Cultural differences and applicants' procedural fairness perceptions

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine Chinese traditionality as a predictor of applicants' procedural fairness perceptions in selection, and both its direct and indirect relationship with applicants' recommending behavior, job performance and turnover intention three to four months post hire. Traditionality, as a moderator of perceptions‐outcomes relationships, is also tested.Design/methodology/approachSurvey data of 218 supervisor‐subordinate dyads were collected from Mainland Chinese organizations. Data were gathered in two waves, with demographic and traditionality measures taken at time 1, and supervisory ratings of performance, recommending behavior and intention to turnover taken at time 2.FindingsOne component of traditionality alone (Respect for Authority) positively predicted applicants' procedural fairness perceptions. These perceptions, in turn, predicted recommending behavior (+), job performance (+) and turnover intentions (−). There were also direct relationships between Respect for Authority and both job performance (+) and turnover intention (−). The data failed to support the moderating effect of Chinese traditionality on the relationships between procedural fairness perceptions and outcome variables.Research limitations/implicationsDespite the methodological strengths of this study, the study is cross‐sectional in nature which weakens causal inferences regarding the relationships in the theoretical model. Moreover, the paper does not investigate empirically the concrete mechanisms from Chinese traditionality to fairness perceptions and from fairness perceptions to outcome variables, since its foci are the predicting and moderating roles of Chinese traditionality.Originality/valueThe paper's findings underscore the importance of Respect for Authority as the key and only component of Chinese traditionality that predicts procedural justice perceptions and worker outcomes.

Personal characteristics and applicants’ perceptions of procedural fairness in a selection context

“…fair treatment, openness, two-way communication) aspects. Our interest in procedural fairness per se is that, in addition to the outcomes noted above, it associates positively with employee job performance (Wang et al , 2012), including 18 months post-hire (Konradt et al , 2017). As such, it is of practical value to understand the antecedents of these perceptions.…”

“…Nonetheless, the total number of studies involved is small, and most notably, there has yet to be a study in which the characteristics we referenced have been examined together for their impact on both applicants’ expectations, and their experience of procedural fairness, in an employee selection process. For example, although there are investigations of procedural fairness perceptions in selection contexts that incorporate Confucianism (Wang et al , 2012), personality (Truxillo et al , 2006) or test-taking experience (Ryan et al , 1996), no single study examines all three. Analogously, two studies have investigated the impact of procedural fairness expectations on experienced procedural fairness (Bell et al , 2006; Konradt et al , 2017), but neither of them incorporated applicants’ cultural values personality or test-taking experience as antecedents.…”

Chinese traditionality, job attitudes, and job performance: a study of Chinese employees

“…As a consequence, they are likely to obtain good evaluation of their work performance. Previous research has also found that Chinese traditionality was positively associated with employees' job performance (Hui et al, 2007;Wang et al, 2012). We thus put forward the following hypothesis: H3.…”

A Systematic Review On The Relationship Between Organizational Justice And Turnover Intention

“…It was discovered that studies were conducted in various parts of the world such as in United States (Ahuja, Chudoba, Kacmar, McKnight, & George, 2007;Buttner, Lowe, & Billings-Harris, 2010;Byrne, 2005;Campbell, Perry, Jr, Allen, & Griffeth, 2013;Cantor, Macdonald, & Crum, 2011;Cole, Bernerth, Walter, & Holt, 2010;Coniglio, 2013;Soltis, Agneessens, Sasovova, & Labianca, 2013), China (Lin, 2015;Loi, Hang-Yue, & Foley, 2006;Ma, Liu, & Liu, 2014;Ngo, Loi, Foley, Zheng, & Zhang, 2013;Wang, Hackett, Cui, & Zhang, 2012), Korea (Campbell, Im, & Jeong, 2014;Kim, Solomon, & Jang, 2012;Lee, Kim, & Kim, 2016;Son, Kim, & Kim, 2014), Canada (Chawla & Kelloway, 2004;Flint et al, 2013;Paré & Tremblay, 2007;Tremblay, 2010), Pakistan (Bakri & Ali, 2015;Khan, Abbas, Gul, & Raja, 2015;Shahzad, 2016), India (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002;Biswas, 2015;Chalil & Prasad, 2014), Malaysia (Ansari, Hung, & Aafaqi, 2007;Ponnu & Chuah, 2010;Poon, 2012) Singapore (Aryee & Chay, 2001;Ho, 2012), Spain (Silla, Gracia, Mañas, & Peiró, 2010), Indonesia (Zagladi, Hadiwidjojo, & Rahayu, 2015), United Arab Emirates (UAE) (Al Afari & Elanain, 2014), Israel (Meisler, 2013), Australia …”