Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior.

Blader, Steven L.; Tyler, Tom R.

doi:10.1037/a0013935

Cited by 657 publications

(760 citation statements)

References 130 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

684

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This relational information helps shape their group identity. Moreover, the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003) and the self-based model of cooperation (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005) suggest that this positive influence of procedural fairness on members' group identity consequently promotes cooperation (for empirical evidence, see De Cremer & Tyler, 2005;Blader & Tyler, 2009;Tyler & Lind, 1992). We argue that this relational effect of procedural fairness will be pronounced if all members (i.e., self and others) receive procedurally fair treatment.…”

Section: The Interactive Effect Of Own and Others' Procedural Fairnesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is because procedural fairness indicates that individuals are valued and respected members of a group that they can be proud of, which contributes positively to their group identity (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005;Tyler, 1999). This positive group identity consequently improves cooperation (Blader & Tyler, 2009). However, a limitation of this research and of the overwhelming majority of procedural fairness studies is that scholars have typically focused on how people's personal procedural fairness experiences motivate cooperative behavior (for a recent overview, see Blader & Tyler, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This positive group identity consequently improves cooperation (Blader & Tyler, 2009). However, a limitation of this research and of the overwhelming majority of procedural fairness studies is that scholars have typically focused on how people's personal procedural fairness experiences motivate cooperative behavior (for a recent overview, see Blader & Tyler, 2009). Extending prior work, we propose that examining the impact of procedural fairness on cooperation within social settings implies that the fairness experiences of all actors involved need to be examined.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cooperating when “you” and “I” are treated fairly: The moderating role of leader prototypicality.

Cremer

Dijke

Mayer

2010

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We developed a model predicting that leaders are most effective in stimulating follower cooperation when they consistently treat all group members in a fair manner and are prototypical (i.e., representative of the group's values and norms). In support of this idea, we consistently found that group members cooperated most when prototypical leaders treated themselves as well as their coworkers fairly across a laboratory experiment and 3 cross-sectional field studies. These findings highlight the important role of others' fairness experiences and perceptions in influencing one's own reactions and also the role of leaders as representing the group's values and norms. We discuss implications for fairness theory and the leader prototypicality literature.

show abstract

Section: The Interactive Effect Of Own and Others' Procedural Fairnesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cooperating when “you” and “I” are treated fairly: The moderating role of leader prototypicality.

Cremer

Dijke

Mayer

2010

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We focus on the fairness of organizational decision-making procedures (i.e., procedural justice) as a contextual factor relevant to the display of prosocial behavior. Procedural justice is one of the most established contextual antecedents of prosocial behavior in organizations, most notably organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Blader & Tyler, 2009). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ranking low, feeling high: How hierarchical position and experienced power promote prosocial behavior in response to procedural justice.

Dijke¹,

Cremer²,

Langendijk³

et al. 2018

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research shows that power can lead to prosocial behavior by facilitating the behavioral expression of dispositional prosocial motivation. However, it is not clear how power may facilitate responses to contextual factors that promote prosocial motivation. Integrating Fairness Heuristic Theory and the Situated Focus Theory of Power, we argue that in particular, organization members in lower (vs. higher) hierarchical positions who simultaneously experience a high (vs. low) sense of power respond with prosocial behavior to one important antecedent of prosocial motivation, that is, the enactment of procedural justice. The results from a multisource survey among employees and their leaders from various organizations (Study 1) and an experiment using a public goods dilemma (Study 2) support this prediction.Three subsequent experiments show that this effect is mediated by perceptions of authority trustworthiness. Taken together, this research (a) helps resolve the debate regarding whether power promotes or undermines prosocial behavior, (b) demonstrates that hierarchical position and the sense of power can have very different effects on processes that are vital to the functioning of an organization, and (c) helps solve ambiguity regarding the roles of hierarchical position and power in Fairness Heuristic Theory.Keywords: procedural justice; power; hierarchy; sense of power; prosocial behavior. Power, Procedural Justice, and Prosocial Behavior 3 Many classical philosophers and writers who still heavily influence today's thinking, like Plato, Shakespeare, Machiavelli, and Nietzsche, argued that the power that we possess influences whether we treat others in prosocial ways or not (see e.g. Ng, 1980). It is not surprising then that the relationship between power and our treatment of others has been the focus of much social scientific research (see Galinsky, Rucker, & Magee, 2015;Sturm & Antonakis, 2015;Williams, 2014, for reviews). However, this research has so far not resulted in a clear and coherent picture. For instance, consistent with the traditional proposition that "power corrupts", some studies suggest that a high power position undermines prosocial behavior (e.g., Kipnis, 1972) and yet, other studies suggest that high power may promote such behavior (e.g., Schmid Mast, Jonas, & Hall, 2009). One way by which scholars reconcile these seemingly contradictory findings is by showing that power facilitates acting upon one's goals and motivations (Guinote, 2007a;2008). Studies in this tradition show that power, rather than directly promoting or undermining prosocial behavior, serves as a catalyst by facilitating the expression of chronic, personality-based prosocial motivations in observable behavior (Chen, Lee-Chai, & Bargh, 2001;DeCelles, DeRue, Margolis, & Ceranic, 2012).A point that has received much less attention is that the organizational context in which individuals operate is as relevant an antecedent of prosocial behavior as is personality (Penner, Midili, & Kegelmeyer, 1997). However, it is unclea...

show abstract

“…Extra-role behaviours (Blader and Tyler, 2009;Organ, 1988) are behaviours that are not specifically part of the employee's job description, but benefit the organisation (Gregersen, 1993;Pearce and Gregersen, 1991). Although certain behaviours may be considered extra role by the employee and employer, they are nonetheless important to the performance of the primary tasks of the organisation (Organ, 1997;Pearce and Gregersen, 1991), and these extra-role behaviours contribute to the overall work environment, especially in the case of family firms where extrarole behaviours are associated with higher levels of involvement and identification (Bernhard and O'Driscoll, 2011).…”

Section: Extrarole Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological contract and social exchange in family firms

Madden

Strickling

et al. 2017

IJMED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study tests a social exchange theory model that links firm family members' transactional and relational psychological contract obligations to firm performance. Evidence supports the hypotheses that organisational obligations are antecedents of individual contributions to firm performance in the psychological contract model. When family firms meet the employees' perceived obligations to their employees, the employees meet their perceived obligations to their employers. Participative decision-making and succession planning are of particular importance to maintain transgenerational control and evidence is found to support succession planning as fully mediating the relationship between participative decision-making and firm performance.

show abstract

Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior.

Cited by 657 publications

References 130 publications

Cooperating when “you” and “I” are treated fairly: The moderating role of leader prototypicality.

Cooperating when “you” and “I” are treated fairly: The moderating role of leader prototypicality.

Ranking low, feeling high: How hierarchical position and experienced power promote prosocial behavior in response to procedural justice.

Psychological contract and social exchange in family firms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About