Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Linking Justice, Performance, and Citizenship via Leader–Member Exchange

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose, M. L. (2002). Contemporary justice research: A new look at familiar questions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 803–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SmallWaters Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader–member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538–1567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader–member exchange, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 315–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, G. R. (1985). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process: A constructive replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 777–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gellatly, I. R. (1995). Individual and group determinants of employee absenteeism: Test of a causal model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 469–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graen, G. B. (1989). Unwritten rules for your career. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader–member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, T. R. (1985). An evaluation of the validity of correlation research conducted in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 10, 192–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen-Buchanan, J. B. (1996). Voicing discontent: what happens to the grievance filer after the grievance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 52–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Mackenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 351–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, J. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, S. (1999). The effects of distributive and procedural justice on performance. Journal of Psychology, 133, 183–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yukl, G., & Fu, P. P. (1999). Determinants of delegation and consultation by managers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 219–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. College of Business, Northern Illinois University, Barsema Hall, DeKalb, IL, 60115, USA

    James P. Burton

  2. College of Business Administration, California State University Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, USA

    Chris J. Sablynski

  3. Faculty of Business Administration, Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka, Japan

    Tomoki Sekiguchi

Authors
  1. James P. Burton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chris J. Sablynski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tomoki Sekiguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James P. Burton.

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

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-008-9075-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation