It’s not justice if it’s not for all: cross-level interaction of interactional justice differentiation and supervisory justice on psychological safety and conflict

Abstract

Purpose Building on social exchange and deontic justice theory, this study aims to examine the relationship between supervisory justice (i.e. interactional, procedural and distributive) and conflict (i.e. relationship, process and task) through subordinates’ perceptions of psychological safety. Moreover, the authors hypothesize that interactional justice differentiation (IJD) within a workgroup at the group level interacts with supervisory justice at the individual level, affecting subordinates’ psychological safety and conflict. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected using a survey conducted among 378 service sector (banks, hospitals and universities) employees working under 54 supervisors. Findings Multi-level data analysis demonstrates that supervisory justice positively influences psychological safety, negatively affecting conflict. Moreover, psychological safety mediates the supervisory justice–conflict relationship. A cross-level interaction partially supports the conditional indirect effect of IJD in the supervisory justice–conflict relationship via psychological safety. Originality/value Following moral principles based on a deontic perspective, this study stretches the understanding of how to treat employees in a workgroup while creating a healthier working environment to minimize conflict fairly. This study extends the limited research on supervisory justice by conceptualizing employees’ perceptions of justice beyond an individual-level analysis.

The impact of justice perceptions of performance appraisal practices on job satisfaction and intention to stay: the mediating role of job engagement

“…The organization that maintains justice in the organizational process positively influences employees' workplace outcomes (Afshan et al, 2022). Relationships and mutual trust at work are improved when employees perceive procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice in the performance appraisal practices (Gupta and Kumar, 2013).…”