Employee Justice Across Cultures

The Instrumental Perspective

The instrumental perspective proposes that individuals are concerned with justice issues because they are motivated by self-interest, with fairness providing an important mechanism for outcome maximization (Adams, 1965; Blau, 1964; Foa & Foa, 1974, 1980; Homans, 1961, 1974; Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978). Thibaut and Walker (1975), for instance, proposed that people desire control in the decision-making process (e.g., voice) because process control can result in positive outcomes in the long run. Numerous empirical studies support this perspective (e.g., Ambrose, Harland, & Kulik, 1991; Noe & Steffy, 1987; Ployhart & Ryan, 1998). Conlon (1993) found that outcome favorability strongly related to participants’ distributive and procedural justice judgments. Similarly, job applicants who obtained lower (vs. higher) scores on a selection test were more likely to perceive the test as unfair (vs. fair; Ryan & McFarland, 1997). Grover (1991) found that faculty who benefit from a parental leave policy perceived the policy more positively than those who did not benefit from the policy. In summary, considerable research demonstrates that people react to a process more positively when the outcomes are favorable (e.g., Shapiro & Brett, 1993).

In considering how cultural dimensions can qualify justice effects in light of the instrumental perspective, individualism/collectivism and masculinity/femininity stand out as potential moderators in the justice–outcome relationship. First, as the instrumental perspective implies, individuals care about how fairly they are treated because they are motivated by their self-interest. If justice concerns are indeed driven at least in part by self-interest, we would expect nations characterized more by individualistic values (e.g., Australia, United States, United Kingdom) to demonstrate stronger justice effects compared with nations characterized more by collectivistic values (e.g., China, Singapore, Peru). This is because individuals in highly individualistic societies tend to prioritize personal interests and goals over group interests and goals as compared with those in highly collectivistic societies. People in highly individualistic cultures take efforts to promote personal interest through grasping any opportunity to maximize personal gains as compared with those in collectivistic cultures (Hofstede, 1980). Thus, the former are likely to react more strongly to how fairly they are treated than the latter because (un)fair treatment can result in (un)favorable outcomes, which affects their self-interest.

In contrast, people in highly collectivistic societies tend to prioritize group interest over personal interest and are willing to sacrifice personal interest when there is conflict between personal and group goals (Chen, Brockner, & Chen, 2002). Thus, taking an instrumental perspective would lead to the prediction that the justice effect sizes from data collected in collectivistic cultures are relatively smaller than those estimated in individualistic cultures. Blader, Chang, and Tyler (2001), for example, compared the relationship between procedural justice and retaliation among 260 U.S. and 181 Taiwanese employees. They found that the relationship between justice and retaliation was weaker among Taiwanese employees (high on collectivism) in comparison with the U.S. sample (high on individualism). Taken together, the instrumental perspective suggests the following:

The instrumental perspective would also imply that a masculine (vs. feminine) cultural context might exacerbate justice effects. This is because highly masculine cultures emphasize the assertive acquisition of material goods, personal achievement, competition, and material success. Personal achievement, competition, and material success are all highly pertinent to one’s personal interest. Indeed, researchers have argued that people in masculine cultures emphasize self-assertion and self-interest (Block, 1973). In contrast, people in highly feminine cultures emphasize modesty, caring for the weak, and relationships with others. As described above, people in masculine cultures are more achievement oriented, whereas people in feminine cultures are more relationship oriented (Hofstede, 1985). Thus, it is likely that self-interest matters more for people in masculine versus feminine cultures.

Consequently, taking an instrumental perspective would lead to the proposition that individuals in highly masculine (vs. feminine) cultures are more likely to react to (in)justice because (un)fair treatment can determine their chances of winning competitions and/or success in obtaining material gains. In other words, employees from masculine (vs. feminine) cultures would be more likely to take issue with unfair treatment because unfairness could affect their outcomes. Few studies have examined the moderating role of masculinity/femininity on justice effects. One exception, by Ren (2007), found that the relationship between employees’ interpersonal justice perceptions and their trust in their supervisors was stronger among employees who have masculine (vs. feminine) values.

The Relational Perspective

The relational perspective, in contrast, proposes that individuals are concerned with justice because fair treatment provides an indication of standing and status within a social collective, which in turn contributes to employees’ sense of self-worth and self-esteem (Lind, 1995; Tyler, 1997; Tyler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996; Tyler & Lind, 1992). Three theoretical models have contributed to this perspective: (a) the group value model (Lind & Tyler, 1988), (b) the relational model of authority (Tyler & Lind, 1992), and (c) the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003). All three models propose that people care about their value and importance to the groups with which they are associated. Thus, individuals care about justice because fair (and unfair) treatment conveys information pertinent to a sense of self-worth and self-esteem (Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001).

Considerable empirical evidence supports the relational perspective (e.g., Huo, Smith, Tyler, & Lind, 1996; Tyler & Degoey, 1995). Tyler et al. (1996), for example, found that the three relational judgments that predict perceived procedural justice (i.e., neutrality, trustworthiness, status recognition) were related to feelings of pride and respect within a group, which in turn related to employees’ self-esteem. Their findings suggest that people’s justice concerns go beyond self-interest because fair treatment can also convey symbolic information about group membership (e.g., identity, status), which meets their psychological needs for belongingness and positive self-regard (Cropanzano, Rupp, et al., 2001).

Interestingly, a relational perspective, as compared with the instrumental perspective, might suggest contradicting predictions of the role of culture on reaction to injustice. That is, a relational perspective would propose that people care about how fairly they are treated because (un)fair treatment is an indication of their standing and status in a social collective. If relational ties indeed form the foundation of justice concerns, then we would expect employees from collectivistic cultures to care more about and react more strongly to (in)justice as compared with employees from individualistic cultures. This is because people in collectivistic societies tend to prioritize the quality of their social relationships and look to social engagement to add meaning to their lives more so than do those in individualistic societies (Schwartz, 1999). People in highly collectivistic cultures form a sense of self through group affiliation and attach greater importance to their group membership as compared with those in highly individualistic cultures. In contrast, people in highly individualistic cultures emphasize personal identity and desire independence from any social collective. The former tend to have stronger need for belongingness and thus tend to care more about their status and standing in a social collective than the latter do. In short, relational concerns are likely to matter more for those in collectivistic versus individualistic cultures. Thus, in contradiction to Proposition 1, this would suggest that justice effects would be stronger among employees from collectivistic versus individualistic cultures.

The relational perspective would also suggest a moderating effect for masculinity/femininity that stands in contradiction to Proposition 2. As the relational perspective suggests, when employees experience (in)justice, they are likely to use the (un)fair treatment information to judge their value in a group. Because people in feminine (vs. masculine) cultures emphasize the value provided by interpersonal relationships, they are expected to place considerable weight on group ties and the quality of interpersonal relationships within a social collective. Thus, people in feminine (vs. masculine) societies are likely to care more about justice because justice provides them information pertinent to the quality of their interpersonal exchange within a group. That is, relational concerns are likely to matter more for individuals from feminine cultures versus masculine cultures because the former place a greater emphasis on interpersonal relationships (Hofstede, 2001). Based on these arguments, a relational perspective suggests that employees from feminine (vs. masculine) cultures would react more strongly to perceived injustice. As noted above, few studies have explored the impact of masculinity/femininity on justice effects. Ren (2007), for instance, found that the relationship between employees’ distributive justice perceptions and their trust in organization was stronger among employees with feminine (vs. masculine) values. Thus, once again, the relational perspective suggests a proposition that contradicts those arising from the instrumental perspective:

In short, Proposition 1 and Proposition 3, as well as Proposition 2 and Proposition 4, put forth opposing predictions. Indeed, we are not the first to suggest the possibility of theoretically opposed effects. Li and Cropanzano (2009), for instance, proposed that the justice effect sizes estimated from North American employee data might be either stronger or weaker than effect sizes estimated from East Asian employee data because of the differential moderating role implied by the instrumental and relational perspectives.

The Uncertainty Management Perspective

The uncertainty management perspective (and its predecessor, fairness heuristic theory) suggests that individuals are concerned with justice because (a) individuals have the innate need for certainty and predictability and (b) employees’ perceptions of justice can provide information that can reduce uncertainties (Lind & van den Bos, 2002; van den Bos & Miedema, 2000). As proposed by van den Bos and his colleagues, fairness judgments serve as heuristics that can be used to interpret events. Stated differently, we care about how fairly we are treated by others because justice perceptions offer us an efficient and effective tool to deal with the uncertainties that we encounter. That is, individuals react positively to fair treatment because fairness perceptions can reduce uncertainty (e.g., whether an authority is trustworthy or not) or at least alleviate the discomfort associated with uncertainty (Elovainio et al., 2005; van den Bos, Wilke, & Lind, 1998).

In contrast, people react negatively to unfair treatment because injustice perceptions can generate uncertainty, which in turn can exacerbate life discomfort. Reb, Goldman, Kray and Cropanzano (2006), for example, argued that injustice perceptions (i.e., procedural injustice) can increase uncertainty by decreasing one’s influence in the decision-making process. In short, the uncertainty management perspective emphasizes uncertainty reduction as the major assumption underlying individuals’ justice concerns: People react positively to justice and negatively to injustice because fair treatment can reduce uncertainty, whereas injustice can increase it.

Clearly, if employees’ reactions to (in)justice are influenced by their need for certainty, then differential justice effects would be expected in cultures that are known to be more or less tolerant of uncertain circumstances. As discussed earlier, people in high uncertainty avoidance countries tend to be aggressive, emotional, and intolerant of uncertainty as compared with those in low uncertainty avoidance countries (Vitell et al., 1993). It is likely that people in high (vs. low) uncertainty avoidance cultures react more strongly to fair treatment because they have stronger needs for uncertainty-reducing fairness information. Similarly, people in high (vs. low) uncertainty avoidance cultures react more strongly to unfair treatment because unfairness can increase anxiety-inducing uncertainty. That is, the need for uncertainty reduction matters more for people from high (vs. low) uncertainty avoidance cultures. Few studies have examined the moderating role of uncertainty avoidance in justice–outcome relationships. As an exception, Ren (2007) found that the relationship between distributive justice and normative commitment was stronger among employees with high (vs. low) uncertainty avoidance values. Taken together, the uncertainty management perspective suggests the following:

The Moral Perspective

The moral perspective proposes that people care about fairness because treating people unfairly violates universal norms of ethics and morality (e.g., Folger, 1998, 2001). Fairness theory and its predecessor, referent cognitions theory (Folger, 1986a, 1986b, 1987, 1993), to a large degree underlie the moral perspective. According to Folger and his colleagues (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998, 2001; Folger, Cropanzano, & Goldman, 2005), people judge injustice through a three-step counterfactual thought process. These steps include the deployment of three counterfactuals: (a) Would better outcomes have resulted had an alternative situation occurred? (b) Could the transgressors have behaved differently, leading the negative outcome to be avoided? and (c) Should the transgressors have behaved in a way that was more conforming to the moral code? (Folger, 1998; Folger et al., 2005). All three counterfactuals (especially the should counterfactual) relate justice to morality. That is, individuals care about justice not only due to its instrumental or relational implications but also due to a universal, evolution-based imperative that all individuals should be treated ethically (Folger & Skarlicki, 2008). Indeed, research reveals that individuals show strong reactions to injustice (directed both toward themselves and others), even when the consequences of their reactions threaten their instrumental or relational benefits (Rupp & Bell, 2010; Skarlicki & Rupp, 2010; Turillo, Folger, Lavelle, Umphress, & Gee, 2002).

We posit that taking the moral perspective on employee justice will lead to a prediction that reactions to perceived (in)justices will be stronger among individuals from low power distance countries, where the direct questioning of authority is a more common and accepted practice. As explained earlier, people in high (vs. low) power distance cultures behave submissively to their superiors. In high power distance cultures, people expect high-status others to be autocratic and paternalistic. In such cultures, subordinates are loyal and compliant to authority members in exchange for protection and support. Indeed, research has argued that in high power distance cultures, the actions of authorities are less likely questioned on moral grounds (e.g., Vitell et al., 1993). That is, people in high power distance cultures are more likely to defer to power and perceive the (un)fair treatment from a high-status person as morally acceptable (James, 1992; Tyler, Lind, & Huo, 1995). Said differently, employees from high versus low power distance cultures are likely to be more tolerant and less sensitive to injustice from high-status others (e.g., supervisors). Numerous empirical studies show that the relationship between justice perceptions and employees’ reactions (e.g., job satisfaction) is stronger among employees in low versus high power distance cultures (e.g., Lam et al., 2002; Tyler, Lind, & Huo, 2000). Taken together, moral perspective suggests the following:

Multifoci Justice and the Target-Similarity Model

As can be seen from the examples provided in our review, previous cross-cultural research has tended to focus on the effects of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on various criterion variables. Our propositions, in contrast, do not make specific predictions for the different types of justice. There are theoretical, empirical, and practical reasons for doing this.

First, recent theoretical advances suggest that although outcomes, procedures, and interpersonal treatment are highly relevant at the event level of analysis (for a review, see Guo, Rupp, Weiss, & Trougakos, 2011), when employees are asked to make more general fairness evaluations, they tend to retrieve event-level information that is categorized in memory according to the parties held accountable for enacting justice (e.g., the boss, coworkers, customers; Rupp, 2011; Rupp & Paddock, 2010). These source-based justice judgments are most predictive of attitudes and behaviors directed at the source (Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). Indeed, meta-analytic evidence has been presented showing that structuring justice by source provides higher predictive validity estimates than structuring justice by type and that source-based justice perceptions best predict outcomes directed at the same source (Rupp, Shao, Jones, & Liao, 2011).

In the present research, we take a multifoci approach to investigate how cultural values qualify justice effects. That is, rather than analyzing the data by justice type, we analyze the data by justice source. We believe this approach provides a more effective and efficient framework to categorize the justice–outcome associations. In addition to being aligned with recent theory and empirical research, from a practical viewpoint, this perspective provides a more manageable meta-analytic summary since crossing four justice types with four cultural dimensions across a very large number of outcomes would not be much of a summary at all. ³ Moreover, because the majority of prior justice research has focused on two major sources of justice, namely, organizationally focused justice and supervisory-focused justice, we empirically examined the moderating role of cultural values in the associations between organizationally focused justice and outcomes targeting the organization, as well as the associations between supervisory-focused justice and outcomes targeting the supervisors. Doing so reduced the number of meta-analytic estimates from more than 335 to fewer than 65 and aligned our predictors and criteria in theoretically meaningful ways.

Specifically, we examined (a) whether the effects of organizationally focused justice on citizenship behavior targeting the organization, negative behaviors targeting the organization, perceived organizational support, organizational identification, organizational trust, work satisfaction, and job performance vary systematically as a function of cultural values and (b) whether the effects of supervisory-focused justice on citizenship behavior targeting the supervisor, negative behaviors targeting the supervisor, perceived supervisory support, supervisory identification, supervisory trust, supervisory satisfaction, job performance, and LMX vary as a function of cultural values. Table 2 provides a listing of the criterion variables, provides definitions of each, and classifies each outcome as being either supervisory directed or organizationally directed.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2

Outcomes Variables Used in Correlational Justice Research Around the World

Construct	Definition
Organizational citizenship behavior	“Individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988: 4)
Citizenship behavior targeting the organization	Behaviors that benefit the organization in general (e.g., employee adheres to informal rules devised to maintain order; Williams & Anderson, 1991)
Citizenship behavior targeting the supervisor	Behaviors that benefit the supervisor in general (e.g., employee assists supervisor with his or her work when not asked; Williams & Anderson, 1991)
Negative behaviors at work
Negative behaviors targeting the organization
a. Organization-targeted sabotage	Behaviors that “damage or disrupt the organization’s operations by creating delays in production, damaging property, the destruction of relationships” (Crino, 1994: 312)
b. Organization-targeted retaliation	“A subset of negative behaviors, those used to punish the organization and its representatives in responses to perceived unfairness” (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997: 435)
c. Employee theft	Steal things from the company (e.g., Greenberg, 1990)
d. Organization-targeted counterproductive work behavior	“Behaviors by an organizational member that results in harming the organization or its members” (Martinko, Gundlach, & Douglas, 2002: 37)
e. Organizational deviance	“Voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, or both” (Robinson & Bennett, 1995: 556)
Negative behaviors targeting the supervisor
a. Supervisor-targeted sabotage	Behaviors that “damage or disrupt the organization’s operations by creating delays in production, damaging property, the destruction of relationships” (Crino, 1994: 312)
b. Supervisor-targeted retaliation	“A subset of negative behaviors, those used to punish the organization and its representatives in responses to perceived unfairness” (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997: 435)
c. Supervisor-targeted aggression	“Any behavior where the aggressor delivers a noxious stimulus to another person—with the intent of harming the other person—and expects that this noxious stimulus will harm the targeted victim” (Greenberg & Barling, 1999: 898)
Support
Perceived organizational support	Employees’ “global beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being” (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986: 501)
Perceived supervisory support	Employees’ “general views concerning the degree to which supervisors value their contributions and care about their well-being” (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002: 565)
Identification
Organizational identification	“A perceived oneness with an organization and the experience of the organization’s successes and failures as one’s own” (Mael & Ashforth, 1992: 103)
Supervisory identification	“Feeling of pride being a subordinate of the supervisor” (Chen, 2001: 651)
Satisfaction
Work (job) satisfaction	“The pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s job values” (Locke, 1969: 316)
Supervisory satisfaction	The positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s supervisor
Trust	“The willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995: 712)
Job performance	“The aggregated value to the organization of the discrete behavioral episodes that an individual performs over a standard interval of time” (Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997: 71)
Leader–member exchange	The quality of the dyadic relationship between subordinate and supervisor (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975)

Method

We conducted a meta-analysis of the empirical justice literature to explore these theory-based propositions. We considered not only justice research that has explicitly considered the role of culture or cultural differences but, rather, all published justice research to date. Specifically, we identified the countries in which employee data were collected and, using the cross-cultural literature (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005; House et al., 2004), coded each sample on each of the cultural dimensions described above (i.e., individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance). By using the cultural indices reported by national culture researchers (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005), we focused on the general configuration of cultural values in a particular country rather than within-country differences or individual-level cultural values. Although within-country differences exist, the approach we used (i.e., the cultural value indices for each country) represents one of the best available approaches to meta-analytically examine the role of national culture on justice effects. ⁴ We then meta-analytically tested for the moderating role of each cultural dimension (in the presence of the other cultural dimensions) on the full population of justice effects.

To identify all justice studies to date, we conducted a literature search in the PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses databases, from the 1800s to present, using the search terms justice, fairness, distributive justice, procedural justice, interactional justice, interpersonal justice, informational justice, and mistreatment. This search produced 986 possible articles and 252 possible dissertations.

Next, we reviewed each paper to determine its suitability for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Inclusion criteria included (a) empirical study presented, (b) organizational justice perceptions measured (as opposed to more general social justice), (c) data collected from an organizational (or mock-organizational) setting, and (d) correlational data reported. Applying these parameters reduced our sample to 409 papers (374 empirical articles and 35 dissertations). These papers contained 495 distinct samples (due to some papers including multiple studies and/or multiple samples), reported 6,441 correlation coefficients between justice and other variables (e.g., performance, supervisory satisfaction, etc.), and represented about 190,000 participants from 32 countries and regions. The full sample of studies included can be found at http://doiop.com/reference.

We coded the zero-order effect sizes in the form of correlations between justice and outcomes, along with the sample size for each study and the reliability estimates for all the scales. Consistent with the multifoci (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002) and target-similarity (Lavelle et al., 2007) perspectives, correlations were coded according to the source of the justice referenced in the justice measure as well as the source to which each outcome measure was targeted. We aligned the sources of justice (e.g., supervisor) with the target of the outcome (e.g., supervisory trust) as guided by the target-similarity model. As explained earlier, whereas research has explored supervisors, the organization as a whole, coworkers, and customers as sources of injustice and targets of employees’ reactions, the large majority of the justice literature to date has used justice and outcome measures containing items that include either the supervisor or the organization as the referent. Consequently, we report our results for these two sources separately.

Using Hofstede and Hofstede’s (2005) cultural value indices, we coded each sample according to our four cultural dimensions of interest. For example, if a study was conducted in Australia (and all the participants were Australian), we coded the sample as power distance = 36, individualism = 90, uncertainty avoidance = 51, and masculinity = 61. If a single study involved participants from multiple countries (e.g., participants were from Japan, Europe, and Canada in the study by Johnson, Korsgaard, & Sapienza, 2002), it was not included in our analyses unless the correlation coefficients could be partitioned according to the participants’ nationalities and countries of residence (e.g., Ren, 2007).

To determine the accuracy of the coding, the coding was originally captured by a team of research assistants. These assistants went through extensive coder training and practice so that they fully understood the information that they needed to extract from the articles. Next, all of the coding was checked by the first and fourth authors. Finally, a random sample of 150 articles was second coded by another member of the research team. There was 100% accuracy between the original and second codings.

Because the cultural indices provided continuous measures of each of the four cultural dimensions, we used the meta-analysis approach developed by Hedges and colleagues (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009; Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Hedges & Vevea, 1998; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). This approach allowed us to test national culture as a continuous (as opposed to dichotomous) moderator of justice effects, representing a more nuanced and complex treatment of culture than has been pursued previously. First, we computed the Fisher’s z transformation ( z = . 5 ln [ 1 + r 1 − r ] ) on justice effect sizes (i.e., the zero-order correlation coefficients between justice and outcome variables). Second, we calculated the inverse variance weights (i.e., w) for each transformed effect size. Statistically, the inverse variance weight for a particular effect size is equal to the sample size of that particular study minus 3 (w = N − 3). It is called the inverse variance weight because it is the inverse of the sampling variance of Fisher’s z transformation of the correlation coefficients, which is presented in the formula: σ z 2 = 1 N − 3 . In meta-analysis, given that the inverse variance weight is perfectly positively correlated with sample size, the effect sizes from larger samples are weighted more than the effect sizes from smaller samples in calculating the aggregated effect size. Such weighting allowed us to correct the sampling error in effect size estimates in each single empirical study because larger samples tend to have more accurate estimates of the population parameters than do small samples (Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Hedges & Vevea, 1998). Third, we conducted hierarchical moderation analyses to (a) test for the combined effects of the four cultural indices on the magnitude of the relationship between fairness perceptions and its proposed outcomes and (b) determine which cultural value explained the largest share of the variance in the justice effect sizes. We used the SPSS macro and syntax for meta-regression analyses developed by Lipsey and Wilson (2001) to test the role of our continuous moderators on effect sizes. We entered individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity simultaneously as predictors (i.e., moderators) in the meta-regression model and used the inverse variance (N − 3) as their weights. The criterion variable was the effect size (i.e., “target-similar” justice–outcome correlations, as explained earlier; see also Lavelle et al., 2007).

We employed a hierarchical moderation analysis technique in order to examine whether one moderator was significantly related to the effect size above and beyond the other moderators. If the hierarchical moderation analysis indicates that a moderator (e.g., masculinity) is negatively related to the justice effect sizes in the presence of individualism and uncertainty avoidance, for example, this means that the association between justice and the outcome variable is smaller in high- versus low-masculinity countries, above and beyond individualism and uncertainty avoidance. All the moderation analyses were based on the random-effects model results (Borenstein et al., 2009).

Results

As a way to avoid multicollinearity issues, in one set of analyses we excluded power distance from the hierarchical moderation analysis (see Table 3) because of its high correlation with individualism (r = –.61, p < .001). To study power distance, we conducted a second hierarchical moderation analysis with power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity entered simultaneously as the moderators in the meta-regression model (see Table 4). We interpret both the convergence and nonconvergence between Table 3 and Table 4 to be of theoretical interest. Whereas convergence gives more complete support of our various propositions, divergence reveals that the magnitude of the moderating effects to some degree depends on (a) which specific cultural moderators are considered simultaneously (i.e., individualism or power distance) and (b) the specific relationships in questions (e.g., supervisory-focused vs. organizationally focused justice effect on supervisory-focused vs. organizationally focused outcomes). We feel that these differences highlight the importance of studying multiple cultural moderators simultaneously. This is because culture is a multidimensional concept and different cultural values can exert joint effects in explaining the variation of the justice–outcome relationship across countries. Furthermore, cross-cultural justice theories and findings are complex. Our article serves as a first attempt to resolve this complexity through interpreting justice motives in light of multiple cultural dimensions.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3

Results From Meta-Analytic Hierarchical Moderation Analyses of the Moderating Effect of Cultural Dimensions on Justice–Outcome Relationships (individualism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity)

			Moderators
			Individualism	Uncertainty Avoidance	Masculinity
Effect Sizes	k	N	β	β	β	R 2
OJ → Citizenship behavior toward organization	48	11,642	.10	.59**	.44	.15*
OJ → Negative behaviors toward organization	41	22,809	.60***	.22	.19	.20***
OJ → Perceived organizational support	23	5,713	−.36	.77	.19	.22
OJ → Organizational identification	12	3,431	.36*	−.63**	−.10	.87***
OJ → Organizational trust	49	7,728	.44**	−.22	.08	.15*
OJ → Work satisfaction	181	88,081	.16*	.04	.09	.04*
OJ → Job performance	52	14,641	.39*	−.32	−.48**	.19*
SJ → Citizenship behaviors toward supervisora	20	4,580	−.41*	.41*	−.41*	.17*
SJ → Negative behaviors toward supervisorb	12	3,355	2.12***	1.45*	−.35*	.69***
SJ → Perceived supervisory supportb	14	4,285	2.13*	2.83*	.37	.44*
SJ → Supervisory identificationa	7	1,397	.21	.21	−.21	.04
SJ → Supervisory trust	64	15,472	.06	.32*	−.20	.20**
SJ → Supervisory satisfactiona	37	8,243	.24	−.23	.29	.06
SJ → Job performance	49	13,355	.60***	−.10	−.31*	.30***
SJ → Leader–member exchange	40	9,131	.39*	.46	.15	.23**

Note: All the beta coefficients are partial meta-regression coefficients, except for coefficients in rows 8, 11, and 13 (with superscript “a”). Some beta coefficients in rows 9 and 10 (with superscript “b”) are larger than 1 (because of multicollinearity issues in those particular samples). The coefficients between OJ (SJ) and negative behavior targeting the organization (supervisor) have negative signs; we used the absolute values (as indication of magnitude) in the analyses. k = number of studies; N = number of participants; OJ = organizationally focused justice; SJ = supervisory-focused justice.

*

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4

The Moderating Effect of Cultural Dimensions on Justice–Outcome Relationships (power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity)

			Moderators
			Power Distance	Uncertainty Avoidance	Masculinity
Effect Sizes	k	N	β	β	β	R 2
OJ → Citizenship behavior toward organization	48	11,642	.08	.66*	.54	.15*
OJ → Negative behaviors toward organization	41	22,809	.90***	.88**	−.61*	.30***
OJ → Perceived organizational support	23	5,713	−.28	.23	.01	.23
OJ → Organizational identification	12	3,431	−.42**	−.93**	.22	.90***
OJ → Organizational trust	49	7,728	−.40*	−.30	.07	.08*
OJ → Work satisfaction	181	88,081	−.13*	.02	.10	.04*
OJ → Job performance	52	14,641	−.23	−.36	−.38*	.12
SJ → Citizenship behaviors toward supervisora	20	4,580	.41*	.41*	−.41*	.17*
SJ → Negative behaviors toward supervisor	12	3,355	−.55*	.61*	.32	.36*
SJ → Perceived Supervisory Support	14	4,285	.31	.30	.13	.30
SJ → Supervisory identificationa	7	1,397	−.21	.21	−.21	.04
SJ → Supervisory trust	64	15,472	−.23*	.30*	−.19	.17**
SJ → Supervisory satisfactiona	37	8,243	−.21	−.23	.29	.08
SJ → Job performance	49	13,355	−.56***	−.27	−.12	.26**
SJ → Leader–member exchange	40	9,131	−.37**	.20	−.04	.19*

Note: All the beta coefficients are partial meta-regression coefficients, except for coefficients in rows 8, 11, and 13 (with superscript “a”). The coefficients between OJ (SJ) and negative behavior targeting the organization (supervisor) have negative signs; we used the absolute values (as indication of magnitude) in the analyses. k = number of studies; N = number of participants; OJ = organizationally focused justice; SJ = supervisory-focused justice.

*

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

For completeness, we also examined how individualism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity independently moderated the effects of justice on the criterion variables. These results are reported in the Appendix. Because differences in the results revealed by our hierarchical versus nonhierarchical analyses may be due to the latter analyses capitalizing on the fact that the other moderators were not included, we chose to focus our interpretation on the hierarchical moderation results.

Strengths and Limitations

This paper has several positive features that warrant mentioning. Our study is a large-scale meta-analytic review involving the compendium of empirical justice research published since 1984. Our large sample of correlations allowed us to more potently test our propositions than could any individual empirical study. We also adopted the most advanced meta-analysis techniques (hierarchical moderation analyses) to examine whether one cultural value impacts justice effects above and beyond the effects of other cultural values. This is a more nuanced treatment of cultural moderators than those of previous research. Finally, we paid very careful attention to sample characteristics (i.e., the nationality of participants) and to the foci of our variables (i.e., supervisory-referenced vs. organizationally referenced variables) to add empirical precision and to be theoretically consistent with the target-similarity model (Lavelle et al., 2007).

That said, our review is certainly not without limitations. First, by following the multifoci/target-similarity approach, we do not report results at the facet level (i.e., distributive, procedural, interactional justice). Although we believe the multifoci/target-similarity approach has served us well in that it offers a theoretically sound and efficient way to associate justice with outcomes—that is, it supports the importance of accountability (Cropanzano, Chrobot-Mason, Rupp, & Prehar, 2004), and it provides better predictive validity at the meta-analytic level (Rupp et al., 2011)—the dimensions of justice are certainly of great historic importance and have shown predictive validity for more generalized outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2001). As we explained earlier, given that our meta-analysis involves numerous criterion variables (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior, trust, satisfaction, identification), we propose that the multifoci approach and the target-similarity perspective offer a more parsimonious model to study the variation of numerous justice effects across different countries and cultural values. This perspective also supports recent research suggesting that facet judgments are relevant at the level of the event, whereas a multifoci framework is more appropriate when employees are asked on surveys to make summary judgments based on aggregated events encoded in memory (Guo et al., 2011).

Second, while we included many empirical justice studies (both published articles and unpublished doctoral dissertations), the majority of justice research still occurred in North America. Figures 1 and 2 (which we discuss in more detail below) present the countries where prior justice research was conducted and the average effect sizes of the correlations between justice sources and their respective outcomes. As can be seen, these figures illustrate a dearth of reported effects for a number of justice–outcome associations from a number of countries. It is possible that the missing data from those non–North American countries could have biased our findings. Our hope is that this illustration will inspire new empirical research on employees’ justice perceptions and reactions in these nations.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1

Countries, Their Cultural Profiles, and the Average Effect Sizes of Organizationally Focused Justice on Organizationally Focused Outcomes

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2

Countries, Their Cultural Profiles, and the Average Effect Sizes of Supervisory-Focused Justice on Supervisory-Focused Outcomes

Third, Tables 3 and 4 show some contradictory findings regarding the moderating effects of individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance on justice effects. Specifically, uncertainty avoidance negatively moderated the effects of organizationally focused justice on organizational identification above and beyond individualism and masculinity (β = –.63, p < .01) and above and beyond power distance and masculinity (β = –.93, p < .01); individualism negatively moderated the effects of supervisory-focused justice on citizenship behaviors targeting the supervisor (β = –.41, p < .05); power distance positively moderated (a) the effects of supervisory-focused justice on citizenship behaviors targeting the supervisor (β = .41, p < .05) and (b) the effects of organizationally focused justice on negative behaviors targeting the organization (β = .90, p < .001). With the exception of the last finding, these effects were drawn from relatively fewer samples in a limited number of countries. Only 12 correlations went into the meta-analytic estimate of the relationships between organizationally focused justice and organizational identification, and only 20 correlations went into the meta-analytic estimate of the relationship between supervisory-focused justice and citizenship behaviors targeting the supervisor. Thus, one possible explanation for these contradictory findings lies in sample size. More empirical studies are needed to better assess the joint impacts of cultural values on justice effects, especially for those justice effects represented by few available studies. Although the general trends across all the justice–outcome relationships support our propositions, these contradictory findings imply that some of the findings (where fewer studies were aggregated) should be investigated further in future cross-cultural justice research.

Managing Justice Across Cultures: Implications for Practice

Whereas our meta-analytic findings may have direct relevance for researchers interested in understanding how specific cultural dimensions serve as boundary conditions for specific justice–outcome relationships, translating these findings into managerial implications is less straightforward. This is particularly the case considering that we did not test for country effects. Rather, we tested for the incremental effect of each cultural dimension independently. The complexity is especially relevant when one considers the research showing that each nation has a specific cultural profile representing differing levels on each cultural dimension (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005; House et al., 2004; Schwartz, 2008). We seek to illustrate this and report our full range of results, by country, in Figures 1 and 2. As can be seen, four issues stand out. First, as noted earlier, the majority of empirical justice research has been conducted in North America. Not only did North American research outnumber the studies conducted in other countries and regions combined, but it also documented justice effects on a larger range of criterion variables (e.g., supervisory identification) as compared with studies conducted in other parts of the world. Second, we included all prior empirical justice research conducted in over 30 countries and regions in our database. Among these countries and regions, 20 reported justice effects between organizationally focused justice and outcomes targeting the organization, and 16 reported justice effects between supervisory-focused justice and outcomes targeting the supervisor. This suggests that the association between supervisory-focused justice and supervisory-focused outcomes are understudied as compared with the association between organizationally focused justice and organizationally focused outcomes. Third, while cross-cultural researchers have studied national cultural profiles and dimensions in over 100 countries and regions (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005; House et al., 2004; Schwartz, 2008), cross-cultural justice research has advanced at a slower pace. In short, we do not have empirical evidence from a large number of countries. Taken together, this highlights a need for more research on employee justice perceptions and outcomes in understudied countries.

The fourth issue involves the varying cultural profiles even between countries from similar geographic regions (e.g., between European nations). Given that nations vary in their dominant cultural values and that each cultural dimension has a specific influence on how employees react to injustice, how might an organization “manage justice” in a cultural context, for example, with high individualism, low femininity, low uncertainty avoidance, and high power distance? Although we do not think that this first foray into mapping justice effects across cultures can answer this question, we hope that our empirical evidence, coupled with our highlighting of the complexity of these more applied issues, will spawn future research in this area. As a first exercise in considering these issues, we offer Table 5, which documents how we might go about connecting cultural profiles and known justice effects with actual HR practices.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5

Recommendations for Managing Justice Across Cultures

				Recommendations for Human Resource Practices
Country (examples)	Cultural Profile	Most Salient Value	Most Relevant Justice Concern	Attraction and Retention	Compensation Management	Performance Management	Training
United States		High individualism	Instrumental concern	Competitive pay Competitive benefits	Pay for performance (i.e., equity)	Emphasize individual achievement Stretch (personal developmental) goals Establish strong link between appraisal with pay raise and promotion Encourage competition	Offer individual-based training programs for personal development
France		High uncertainty avoidance	Uncertainty management concern	Clear and specific job description, responsibilities and future development opportunities Emphasize job security	Fixed pay (e.g., annual salary)	Set up clear expectations and time frames, attainable goals as well as measurable and concrete evaluation criteria (e.g., management by objective) Provide detailed performance feedback for coaching purposes Conduct regular/annual appraisal	Standardized on- and off-the-job trainings
Sweden		High femininity (low masculinity)	Relational concern	Opportunities for interpersonal or group collaboration Work–life balance programs (e.g., nonmonetary benefits that are associated with quality of life)	Pay for both individual and group performance (i.e., equality, team orientation)	Set up people-oriented evaluation criteria (e.g., collaboration, interpersonal helping) Reward for both task and interpersonal performance Evaluate team effectiveness Offer nonmonetary social recognition	Offer group-based internal socialization and training programs Offer social-oriented training program
Austria		Low power distance	Moral concern	Commitment to legal and ethical standards in hiring (e.g., affirmative action policy)	Equity rule (e.g., no discrimination based on race, gender, disability)	Employees’ involvement in performance appraisal (e.g., appraisal of supervisors; upward appraisal) Equal promotion opportunity for women and minority	Workplace ethics training

Note: All the cultural indices are from Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) IND = individualism; MAS = masculinity; UA = uncertainty avoidance; PD = power distance.

Consider as an example that you are the vice president of HR for a multinational company operating in the United States, France, Sweden, and Austria. As shown in Table 5, even among these Western nations, differences in cultural dimensions are present. In the United States, individualism is the cultural dimension that is most highly valued. This implies that employees’ instrumental concerns for justice should be carefully attended to. This might include, for example, compensation systems focused on competitive pay such as pay for performance. In terms of performance appraisal, emphasizing and valuing individual achievement and providing monetary rewards for superior individual performance might be most effective for minimizing injustice and its effects, because in such systems, mechanisms are in place to allow employees to maximize their individual outcomes.

In France, uncertainty avoidance is the dominant cultural dimension, and as such, uncertainty reduction might be particularly relevant to French employees’ justice concerns. Here, providing mechanisms for outcome maximization might not be as effective for minimizing injustice compared with practices that reduce employee uncertainty and promote feelings of control among the workforce. This might be done, for instance, by emphasizing job security, succession planning, and the setting of concrete developmental goals. Other HR systems might include fixed pay compensation systems, management by objectives, and employee participation as ways to reduce employees’ uncertainty.

For Sweden, where femininity is the most salient cultural dimension, relational concerns are likely to be highly relevant to employees as they evaluate and react to issues involving workplace fairness. This might suggest providing opportunities for interpersonal or group collaboration and providing benefits programs that help employees maintain work–life balance. In terms of performance management and compensation, HR practices that take note of both individual and group performance, as well as programs that offer nonmonetary social recognition, might be useful in promoting a fair workplace.

In Austria, where low power distance is a salient feature, we might expect moral concerns to play an especially large role in employees’ reactions to workplace fairness. In these contexts, an employer’s strong commitment to ethical and moral standards at work (e.g., complying with the law, proactively upholding standards of social responsibility) might be especially important for employees who tend to demand justification for inequality in power distribution between them and their leaders, coupled with a low tolerance for moral norm violation. Here, authority members are especially expected to do the right thing, and as such, symbols of ethical leadership might go a long way in managing employees’ perceptions of and reactions to unfairness.

The examples described above are just that and are not meant to suggest that the management practices listed would be ineffective in countries with different cultural profiles. Our idea (which requires further empirical investigation) is simply that perhaps these practices would be especially relevant to justice issues when the culture’s root justice concerns (instrumental, relational, etc.) and HR practices are aligned or misaligned. We also recognize that the promotion of fairness is one of multiple goals inherent to HR management. Future investigations will also need to consider the other goals of such practices, such as increasing workforce effectiveness and legal compliance.

The present analyses, combined with future research, have important implications for multinational firms using standardized HR programs across cultures. Our results point to the need for potentially customizing HR practices to best align with a country’s cultural profile. Future justice research should also look to the cross-cultural HR literature to more completely assemble recommendations for aligning best practices, cultural differences, and the management of justice. Indeed, HR practices have been found to vary by culture. In Japan, for instance, assessment center practices tend to be more group-based compared with equivalent practices in more individualistic cultures (Hirose, in press). Papalexandris and Panayotopoulou (2004) investigated the relationships between HR management practices (e.g., recruitment and selection, training, development, and career planning, and performance and reward management) and the nine dimensions of societal culture proposed by House and his colleagues (2004) across 19 countries. In terms of recruitment practices, the data revealed that countries high (vs. low) on power distance and in-group collectivism were less likely to use internal recruitment for selecting junior managers. Regarding selection criteria, Papalexandris and Panayotopoulou found that countries high (vs. low) on collectivism and power distance tended to utilize status and sociopolitical connections rather than knowledge, skills, and abilities (see also Budhwar & Khatri, 2001). In terms of performance appraisal, the authors found that countries low (vs. high) on power distance were more likely to use multisource feedback (e.g., 360 feedback) in performance evaluation. Here we see examples of a nation’s cultural values influencing the development of HR practices. What we do not know is whether these choices subsequently curb employee reactions to perceived injustice as a result of cultural alignment. More research is needed to develop a more comprehensive framework for the strategic consideration of justice in the workplace.

Conclusion

The present research is among the first to empirically review and synthesize the entire organizational justice literature from a cross-cultural perspective. By integrating the four dominant justice perspectives with Hofstede’s cultural values, we present testable propositions regarding the role of culture in the relationships between justice and outcomes. Our meta-analysis results indicate that the magnitude of multifoci justice–outcome associations differ systematically as a function of multiple cultural dimensions (i.e., individualism, femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance). We hope that our propositions shed light on further theoretical development in this research domain. In addition, we present examples of how cross-cultural justice researchers can better inform managers in multinational organizations in considering employee justice concerns and creating fair workplaces across different cultural contexts. Although this is only a first step, we hope that our ideas catalyze further explorations of this important topic.