No abstract

In this research we tested the relative importance of subjective appraisals of the job versus mood state in accounting for organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). A total of 369 individuals from two hospitals provided data concerning their typical mood state at work and appraisals of their jobs and their pay, and supervisors provided ratings of employee OCB. Subjects' evaluations of the job, notably with respect to pay, accounted for more unique variance in OCB than did the mood measures. The results suggest that OCB has a deliberate, controlled character and does not represent expressive behavior owing to emotional states. We offer a fairness interpretation of OCB, drawing from Blau's (1964) social exchange framework. Conclusions are tentative and qualified in view of the limitations of the data.

No abstract

No abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy of Management Journal.We conducted a survey to examine the impact of distributive and procedural justice on the reactions of 217 employees to decisions about pay raises. Distributive justice accounted for more unique variance in satisfaction with pay than did procedural justice, but procedural justice accounted for more unique variance in two other measures of attitudes about the employing institution and its authorities, trust in supervisor and organizational commitment. We discuss what our results imply about the nature of justice in organizations and the distributiveprocedural distinction.Other legal and political studies have shown a similar relationship between procedural justice and support for leaders or institutions, but they have also provided evidence that outcome satisfaction is more strongly related to distributive than to procedural justice. For example, Tyler, Rasinski, and McGraw (1985) found that distributive justice accounted for almost twice as much variance in outcome satisfaction as did measures of procedural fairness. From an analysis based on structural equations modeling, Tyler (1984) reported a significant path coefficient between distributive fairness and outcome satisfaction, whereas the path from procedural fairness to outcome satisfaction was not significant.After reviewing this research, Lind and Tyler concluded that "procedural justice has especially strong effects on attitudes about institutions or authorities, as opposed to attitudes about the specific outcome in question" (1988: 179). In addition, they offered the following interpretation of the data: "In making leadership or institutional evaluations people are taking a longterm perspective on membership within a group. With personal satisfaction they are reacting to a single decision" (1988: 224). Lind and Tyler's conclusions thus suggest the hypothesis that procedural justice is more highly related to institutional evaluations that require a long-term perspective, like organizational commitment, than it is to satisfaction with the outcome of specific decisions. The latter may result from a short-term perspective and be less stable.Although evidence for the differential effects of procedural and distributive justice in the legal and political domains is substantial, virtually no evidence bearing on this issue has been gathered in workplaces. One previous study, a survey of over 2,000 federal employees by Alexander and Ruderman (1987), examined the relative contributions of distributive and procedural justice by constructing predictor measures that represented those two forms of justice. Two ...