedural justice was related to organizational commitment, while only interactional justice was related to turnover intention. Finally, our results contribute to the growing literature on interactions between justice variables in that they (a) identified a two-way interaction between procedural and interactional justice that has rarely been reported elsewhere, and (b) uncovered a pattern for the three-way interaction between justice variables that is contrary to that found previously. Future research should devote more attention to identifying the specific factors that condition when particular justice variables will interact and the pattern that these interactions will take. Limitations Our results should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, we did not explicitly measure either power distance or collectivism-individualism, and it is possible that employees from a single country vary widely on these cultural dimensions. Had we categorized our respondents on the basis of explicit measures of power distance and collectivism-individualism, clear differences in justice relationships may have been more likely to emerge across these two cultural dimensions. Second, our three measures of organizational justice did not capture all dimensions of their related constructs. For example, we measured distributive justice with respect to the equity criterion, but other possible criteria for distributive justice include equality and need (Deutsch, 1975). Also, we measured interactional justice in terms of interpersonal justice. Another dimension of interactional justice is informational justice, which focuses on the extent to which decision makers

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001 M. A. RAHIM, N. R. MAGNER, D. ANTONIONI, AND S. RAHMAN 91 explain and provide adequate justification for their decisions (Colquitt, 2001; Greenberg, 1993). If our measures had addressed these other dimensions of the justice variables, relationships between the forms of justice and the criterion variables may have been different from those reported here. Third, our study was etic in nature (Morris, Leung, Ames, & Lickel, 1999) in that we used measurement methods developed primarily for the U.S. to examine justice relationships in Bangladesh. We cannot be assured about the equivalence of the measures across the two countries. Berry (1990), however, has recommended that etic constructs be used in the type of initial exploratory research of organizational phenomena found in this study. Fourth, our justice scales had relatively lower reliability in the Bangladesh samples than in the U.S. samples. Random measurement error in scales tends to reduce measures of association (e.g., regression coefficients) between variables (Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991). Therefore, it is likely that the regression results for the Bangladesh samples understate the strength of some of the relationships between the justice variables and the criterion variables to a greater extent than the results for the U.S. samples. Fifth, we implied a direction of causality from the justice variables to organizational commitment and turnover intention that cannot be proved with the cross-sectional data used in the study. It is possible that employees who are more committed to and have less intent to leave their organization may, in turn, perceive a greater amount of organizational justice.

Conclusions The limitations notwithstanding, strengths of this study include (a) its use of two separate employee samples, each from both a Western country and a non- Western country, and (b) the use of common measures of the justice and criterion variables across all four samples. We believe the results provide compelling evidence that officials of organizations in countries that have distinctly different cultural and economic characteristics than those typically found in Western countries like the U.S. must still concern themselves with fostering organizational justice in terms of formal decision-making procedures, decision outcomes, and interpersonal treatment.

References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177–198. Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421–458. Barling, J., & Phillips, M. (1993). Interactional, formal, and distributive justice in the workplace: An exploratory study. Journal of Psychology, 73, 199–207. Barrett-Howard, E., & Tyler, T. R. (1986). Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 296–304. Beckler, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232–244.

Berry, J. W. (1990). Imposed etics, emics, derived etics: Their conceptual and operational status in cross-cultural psychology. In P. C. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 75–129). San Francisco: New Lexington Press. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bond, M. H., Leung, K., & Wan, K. C. (1982). How does cultural collectivism operate? The impact of task and maintenance contribution on reward distribution. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 13, 186–200. Brockner, J., Chen, Y., Mannix, E. A., Leung, K., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2000). Culture and procedural fairness: When the effects of what you do depend on how you do it. Admin- istrative Science Quarterly, 45, 138–159. Brockner, J., DeWitt, R. L., Grover, S., & Reed, T. (1990). When it is especially important to explain why: Factors affecting the relationship between managers’ explanations of a layoff and survivors’ reactions to the layoff. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 389–407. Brockner, J., Konovsky, M. A., Cooper-Schneider, R., Folger, R., Martin, C. L., & Bies, R. J. (1994). Interactive effects of procedural justice and outcome negativity on victims and survivors of job loss. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 397–409. Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189–208. Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct valida- tion of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Jus- tice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–150. Farh, J., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quar- terly, 42, 421–444. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115–130. Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selec- tion system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 691–701. Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Jour- nal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340–342. Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kim, K. I., Park, H., & Suzuki, N. (1990). Reward allocations in the United States, Japan, and Korea: A comparison of individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 188–198.

Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698–707. Leung, K. (1988). Theoretical advances in justice behavior: Some cross-cultural inputs. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The cross-cultural challenge to social psychology (pp. 218–229). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 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: New advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum Press. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. 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. 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. McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (2001). Cross-cultural applications of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2, pp. 67–95). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 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. Morris, M. W., Leung, K., Ames, D., & Lickel, B. (1999). Views from inside and outside: Integrating emic and etic insights about culture and justice judgments. Academy of Man- agement Review, 24, 781–796. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press. Naumann, S. E., Bennett, N., Bies, R. J., & Martin, C. L. (1998). Laid off, but still loyal: The influence of perceived justice and organizational support. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9, 356–368. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499. Rahim, M. A., Magner, N. R., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). Do justice perceptions influence styles of handling conflict with supervisor? What justice perceptions, precisely? Inter- national Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 5–26. Schaubroeck, J., May, D. R., & Brown, F. W. (1994). Procedural justice explanations and employee reactions to economic hardship: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 79, 455–460. 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, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In J. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational set- tings (pp. 77–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Vandenberg, R. J., Self, R. M., & Seo, J. H. (1994). A critical examination of the internali - zation, identification, and compliance commitment measures. Journal of Management, 20, 123–140. Yang, K. (1993). Chinese social orientation: An integrative analysis. In L. Y. Cheng, F. M. C. Cheung, & C. Chen (Eds.), Psychotherapy for the Chinese: Selected papers from the first international conference (pp. 19–56). Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong. Yang, K., Yu, A., & Yeh, M. H. (1989). Chinese individual modernity and traditionality: Construct definition and measurement. Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Conference on Chinese Psychology and Behavior, pp. 287–354.

Biographical Note M. Afzalur Rahim Center for Advanced Studies in Management 1574 Mallory Court Bowling Green, KY 42103–1300 Phone/Fax: 270–782–2898/2601 Email: [email protected] Dr. Rahim is the Founding Editor of the International Journal of Organizational Analysis and International Journal of Conflict Management. He is the founder of the International Association for Conflict Management and International Conference on Advances in Management. He is a Professor of Management at Western Kentucky University. Dr. Rahim is the author/co-author of 18 books and 145 articles, book chapters, case studies, and research instruments. His articles have been published, among others, in Academy of Management Journal, Human Relations, International Journal of Conflict Management, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, Journal of Management, Journal of Small Business Management, Journal of Social Psychology, Multivariate Behavioral Research, and Perceptual and Motor Skills. His current research interests are in the areas of cross-cultural emotional intelligence, organizational learning, conflict management, organizational justice, and leader power. Nace R. Magner is the J. C. Holland Professor of Accounting in the Gordon Ford College of Business at Western Kentucky University. He received his DBA from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. His primary research interests are antecedents and consequences of justice in organizational control systems. Dr. Magner's research has been published in scholarly journals that include Accounting, Organizations and Society; Accounting and Business Research; the Journal of Applied Psychology; Group and Organization Manage- ment; Multivariate Behavioral Research; the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology; the Journal of Applied Social Psychology; the Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial Management; Public Administration Quarterly; the British Accounting Review; Advances in Management Accounting; and the International Journal of Conflict Management. Dr. David Antonioni is an Associate Professor of Management at the University of Wis- consin, Madison. He is the Chair of the Executive Education Unit in the School of Business and is also the program director for the Mid-Management Development and Project Man- agement Certificate Programs. He conducts applied research in the conflict management, Big Five Personality, and 360-degree feedback. His publications have appeared in the Inter- national Journal of Conflict Management, Personnel Psychology, Academy of Management

Executive, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Organizational Dynamics, and Indus- trial Management. Sahidur Rahman is a Lecturer in Management at the University of Chittagong, Bangla- desh. His research relates to cross-cultural organizational justice, organizational commitment, and emotional intelligence.

Received: September 10, 2001 Accepted by Daniel P. Skarlicki after a revision January 20, 2002 

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001