Procedural justice enactment as an instrument of position protection: The three‐way interaction between leaders' power position stability, followers' warmth, and followers' competence

Abstract

Summary Studies have started to examine factors that explain when and why leaders enact procedural justice. However, these studies have not considered the idea that justice enactment can be a self‐serving instrument for leaders. In this paper, we propose a threat‐based tripartite model of procedural justice enactment. Specifically, we examine how leaders in unstable (vs. stable) power positions combine information from the two fundamental dimensions of person perception—that is, their perceptions of a follower's competence and warmth—to shape the level of procedural justice they enact toward the follower. In support of our model, the results of a multisource organizational field study and a laboratory experiment show that leaders in unstable power positions enact procedural justice, particularly toward followers whom they perceive as highly competent but low in warmth. We discuss our findings in light of their implications for the justice and leadership literatures.

Uncharted waters of justice enactment—Venturing into the social complexity of doing justice in organizations

“…In other words, what is just or unjust cannot be defined objectively and is always subject to individual and socially constructed judgments (see Greenberg et al, 1991). While a number of papers in this Special Issue explicitly or implicitly construe justice enactment as compliance with justice rules (e.g., Brockner et al, 2021; Zheng et al, 2021), rule adherence itself is not so straightforward. For example, Derfler‐Rozin and colleagues focus on rule adherence as consistency but nevertheless point out that “perceived fairness is strongly determined by social factors [and] there are stark differences in people's perceptions of an (identical) ‘fair’ salary.” Although the dependent variable in Derfler‐Rozin and colleagues' article was respondents' consistency in the application of distributive justice rules, the authors explored how friendships and group perspective taking determine whether or not managers consider consistency as the prime determinant of fairness.…”

“…Even though we recognize that behavioral manifestations of justice are intricately entwined with intentions, behaviors and intentions may diverge in important ways. For example, a manager may practice “justice enactment,” justifying his or her decisions on the basis of justice rules, yet do so merely out of impression management concerns or even pure self‐interest (see van Houwelingen et al, 2021, this issue; Zheng et al, 2021). By contrast, a managerial decision and the consequent behavior may appear unjust on the surface, yet be the result of a careful consideration of the pros and cons of different justice standards.…”

“…Two further papers lead us to consider the issue of power in the context of justice enactment. While justice may be used as an instrument to protect one's power position, especially when it is perceived as weak (Zheng, Schuh, van Dijke, & de Cremer, 2021), supervisors' sense of power also influences how their own interpersonal fairness enactment is affected by the informational fairness they receive from managers above them (Brockner, de Cremer, van Dijke, de Schutter, Holtz, & van Hiel, 2021). The final paper points to the role of friendships among managers and employees in influencing justice enactment (Derfler‐Rozin, Sherf, & Chen, 2021) and highlights the importance of social context in determining what actors believe is fair behavior.…”

“…Fifth, Zheng et al (2021) introduce the idea that procedural justice enactment, which typically provides legitimacy, can be motivated by leaders' desire to protect their own power base. Their research in the field and in the lab suggests that leaders in unstable power positions will enact the highest degree of procedural justice towards followers who are most threatening, namely, those whom they consider to be “competent” yet “cold” (on the two‐dimensional “stereotype content” space; see Cuddy et al, 2008).…”

Wise Ancestors, Good Ancestors: Why Mindfulness Matters in the Promotion of Planetary Health

“…In the workplace, the link between higher mindfulness among leaders and larger groups appears to be mediated, at least in part, by procedural justice enactment [77,78]. This construct is a measure of the extent to which a leader is viewed as upholding fair procedural rules such as voice, accuracy, and timeliness in the decision-making process; procedural justice enactment is viewed as a moral imperative that considers employees to be part of a respected collective in which personal goals beyond that of the leader are considered [100]. The personal mindfulness levels of those in the sphere of mindful leaders also matters to positive well-being outcomes [79]-much like the discourse on wise leaders in local and global communities, everyone's attitudes, judgements and behaviors have impact on outcomes [92].…”