Considering self‐interests and symbolism together: How instrumental and value‐expressive motives interact to influence supervisors’ justice behavior

Abstract

Drawing upon functional theories of attitudes and the organizational justice literature, the current research suggests that people's attitudes toward justice likely serve an instrumental function (grounded in self‐interest, rewards maximization, and punishment minimization) as well as a value‐expressive function (grounded in the expression of self‐concept and values). Importantly, these two functions co‐exist and interact to influence supervisors’ justice behavior and the consistency of such behavior via supervisors’ justification for unjust behavior. Findings from a set of experimental and correlational studies confirmed these predictions. The positive effects of supervisors’ value‐expressive function on justice behavior and its consistency were stronger when their instrumental function was lower (vs. higher), and justification for unjust behavior mediated these effects. Also, supplementary analyses showed that the consistency of supervisors’ justice behavior positively predicted subordinates’ overall justice perceptions beyond the effects of the overall level of justice behavior. We conclude by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.

Why so Humorous? The Roles of Traditionality and Gender (Dis)Similarity in Leader Humor Behavior and Employee Job Performance

“…With strong support from the human resources department, invitations to participate were sent to 569 supervisors and, for each supervisor, one randomly selected subordinate. We sent participants links to online surveys via WeChat, a widely used messaging application that has been used for collecting data in recent studies (e.g., Ju et al, 2019; Qin et al, 2018). Each participant was rewarded with RMB 20 (approximately US$ 3) per survey for their time.…”

A Multilevel Study of Abusive Supervision, Norms, and Personal Control on Counterproductive Work Behavior: A Theory of Planned Behavior Approach

“…It is worth noting that, these values are comparable to those ICC values reported in the organizational behavior literature (see Bliese, 2000; Liao & Chuang, 2007; Qin, Hom, & Xu, in press; Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998). Some scholars suggested that relatively low ICC[2] should not prevent aggregation if aggregation can be justified by theory and high r wg and significant between-group variance (Chen & Bliese, 2002; Kozlowski & Hattrup, 1992; Qin, Ren, Zhang, & Johnson, 2018). Thus, we conducted the aggregation, while acknowledging that “the relationships between the aggregated measures with low ICC[2] and the other study variables might be underestimated” (Liao & Chuang, 2007, p. 1012).…”

Am I a peasant or a worker? An identity strain perspective on turnover among developing-world migrants

“…perceived supervisory support, an individual-level construct; Eisenberger et al, 2002) may act as a similar buffer (though differential support may backfire; Seo et al, 2018). Future research might thus assess perceived supervisory support as well as other resources, such as supervisor justice treatment (Qin et al, 2017b), and families or friends relocating to the same urban community who can help migrants adapt to urban work and life. Some job demands (e.g.…”