Personalized and Depersonalized Responses to Leaders’ Fair Treatment: Status Judgments and Leader

Abstract

By extracting insights from leader–member exchange (LMX) theory and social identity theory, this study predicted that a leader’s interactional justice is associated with followers’ multifoci identification by personalized and depersonalized mediating mechanisms. Specifically, we hypothesized that a leader’s interactional justice affects (a) followers’ relational identification via the LMX as a personalized response and (b) followers’ work-group identification via status judgments (pride and respect) as a depersonalized response. The study’s constructs were measured on three separate occasions over an interval of 4 months, using data from a sample of 322 employees at a large public university. As predicted, we found that (a) LMX mediates the relationship between interactional justice and relational identification and (b) status judgments (pride and respect) mediate the relationships between interactional justice and work-group identification. Theoretical and practical implications for these findings are discussed.

Keywords

identification justice leader–member exchange status judgments

Introduction

There is widespread acceptance that a leader’s interactional justice is a vital factor in predicting many actions and reactions of employees in the workplace (Colquitt, 2001; Leung, Wang, & Smith, 2001). During the past 20 years, justice scholars have devoted significant attention to the psychological mechanisms that underlie these predictions and, in examining these psychological mechanisms, two perspectives have received increasing attention: the leader–member exchange (LMX) theory (e.g., Manogran, Stauffer, & Conlon, 1994; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000) and the social identity theory (SIT; for example, Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006; Tyler & Blader, 2003).

The LMX and the SIT theories focus on different aspects of leadership in the group. Specifically, LMX focuses on the leader–follower dyadic relationship without considering the leader–group relationship. On the contrary, SIT focuses on the context of social situations and group membership, and less on the leader–follower relationship. For example, the LMX theory interpreted the impact of interactional justice in the context of dyadic personal relationships between leaders and their followers, ignoring the fact that these relationships are influenced by the social context and group membership (Hogg et al., 2005). In contrast, SIT explained these impacts in the context of social situations and group membership and ignored the fact that these relationships are influenced by differentiated personal relationships (Hogg & Martin, 2003; Hogg et al., 2005). Therefore, we believe that bridging the links between interactional justice, the LMX, and SIT paints a more complete picture of our knowledge of fairness in organizations. The theoretical justification behind this integration emanates from the agent-dominance model (D. A. Jones, Fassina, & Uggerslev, 2006). In this model, the agent’s (leader’s) interactional fairness is the dominate source of unique variance in his or her followers’ responses regarding both leader-served and group-served actions (Fassina, Jones, & Uggerslev, 2008; Karriker & Williams, 2009).

This article aims to investigate the premise that information communicated by a leader’s interactional justice simultaneously fuels two potentially complementary responses: personalized and depersonalized responses. In the first response (personalized), which builds upon social exchange processes, the leader’s interactional justice affects the LMX, in turn influencing the follower’s relational identification with the leader. Regarding the depersonalized response, which is established by social identity processes, we assume that a leader’s interactional justice affects status judgments such as pride and respect, in turn influencing the follower’s collective identification with the work-group (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Hypothesized model.

Overall, this study makes three important contributions to the existing research. First, by integrating insights from LMX and SIT, we are able to provide unique insights into the relationship between interactional justice and employees’ identification, which may be missed by looking at the leader–follower dyadic relationships in isolation from a wider social context of the group as a whole. Although there have been some previous attempts to integrate these insights (Hogg & Martin, 2003; Hogg et al., 2005; Hogg, Martin, & Weeden, 2003), these attempts are different in at least two ways: (a) Hogg et al. provided a good example to explain leadership effectiveness via integrating tenets from LMX theory and SIT. In LMX theory (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), promoting effectiveness in leadership needs to establish high-quality personalized relationships between the leader and followers. According to SIT analysis, these personalized leader–member relations can be (in)effective under specific conditions. Specifically, in high salience groups and when people identify strongly with a group, personalized relations may be less effective than depersonalized ones, whereas in low-salience groups and when people identify weakly with a group, personalized relations are as effective or more effective than depersonalized ones (Hogg et al., 2005). In accordance with Mayer and Sparrowe’s (2013) methods of integrating theories, Hogg and colleagues used two independent streams of research (LMX and SIT) to explain the same phenomenon (leadership effectiveness) but from different vantage points. In our study, we aim to expand on the early attempts by Hogg et al. to integrate these theories by employing a common explanatory framework (i.e., the agent-dominance model) that brings together tenets from LMX theory and the SIT to have their effects on specific outcomes (relational and work-group identification). (b) The efforts of Hogg et al. have addressed the following question: Under what conditions can personalized leader–member relations or depersonalized leader–member relations be effective and appropriate? In contrast, the current study turns our attention to another question: How can employees’ perceptions of fairness simultaneously fuel both personalized and depersonalized leader–member relations?

Second, our study contributes to the research on employee identification by simultaneously examining two important and immediate types of identification (with the leader and with the group). In doing so, this study addresses the call for more investigation on this line of research by examining differential antecedents that may contribute to the development of followers’ connection to an individual leader and with their group (He & Brown, 2013; Zhang, Chen, Chen, Liu, & Johnson, 2012). An exploration of how the relational and group levels of identification may be aroused should enable us to build a more holistic understanding of how employees relate to each other within organizations, as well as what strategies those organizations could employ to foster these relations (Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006; Sluss & Ashforth, 2008).

Finally, the study also sheds some light on the importance of using the justice lens in understanding followers’ reactions to leaders’ behavior. This responds to prior research’s call for us to pay more attention to whether the leader can simultaneously activate the two different levels of followers’ social identities: relational and collective identification (Kark & Shamir, 2002; Lord, Brown, & Feiberg, 1999). Existing empirical studies maintain that leaders who engage in transformational behaviors can trigger the relational and collective aspects of followers’ self-concepts, and ultimately their behaviors and group outcomes (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003; Wu, Tsui, & Kinicki, 2010). For instance, Kark et al. (2003) found that the transformational leadership behaviors of midlevel bank managers predicted employees’ identification with their manager and with their subunits, which in turn predicted their dependence on their manager and their empowerment. In this study, we propose an alternative view. Specifically, it is proposed, according to the agent-dominance model, that leaders who treat their followers fairly can prime their relational and collective aspects of self-concept via two differential antecedents (LMX and status judgments).

Conceptual Background and Hypothesis Development

Reasons for Leader Interactional Fairness

Acts of injustice as perceived by an employee generally emanate from two sources—the immediate supervisor and/or the organization as a whole (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). Justice scholars have long recognized that the fairness of the leader has a greater impact on employees’ thoughts, feelings, and actions than the fairness of the organization (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Lord & Brown, 2004; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). In the most recent justice meta-analyses (Colquitt et al., 2013), the findings have revealed that leader-focused justice is more predictive than organization-focused justice because the leader’s actions during direct interactions with followers may be less constrained by system factors such as formalized practices and protocols (Scott, Colquitt, & Paddock, 2009) and may also be more salient and distinguishable (Colquitt et al., 2013; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). Most of the studies reviewed concur that the dominant preference regarding leader fairness is interactional justice (Lord & Brown, 2004; van Knippenberg, De Cremer, & van Knippenberg, 2007). Bies and Moag (1986) introduced the concept of interactional justice to describe the extent to which employees perceive that they are being fairly treated by their supervisors when procedural justice is enacted, while organizational justice researchers have found that interactional justice is an important factor as it influences various work outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, citizenship behaviors, leadership evaluations, and collective self-esteem (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Leung et al., 2001).

When compared with other forms of fairness such as procedural and distributive fairness, research into leadership fairness pays particular attention to interactional fairness (Lord & Brown, 2004; Tyler & Blader, 2003; van Knippenberg et al., 2007). Our literature review has revealed three reasons for this focus. First, fair treatment from a leader is an appropriate method and a useful heuristic mechanism for communicating information about procedural and distributive justice to followers (Luo, 2007; Moorman, 1991; Scandura, 1999; Van den Bos & Lind, 2002); in other words, interactional justice maintains the social and psychological climate that must exist to promote the perception of procedural and distributive fairness (Blader & Tyler, 2003). Second, when compared with procedural and distributive forms, interactional justice is the strongest predictor of variance in key outcome variables (Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002). For example, previous studies have found that interactional justice predicts supervisory social exchanges (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Moorman, 1991), whereas procedural justice is unable to predict these variables. Third, a leader has more discretion and initiative when adhering to interactional justice practices when following distributive or procedural justice practices. The rationale behind this is that a leader’s distributive or procedural fairness parallels that of the upper management levels, reflecting governance through systemic factors that are outside of the leader’s control (Scott et al., 2009).

Bifurcating Effects of Leader Interactional Fairness

The theoretical foundation of our study begins with the agent-dominance model, which predicts that interactional fairness bifurcates its effects to generate unique variance in both supervisory-focused and group-focused outcomes (D. A. Jones et al., 2006). Actions related to interactional fairness, which emanate exclusively from the leader, are the significant predictors of variance regarding both supervisor (e.g., trust in and satisfaction with leadership; Leung, Su, & Morris, 2001) and group outcomes (e.g., collective identification; Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006). The key notion of the agent-dominance model is that interactional justice inputs simultaneously reflect both an individual face and a collective face (Fassina et al., 2008; D. A. Jones et al., 2006; Karriker & Williams, 2009); the individual face (original face) refers to the leader’s interactional justice, whereas the collective face (reflective face) describes the system’s or group’s interactional justice, which is represented by the leader (Karriker & Williams, 2009). The collective face of interactive justice can inform one individual about other group members’ opinions, feelings, and values, especially when the group leader is considered to be a representative of the in-group (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Lipponen, Koivisto, & Olkkonen, 2005; Tyler & Lind, 1992). In addition, the collective face of interactive justice can also inform each individual about the organization’s interpersonal relationships, opinions, and feelings regarding the extent to which the leader is considered to be prototypical of the organization (Sluss & Ashforth, 2008; Sluss, Ployhart, Cobb, & Ashforth, 2012). Put briefly, the leader’s interactional justice serves as a proxy for the organization’s relationships from the perspective of the employees (Karriker & Williams, 2009) and also as a representative of group members’ relationships as perceived by the employees (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Lind, 1992).

Our study differs in three respects compared with previous studies that have used the agent-dominance model. Regarding outcomes, the previous studies have focused on OCB (Fassina et al., 2008; Karriker & Williams, 2009), whereas our study focuses on identification, which represents a key antecedent to OCB (Blader & Tyler, 2009; Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007). In terms of mediators, previous studies have considered the social exchange perspective as a psychological mechanism to explain the relationship between interactional justice and OCB (Karriker & Williams, 2009); however, we have combined the social identity perspective and the social exchange perspective to gain a more comprehensive picture. At a more targeted level, previous studies have presented the leader’s interactional justice as a proxy for the organization (Karriker & Williams, 2009); in contrast, in the present study we shed light on the work-group rather than the organization.

Leader Fairness Within the Framework of LMX Theory and SIT

Fair treatment by a leader motivates a follower to switch his or her self-definition from a social situation that is based on separation from others (individual level) to a social situation that is based on inclusiveness (interdependent level; D. A. Jones et al., 2006; R. E. Jones & Lord, 2010; Lind, 2001; Lord & Brown, 2004). The interdependent level includes a self-definition that is based on either relational identification or collective identification (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; D. A. Jones et al., 2006; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). Relational identification refers to “the extent to which one defines oneself in terms of a given role-relationship” (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007: 11), and organizational and social psychology scholars consider that the follower–leader relationship is one of the salient role-relationships in defining an employee at work (Aron & Aron, 2000; Sluss et al., 2012). Collective identification, however, is defined as the individual’s sense of “oneness” within a group of persons such as an employer, organization, or work-group (Ashforth & Mael, 1989).

A review of justice and identity literature suggests that the effects of the leader’s degree of fairness may result in two different outcomes, one involving the creation of the follower’s identification with the leader (relational identification) and the other establishing the follower’s identification with the work-group (collective identification).

A Leader’s Interactional Fairness Through the Personalized Path

According to the personalized path, the LMX is a mediating channel that transfers information regarding interactive justice from the leader to the group members. The LMX theory draws on the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) to describe the quality of a series of dyadic relationships and interactions that emerge between the supervisor and his or her subordinates within a work unit (Graen & Scandura, 1987). Because of time and resource limitations combined with increasing work demands, supervisors establish differentiated quality relationships with subordinates to achieve organizational goals (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996). In some of these relationships, the supervisors establish high-quality exchanges (high LMX) that extend beyond the employment contract and include exchange-valued monetary and emotional resources from both parties, whereas in other relationships they focus on low-quality exchanges (low LMX) that rely on the formal employment contract and involve the exchange of less valued resources (Bauer, Green, & Bauer, 1996; Manogran et al., 1994).

Interactional justice is one essential avenue that the supervisor can use to establish high-quality exchanges with his or her subordinates (Manogran et al., 1994; Masterson et al., 2000). Fair treatment from the leader can be transformed into the social exchange of quality-relevant information with subordinate colleagues. For some of these subordinates, the information communicates a symbolic and particularistic message that the supervisor is giving them more attention and support, and desires to continue the relationship with them (Masterson et al., 2000; Moorman, 1991; Roch & Shanock, 2006); whereas for others, the attention and support offered by the supervisor is much less significant. In high-quality LMX relationships, followers are more likely to develop a sense of a reciprocal obligation that translates into a connection with the supervisor (relational identification; Lavelle et al., 2007), whereas followers in high-quality LMX are more likely to feel grievances if they do not identify with the supervisor (Scandura, 1999). Accordingly, fair treatment by the supervisor enhances the LMX, and this may in turn create a personal attraction from the perspective of members with high-quality LMX, enabling them to safely identify relationally with that particular leader (Tyler & Blader, 2003).

The target similarity model introduced by Lavelle et al. (2007) provided a theoretical foundation that supports the personalized path of our hypothesized model. This model suggests that a leader’s interactional justice affects social exchange relationships in two phases: In the first phase, interactional justice affects employee perceptions of trust and support from the leader (High LMX), and in the second phase employees demonstrate commitment to and identification with the leader. In other words, “the support from and trust of the [leader] that [interactional] justice creates, puts the social exchange relationship in motion ( . . . Phase 1). Once this begins, employees then reciprocate via commitment to and identification with the [leader] ( . . . Phase 2)” (Lavelle et al., 2007: 852). Empirical research supports the assumption that a leader’s interactional justice influences the LMX (Karriker & Williams, 2009; Manogran et al., 1994; Masterson et al., 2000; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). In contrast, although there have been several prior attempts to explore the relationship between the LMX and relational identification (e.g., Gu, Tang, & Jiang, 2013; Huang, Wang, & Xie, 2014; Landry & Vandenberghe, 2009), there is no published research that examines the LMX as a potential mediator in the relationship between interactional justice and relational identification. Thus, in accordance with the ideas above, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1: Interactional justice is positively related to LMX.

Hypothesis 2: LMX is positively related to followers’ relational identification with their leaders.

Hypothesis 3: LMX mediates the relationship between leaders’ interactional justice and their relational identification with their followers.

A Leader’s Interactional Fairness Through the Depersonalized Path

In the depersonalized path, group-based status judgments such as respect and pride represent the second mediating channel in the transfer of interactive justice information from the leader to the group members. These judgments extend beyond the traditional view of the SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), which focuses solely on intergroup dynamics, to include intragroup dynamics (Tyler & Blader, 2002). Pride essentially focuses on intergroup relation issues and reflects the categorical self (Blader & Tyler, 2009; Tyler & Blader, 2003), referring to the thoughts, feelings, and assessments of individuals regarding their prestige as part of the group; it also describes the perception of group status from those outside the group (Tyler & Blader, 2002, 2003). The issue of respect focuses more on intragroup relations and reflects the reputational self (Tyler & Blader, 2003, 2009); as such, it refers to the thoughts, feelings, and assessments of individuals regarding their standing and unique attributes (e.g., abilities and attractiveness) within the group, while also representing the individual’s perception of his or her status according to other members of the group (Tyler & Blader, 2002, 2003). Previous studies have demonstrated that status judgments such as respect and pride are important factors in determining an individual’s relationship within the group as these judgments represent the psychological need to have a positive personal and social identity (Fuller et al., 2006; Tyler & Blader, 2002, 2003).

There is acceptance among some justice scholars that interactional fairness is a vital mechanism that can be exploited by leaders to create a sense of pride and respect in their followers (Sousa & Vala, 2002; Tyler & De Cremer, 2005; Tyler & Lind, 1992). The rationale for this is that perceptions of fair treatment from leaders translate into identity-relevant information for group members. Consistent with prior research (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Lind, 1992), this identity-relevant information communicates symbolic messages for individuals, informing them about their status. Specifically, it tells them (a) whether they are respected within the group and (b) whether they can take pride in it (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Lipponen et al., 2005; Tyler & Lind, 1992). These perceptions of pride and respect, in turn, form the members’ conceptions of their self-worth and self-esteem, both of which are direct results of their group membership. Therefore, status judgments (respect and pride) as feedback information determine the favorability of each member’s relationships within his or her group (collective identification; Fuller et al., 2006; Tyler & Blader, 2002, 2003). This is because members who feel that they hold a position of high status in the group (respect) and/or who feel that their group has a high status position (pride) are more motivated and secure, thus defining their self-identity according to the group identity and becoming integrated (Tyler & Blader, 2003). In essence, fair treatment by the leader promotes positive self-assessment by group members (respect and pride), which in turn may enhance their perceptions of their social attractiveness and motivate them to safely invest their collective identities within their group (Tyler & Blader, 2002, 2003).

Tyler and Blader’s (2002, 2003) group engagement model provides theoretical support for the depersonalized path in our hypothesized model; it supposes that procedural justice, which involves a leader’s interactional justice, plays an important role in shaping group members’ status evaluations (pride, respect), which subsequently links their perceptions of justice directly to their identification within the group. Although a number of studies have found empirical evidence that fair treatment from a supervisor can positively influence perceptions of pride and respect among group members (Lipponen et al., 2005; Sousa & Vala, 2002) and that pride and respect are associated with collective identification (Al-Atwi & Bakir, 2014; Tyler & Blader, 2002), these studies have not fully explored this relationship chain (i.e., interactional justice → status judgments → collective identification). Hence, we present the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4: Interactional justice is positively related to status judgments such as respect and pride.

Hypothesis 5: Status judgments such as respect and pride are positively related to followers’ collective identification within their work-groups.

Hypothesis 6: Status judgments such as respect and pride mediate the relationship between leaders’ interactional justice and followers’ collective identification within their work-groups.

Method

Sample and Procedure

The sample consisted of full-time employees from a large public university located in the south of Iraq. The sample of employees was drawn from a wide range of job descriptions such as administrators, staff members, secretaries, and faculty members. Prospective participants understood that they would complete three successive surveys at two 4-month intervals between October 2011 and June 2012. All employees were assigned a code (the first name of their grandmother) to match up with the surveys given at Time 2 and Time 3 and the majority of the questionnaires were administered during face-to-face meetings with the employees in their workplace; however, some were administered through electronic mail or the postal service. At Time 1, the questionnaires were administered to 987 employees, 681 of whom responded (69%). Of the Time 1 respondents, 503 completed the questionnaire at Time 2 (74%) and 326 of the Time 2 respondents completed the survey at Time 3 (65%). Four respondents were eliminated from the sample because they failed to fill out an important part of one of the three surveys. The final sample size, which included those individuals who completed all surveys and their grandmothers’ names were matched over time, was 322 (33% of the original 987; 37 administrators, 115 staff members, 59 secretaries and 111 faculty members). This sample comprised 87 leaders (69% of the total) who had been rated by 322 of their subordinates. The number of subordinates per leader ranged from two to seven.¹

Of the respondents, 51% were male, and the average age of the respondent was 42.4 years old (SD = 9.8). The average tenure was 6.1 years within work-groups and 4.5 years for supervisors. With regard to education, 18% had obtained a high school degree, 45% had received a bachelor’s degree, 20% had obtained a master’s degree, and 17% had completed doctoral studies. We attached a cover letter that explained the purpose of the study and included the relevant scales and times for the study.

Assessment of Non-Random Sampling Bias

As recommended by Goodman and Blum (1996), we investigated whether attrition bias contributes to the presence of non-random sampling by comparing participants who responded to Times 1, 2, and 3 (n = 322), individuals who responded only to the Time 1 survey (n = 178), and individuals who only responded to the Time 1 and Time 2 surveys (n = 177). This comparison includes demographic characteristics and baseline variable scores (relational and work-group identification). Our results have found no significant differences among these groups across demographic characteristics and across baseline variable scores. In addition, we assessed the possible presence of a non-random sampling bias by performing two sets of analyses of the correlations among our variables. In the first set of analyses, we compared correlations of T1 interactional justice with T1 relational identification and with T1 work-group identification, across our T1 sample and T3 sample. The second set of analyses involved comparing correlations of T1 interactional justice with T2 pride, T2 respect, and T2 LMX, across our T2 and T3 samples. The results indicated there were no differences in significance for the coefficients. Thus, attrition does not appear to be a threat to the underlying relationships among the variables of interest.

Measures

All of our measures were answered using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). With the exception of the work-group identification scale, which was translated into Arabic by Al-Atwi and Bakir (2014), all of our Likert-type scales were originally written in English and were translated into Arabic by two independent professional translators using the back-translation guidelines (Brislin, 1986). During the back-translation process, the wording of some items was modified in the Arabic version to ensure they were linguistically equivalent to the scale’s original version.

Interactional justice (Time 1)

Employee perceptions of their supervisors’ implementation of interactional justice were measured using six items from Moorman’s (1991) scale. A sample item is “Your supervisor is able to suppress personal biases.” The reliability of the interactional justice scale for supervisors was high (α = .96).

LMX (Time 2)

Employees rated the quality of the exchange relationship between themselves and their supervisors (LMX) using a seven-item scale from Scandura and Graen (1984) as recommended by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) and Gerstner and Day (1997). An example was “My supervisor understands my job problems and needs.” The reliability of the scale was high (α = .93).

Pride and respect (Time 2)

Pride was measured using four items from Tyler and Blader’s (2000: 217) study, and “I tell my friends that the group I work with is a good group to work with” was a sample item. The reliability of the pride scale was high (α = .93). For respect, we used six items from Tyler and Blader’s (2000) study. A sample item was “Others in my work group . . . value me as a member of my work group.” The reliability of the respect scale was sufficient (α = .93), and these scales have been successfully used in past research (e.g., Lipponen et al., 2005).

Relational identification (Times 1 and 3)

A four-item scale developed by Sluss and his colleagues (2012) has been used. The employee was asked to assess the extent to which he or she defines himself or herself in terms of his or her relationship with his or her supervisor. A sample item was “My relationship with my immediate supervisor is an important part of who I am at work,” and the reliability of relational identification measure was adequate (α = .89).

Work-group identification (Times 1 and 3)

We measured work-group identification using Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) six-item scale. A sample item was “When someone criticizes my [work-group], it feels like a personal insult.” The reliability of the work-group identification measure was high (α = .94).

Control Variables

We used gender (male = 0 and female = 1), age (years), and tenure (years with work-group, years as supervisor) as control variables based on their potential to account for variances in identifications with work-groups or with supervisors (Riketta, 2005; Zhang et al., 2012). In addition, we controlled for the baseline level of relational and work-group identification during Time 1 to isolate the effects of interactional justice on subsequent identification, without the “noise” of prior identification levels.

Following the recommendation of Becker (2005), we have tested the impact of potential control variables in the present study (age, gender, tenure, and baseline level of relational and work-group identification) on relational and work-group identification (at Time 3). However, with the exception of baseline level relational and work-group identification, none of these variables have demonstrated significant effects on any of the outcome variables. Therefore, we have only included relational and work-group identification (at Time 1) as a control variable in the analyses of our variables.

Construct Validity and Assessment of Common Method

To ensure that our T1 measures (work-group identification and relational identification) were an appropriate baseline and control for our model, we examined T1 to T3 longitudinal measurement equivalence using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and used an augmented covariance matrix as the input to account for time-wise correlated errors (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). There is a consensus that at least three important hierarchical levels of measurement equivalence need to be examined: configural, metric, and scalar (e.g., Lance & Vandenberg, 2000; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). These forms involve the estimation of progressively more constrained nested models (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). The baseline model of invariance, namely, configural invariance, is established if the same items load on the same factor over time. Once configural invariance is established, the next most stringent form of invariance is metric invariance, which assumes that all item loadings are constrained to be equal at each point in time. The next step in the hierarchy involves scalar invariance, which is based on the assumption that item intercepts, as well as factor loadings, do not change over time. This is generally considered the strongest form of equivalence (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).

Table 1 contains the fit statistics for the three nested models, showing that there was evidence of T1 to T3 longitudinal measurement equivalence. This conclusion was based on non-significant chi-square difference tests (all p values > .05), minimal change in comparative fit index (CFI) values (all Δ CFI values ≤ .01) between models, the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) and CFI being above the cutoff value of 0.90, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value being below 0.06, and finally the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) value being below 0.08. These results indicated that both identification measures (work-group identification and relational identification) demonstrated evidence of configural, metric, and scalar equivalence over an 8-month period.

Table 1.

Tests of Longitudinal Measurement Equivalence for Relational and Work-Group Identification.

Models	χ²	df	TLI	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR	Δχ² (df)	ΔCFI
Relational identification
1. Configural	18.55	15	.997	.998	.027	.017
2. Metric	23.46	18	.996	.998	.031	.016	4.91 (3)	.000
3. Scalar	27.38	21	.984	.988	.031	.017	3.92 (3)	−.01
Work-group identification
1. Configural	54.82	47	.997	.998	.023	.019
2. Metric	62.01	52	.997	.998	.024	.018	7.19 (5)	.000
3. Scalar	71.71	57	.989	.991	.029	.018	9.70 (5)	−.007

Note. TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.

Prior to analyzing the data, we used CFA to examine the convergent and discriminate validity of the measures employed in this study. The CFA showed that our measurement model fits the data well (χ² = 1,267.73, df = 832, CFI = .97, normed fit index [NFI] = .91, SRMR = .03, RMSEA = .041) and factor loadings for all items were well above the recommended level of 0.40 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). This result supports the convergent validity of our measurement model (Anderson & Gerhing, 1988; Hair et al., 1998). To provide evidence of the discriminate validity of our variables, we compared the original eight-factor model with a series of nested models. First, we created a one-factor model that incorporated all eight constructs; the fit indicators in Table 2 show that the eight-factor model fits the data well, with significantly better results (Δχ² = 9,520.38, df = 28, p < .01) than the one-factor model. This indicates that our variables are discriminably different factors. Second, we compare the hypothesized measurement model with three alternative models combining variables with high intercorrelations. The results of our CFAs are provided in Table 2. In this table, we have noted that our hypothesized eight-factor model produced the best fit statistics and, via chi-square difference tests, confirmed that it fits the data better than any of the three alternative models. These analyses provided support for viewing interactional justice, pride, respect, and LMX as discriminate constructs.

Table 2.

Fit indices and Comparison With Alternative Measurement Models.

Models	χ²	df	CFI	NFI	SRMR	RMSEA	Δχ² (df)
Hypothesized model (8-factor)	1,267.73**	832	.97	.91	.03	.041
9-factor model (with common method factor)	1,264.21**	831	.97	.92	.03	.044	3.52 (1)
7-factor Model 1 (combining I-justice and LMX)	2,629.14**	839	.85	.79	.12	.092	1,361.41 (7) **
7-factor Model 2 (combining I-justice and pride)	2,252.06**	839	.88	.82	.08	.089	984.33 (7) **
7-factor Model 3 (combining pride and respect)	2,255.95**	839	.88	.83	.09	.088	988.22 (7) **
1-factor model	10,788.11**	860	.27	.25	.23	.19	9,520.38 (28) **

Note. CFI = comparative fit index; NFI = normed fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; LMX = leader–member exchange.

p < .01.

As all the variables in this study were measured from the perspective of the employee, therefore, this raised the possibility for common method bias. To mitigate the risk of common method bias, we have followed several procedural and statistical remedies as recommended by (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). According to procedural remedies, we first used temporal (using a three-wave data collection) and psychological (e.g., introductory texts) separation between the measurement of study variables. Second, we attached a cover story to enhance the respondent’s desire for “self-expression and emotional catharsis”; for example, we used the following phrase in the cover story: “We need and value your opinion.” Third, to provide assurances of participant confidentiality, anonymity was promised.

Regarding statistical remedies, we performed two tests to diagnose this bias for our data. First, as suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003), Harman’s one-factor test was conducted by using exploratory factor analysis; common method bias was deemed to be in existence when only one factor or the first factor explained over 40% of the variability. Following this, a principal components factor analysis of the questionnaire measurement items yielded eight factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, accounting for 71% of the total variance. As the first factor explained only 26.1% of the variance, there does not appear to be a substantial amount of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Second, due to the limitations of the first test, we used the single common method factor approach. According to this approach, we performed a CFA where the items of all scales were loaded upon their respective factors; we then added a common method factor to the model and drew paths from it to each indicator. Before running this analysis, all the loadings onto the method factor were held to be equivalent. In addition, we assume that the method factor was specified as uncorrelated with the substantive factors. This test reveals that the fit indices of this model (χ² = 1,264.21, df = 831, CFI = .97, NFI = .92, SRMR = .03, RMSEA = .044) are very similar to those found in the hypothesized measurement model (χ² = 1,267.73, df = 832, CFI = .97, NFI = .91, SRMR = .03, RMSEA = .041; see Table 2). The results indicate that the addition of a common method factor did not improve model fit (Δχ² = 3.52, df = 1, ns) and it only explained 16% of the total variance, which is below the 25% threshold for common method variance (Williams, Cote, & Buckley, 1989). Therefore, even though a small degree of common method variance may be present, it is unlikely that it is strong enough to meaningfully influence our results.

Results

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the study variables are presented in Table 3. As can be seen in the correlation matrix, interactional justice is significantly related to all the variables in our model. Pride and respect have significant relationships with work-group identification, while LMX has a significant relationship with relational identification. These results report initial support for the study’s hypotheses.

Table 3.

Correlations and Summary Statistics (N = 322).

Study variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Interactional justice (Time 1)	3.14	1.13	(.96)
2. WID (Time 1)	3.00	1.12	.146**	(.96)
3. RID (Time 1)	2.96	1.22	.050	.029	(.95)
4. Pride (Time 2)	3.14	1.07	.466**	.155**	.039	(.93)
5. Respect (Time 2)	3.25	1.27	.392**	.124*	.009	.424**	(.93)
6. LMX (Time 2)	3.22	1.16	.519**	.056	.113*	.141*	.068	(.93)
7. WID (Time 3)	3.08	1.20	.381**	.291**	.054	.362**	.384**	.161**	(.94)
8. RID (Time 3)	3.20	1.17	.149**	.072	.238**	.131*	.051	.327**	.180**	(.89)

Note. WID = work-group identification; RID = relational identification; LMX = leader–member exchange.

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

We examined our hypotheses using structural equation modeling with latent variables (LISREL 8.8). To demonstrate that our model is the best representation of the data, we have compared it with reasonable alternative models (Kelloway, 1998). We first compared the hypothesized research model (full mediation model) shown in Figure 1 with the extended model (Model 2; with additional direct paths from pride and respect to relational identification); as can be seen from Table 4, the hypothesized model fits the data well (χ² = 1,346.26, df = 849, CFI = .96, NFI = .91, SRMR = .064, RMSEA = .043). However, Model 2 did not present a significantly better fit with the data (χ² = 1,344.43, df = 847, CFI = .96, NFI = .91, SRMR = .064, RMSEA = .043) than the hypothesized model (Δχ² = 1.83, df = 2, ns). Moreover, the direct paths from pride and respect to relational identification were non-significant (β = .05, ns; β = –.01, ns respectively). Following this, we compared the hypothesized research model with the extended model (Model 3; with an additional direct path from LMX to work-group identification). Although the Model 3 fit the data well (χ² = 1,343.84, df = 848, CFI = .96, NFI = .91, SRMR = .062, RMSEA = .043), the chi-square statistic of the comparison process was not significant (Δχ² = 2.42, df = 1, ns). Furthermore, the path coefficient of Model 3 from LMX to work-group identification (β = .09, ns) was statistically non-significant. According to the comparisons with Model 2 and Model 3, our hypothesized model shows that there are two alternative routes (LMX and SIT) that can be integrated to explain the effects of interactional justice.

Table 4.

Fit Indices and Comparison With Alternative Structural Models.

Models	χ²	Df	CFI	NFI	SRMR	RMSEA	Δχ² (df)
Model 1 (fully mediated)	1,346.26**	849	.96	.91	.064	.043
Model 2 (with additional direct paths from pride and respect to relational identification)	1,344.43**	847	.96	.91	.064	.043	1.83 (2) ns
Model 3 (with an additional direct path from LMX to work-group identification)	1,343.84**	848	.96	.91	.062	.043	2.42 (1) ns
Model 4 (partial mediation)	1,336.71**	847	.97	.91	.060	.042	9.55 (2)**

Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; LMX = leader–member exchange.

p < .01.

To test the mediation hypotheses, we compared the hypothesized research model (as a full mediating model) with a partial mediating model (Model 4) that includes two paths from interactional justice to work-group identification and from interactional justice to relational identification. As can be seen from Table 4, a partially mediated model in which paths from interactional justice to the outcome variables (work-group and relational identification) were freed up fits the data significantly better (Δχ² = 9.55, df = 2, p < .01). Therefore, all of our hypotheses were assessed based on this model as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

SEM results of best fit partial mediation model.

Hypothesis 1, which predicts that a supervisor’s interactional justice is positively related to the LMX, is supported. The results of Figure 2 show that a supervisor’s interactional justice (β = .53, p < .01) is positively associated with the LMX. As shown in Figure 2, the results reveal a positive significant link between the LMX and relational identification (β = .31, p < .01), thus also providing support for Hypothesis 2. The results further support Hypothesis 4, which predicts that a supervisor’s interactional justice is positively associated with respect (β = .42, p < .01) and pride (β = .48, p < .01). Hypothesis 5, which predicts that respect and pride are positively related to work-group identification, is supported; the results indicate that respect (β = .25, p < .01) and pride (β = .15, p < .01) are positively associated with work-group identification.

To assess mediation in Hypotheses 3 and 6, we have computed the indirect effects and use, as recommended by (Preacher & Hayes, 2008), the bias-corrected bootstrapping procedures in AMOS (with 1,000 samples) as well as Sobel’s test to inspect the significance of these indirect effects. Hypothesis 3 predicts that the LMX mediates the relationship between interactional justice and relational identification. As shown in Figure 2, the paths between interactional justice and LMX as well as those between LMX and relational identification are significant. Our 1,000-sample bootstrapping analysis and Sobel’s test both indicate that the indirect effect of interactional justice on relational identification through the LMX is significant (β = .16, Z = 5.13, p < .01; 95% lower bootstrap confidence interval [CI] = .094, upper CI = .249, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 3 is fully supported. Hypothesis 6 predicts that status judgments—respect and pride—mediate the relationship between interactional justice and work-group identification. Figure 2 highlights that the relationship between interactional justice and status judgments (respect and pride) is significant and that respect and pride are both significantly related to work-group identification. Bootstrapping and Sobel’s test results show that the indirect path between interactional justice and work-group identification through respect was significant (β = .105, Z = 3.68, p < .01; 95% lower bootstrap CI = .042, upper CI = .152, p < .01). In addition, the indirect path between interactional justice and work-group identification through pride was also significant (β = .07, Z = 2.60, p < .01; 95% lower bootstrap CI = .013, upper CI = .130, p < .05). Therefore, Hypothesis 6 is supported.

In addition to the findings mentioned above, we support our model by running the reverse causality model, swapping mediators (respect, pride, and LMX) and dependent variables (work-group and relational identification). The results showed that work-group identification measured at Time 1 was not significantly related to respect and pride at a later stage (β = .06, p = .362, β = .09, p = .091, respectively), and relational identification measured at Time 1 was not significantly related to LMX at Time 2 (β = .10, p = .093). These findings are helpful to support the hypothesized relationships of our model.

Discussion

Integrating the LMX theory and the SIT, this research investigates the potential two-way effects of the perception of a leader’s interactional justice on his or her followers’ identification patterns. In addition, our research explores two psychological mechanisms through which the leader’s fair treatment encourages followers to define themselves in terms of a given role and group membership relationships. Specifically, we examine the effect of interactional justice from the leader on relational identification via the LMX, and we have also explored the effect of leader interactional justice on work-group identification through status judgments such as respect and pride. Using a longitudinal research design, our results provide support for our hypotheses and pave the way for future directions and research.

Theoretical Implications

The findings of the current research make a number of potential theoretical contributions to the extant knowledge in the field. First, we have found that perceived fair treatment from a leader is positively associated with the followers’ perceptions of the quality of their relationship with the leader (LMX), which in turn positively affects their relational identification with the leader. Accordingly, we corroborate the notion of personalized response, which suggests that when followers perceive fair treatment from their leader, they feel important and are more likely to identify with him or her. These findings are significant because they support the theoretical notions of Lavelle et al.’s (2007) target similarity model, while also partially confirming the results of a number of previous studies (Manogran et al., 1994; Masterson et al., 2000; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002; Sluss, Gooper, Morrell, & Thompson, 2008).

Second, the study results demonstrate that the leader’s perceived fair treatment positively affects the followers’ feelings of pride and respect, the latter being positively associated with collective identification within a work-group. According to these findings, the concept of the depersonalized response was supported in our model. The depersonalized response indicates that when followers perceive fair treatment by their leader, they develop a sense of pride and respect, which may in turn create a perception of social attraction and encourage them to safely invest their collective identities in the group. This is consistent with Tyler and Blader’s (2003) group engagement model and supports the results of studies that have followed propositions based on this model (Al-Atwi & Bakir, 2014; Lipponen et al., 2005; Sousa & Vala, 2002).

Third, a pivotal contribution of this study is the merging of personalized and depersonalized response, which has received little attention in previous studies. Following prior efforts (e.g., Kark et al., 2003; Lord et al., 1999), our findings maintain that leaders have the ability to activate or prime two different levels of followers’ responses: personalized and depersonalized. For instance, Kark et al. (2003) found that transformational leadership was related to personal identification with the leader and to social identification with the work unit. Their findings have further showed that personal and social identification are mediated mechanisms through which transformational leadership differentially relates to followers’ dependence and empowerment. Moreover, previous research also suggests that these two forms of responses (i.e., relational and social identification) are two inter-related concepts (Sluss et al., 2012; Steffens, Haslam, & Reicher, 2014). Nevertheless, the present study is consistent with the findings of researchers who have indicated that these two forms of identification are not necessarily related, in that they have different foci and antecedents (e.g., Kark et al., 2003; Zhang et al., 2012). In another context, we see that our findings represent a promising step toward revising the nature of the relationships between followers and their leader on one hand, and followers and their work-group on the other. Accordingly, this step may encourage other researchers to redesign their theoretical models by combining personalized and depersonalized responses; for example, the group engagement model is solely dependent on the depersonalized response (social identity perspective), and to gain a complete picture this model should add the personalized response to its main propositions (LMX perspective).

Finally, the results of the structural equations modeling indicate that a leader’s interactional justice simultaneously affects the actions and attention of the followers, which therefore contribute to serving the leader himself (relational identification) and the group (work-group identification). This is consistent with the agent-dominance model, which indicates that interactional fairness generates unique variance in both supervisory-focused and group-focused outcomes. Despite this, our study adds new insights to this model. We hypothesized that the leader serves as the representative for the group members’ relationships from the perspective of the employee (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Lind, 1992), while the agent-dominance model perceives the leader as a proxy for the organization’s relationship from the perspective of the employee (Karriker & Williams, 2009). In addition, our model expanded the theories (beyond social exchange) that support the agent-dominance argument by combining the social identity perspective with the social exchange perspective to interpret the relationship between a leader’s interactional justice and the employees’ actions and feelings.

Practical Implications

The study’s findings also have implications for managers and organizations. Managers should realize that the quality of relational links with employees in the workplace is primarily their responsibility and that to successfully meet this responsibility they should engage in the fair treatment of their employees. Through fair treatment, managers can accomplish two major objectives: First, they can develop positive personal relationships with their employees and, second, they can establish strong relational links between employees and their work-groups, both of which are more likely to help managers achieve their organizational goals. Therefore, we suggest that managers display fair treatment and impartiality to elicit the employees’ desire to establish good relational links within their work-groups and/or departments.

The implications for organizations are equally salient. First, organizations should encourage managers to deal fairly with their employees, and they must follow this up by reading and listening to employee feedback. Second, organizations should design training programs for managers and supervisors, which include courses on fostering fair treatment skills, such as emotional intelligence, social intelligence, and diplomatic style. In conclusion, the primary focus in managing employee relationships is to enhance employee perceptions and their feelings of pride, respect, and support through the promotion and enactment of interactional justice.

Limitations and Future Directions

Some limitations in the present research should be to taken into consideration. First, although we followed several procedural and statistical remedies recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003) to reduce and even eliminate common method bias, collecting data from a single source reduces the importance of these efforts. Therefore, the need to replicate the findings or use multiple sources for the measurement of variables is recommended to promote the generalizability of our results and reduce common method bias.

Second, our study has not addressed the question of when and under what conditions does the leader’s fair treatment activate personalized or depersonalized responses from work-group members. Thus, we deem it necessary to learn more about the conditions that affect perceived interactional justice and its impact on the LMX and/or on the strength of status judgments, which in turn activate a specific identification level (relational or collective identification). Prior studies have found that organizational culture, as a contextual variable, and collectivism, as value among followers, affects the relationship between interactional justice and the LMX (Erdogan & Liden, 2006; Erdogan, Liden, & Kraimer, 2006). With respect to leader characteristics, Lipponen et al. (2005) found that there is a more positive relationship between informal justice (including interactive justice) and status judgments (pride and respect) when the leader is perceived as a prototypical group member compared with when he or she is not. Therefore, adding the interaction effects into our model can address this limitation.

Third, although the study’s design and analysis had taken helpful steps to rule out alternative relationships (by establishing a baseline, utilizing a longitudinal design, and testing for reverse relationships), it would be fair to acknowledge as a limitation that this study was not designed to establish causation. However, our results were clearly consistent with the possibility that the model as presented could reflect a causal process, which thus warrants future work designed to investigate causality.

Finally, research is needed to consider the applicability of our model by examining the linkages between identification and other multifoci dependent variables that benefit a leader or organization as a whole, such as citizenship behavior.

Conclusion

By integrating insights from LMX theory and SIT, this article shows that the leader’s interactional justice affects their follower’s relational identification via the LMX. In addition, our article demonstrates that the relationship between the leader’s perceived fair treatment and work-group identification is mediated by feelings of pride and respect. Furthermore, our results indicate that employees’ perceptions of being treated fairly by their leader simultaneously can fuel both personalized and depersonalized leader–member relations. We hope that our findings will encourage organizations to consider the implications our model has for making work more fulfilling and building stronger bonds between managers and their subordinates as well as between work-groups and their members.

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Yee Ng

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Amer Ali Al-Atwi is an assistant professor at the Al Muthanna University, Iraq. His research interests are in organizational behavior and organization theory.

References

Al-Atwi

A. A.

Bakir

(2014). Relationships between status judgments, identification, and counterproductive behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29, 472-489.

Anderson

J. G.

Gerhing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two stage approach. Psychological Bulletin, 27,5-24.

Aron

(2000). Self-expansion motivation and including other in the self. In Ickes

Duck

(Eds.), The social psychology of personal relationships (pp. 109-128). New York, NY: John Wiley.

Ashforth

B. E.

Mael

(1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-30.

Bauer

T. N.

Green

S. G.

Bauer

T. N.

(1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538-1567.

Becker

T. E.

(2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 274-289.

Bies

R. J.

Moag

J. F.

(1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In Lewicki

R. J.

Sheppard

B. H.

Bazerman

M. H.

(Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Blader

S. L.

Tyler

T. R.

(2003). A four-component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a “fair” process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 747-758.

Blader

S. L.

Tyler

T. R.

(2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 445-464.

10.

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley.

11.

Bliese

P. D.

(2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

12.

Brewer

M. B.

Gardner

(1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93.

13.

Brislin

R. W.

(1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In Lonner

W. J.

Berry

J. W.

(Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137-164). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

14.

Byrne

(2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.

15.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.

16.

Colquitt

J. A.

(2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.

17.

Colquitt

J. A.

Conlon

D. E.

Wesson

M. J.

Porter

C. O.

K. Y.

(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 424-445.

18.

Colquitt

J. A.

Scott

B. A.

Rodell

J. B.

Long

D. M.

Zapata

C. P.

Conlon

D. E.

Wesson

M. J.

(2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 199-236.

19.

Cropanzano

Prehar

C. A.

Chen

P. Y.

(2002). Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group & Organization Management, 27, 324-351.

20.

Degoey

(2000). Contagious justice: Exploring the social construction of justice in organizations. In Staw

Kramer

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 22, pp. 51-102). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

21.

Erdogan

Liden

R. C.

(2006). Collectivism as a moderator of responses to organizational justice: Implications for leader-member exchange and ingratiation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1-17.

22.

Erdogan

Liden

R. C.

Kraimer

M. L.

(2006). Justice and leader-member exchange: The moderating role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 395-406.

23.

Fassina

N. E.

Jones

D. A.

Uggerslev

K. L.

(2008). Meta-analytic tests of relationships between organizational justice and citizenship behavior: Testing agent-system and shared-variance models. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 805-828.

24.

Fuller

Hester

Barnett

Frey

Relyea

Beu

(2006). Perceived external prestige and internal respect: New insights into the organizational identification process. Human Relations, 59, 815-846.

25.

Gerstner

C. R.

Day

D. V.

(1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844.

26.

Goodman

J. S.

Blum

T. C.

(1996). Assessing the nonrandom sampling effects of subject attrition in longitudinal research. Journal of Management, 22, 627-652.

27.

Graen

G. B.

Scandura

T. A.

(1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In Cummings

L. L.

Staw

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 175-208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

28.

Graen

G. B.

Uhl-Bien

(1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.

29.

Green

S. G.

Anderson

S. E.

Shivers

S. L.

(1996). Demographic and organizational influences on leader-member exchange and related work attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 203-214.

30.

Tang

T. L. P.

Jiang

(2015)). Does moral leadership enhance employee creativity? Employee identification with leader and Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) in the Chinese context. Journal of Business Ethics, 126, 513-529.

31.

Hair

Anderson

Tatham

Black

(1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

32.

Brown

(2013). Organizational identity and organizational identification: A review of the literature and suggestions for future research. Group & Organization Management, 38, 3-35.

33.

Hogg

M. A.

Martin

(2003). Social identity analysis of leader-member relations: Reconciling self-categorization and leader-member exchange theories of leadership. In Haslam

S. A.

van Knippenberg

Platow

M. J.

Ellemers

(Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 139-154). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

34.

Hogg

M. A.

Martin

Epitropaki

Mankad

Svensson

Weeden

(2005). Effective leadership in salient groups: Revisiting leader-member exchange theory from the perspective of the social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 991-1004.

35.

Hogg

M. A.

Martin

Weeden

(2003). Leader-member relations and social identity. In van Knippenberg

Hogg

M. A.

(Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 18-33). London, England: SAGE.

36.

Huang

Wang

Xie

(2014). Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior: The roles of identification with leader and leader’s reputation. Social Behavior and Personality, 42, 1699-1711.

37.

Jones

D. A.

Fassina

N. E.

Uggerslev

K. L.

(2006). Meta-analytic tests of justice and OCB: Agent-system, agent-dominance, and shared-variance models. In Weaver

K. M.

(Ed.), Best paper proceedings of the sixty-sixth annual meeting of the Academy of Management. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management, A1-A6.

38.

Jones

R. E.

Lord

R. G.

(2010). Implicit effects of justice on self-identity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 681-695.

39.

Kark

Shamir

(2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. In Avolio

B. J.

Yammarino

F. J.

(Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 6-94). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: JAI Press.

40.

Kark

Shamir

Chen

(2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246-255.

41.

Karriker

J. H.

Williams

M. L.

(2009). Organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior: A mediated multifoci model. Journal of Management, 35, 112-135.

42.

Kelloway

E. K.

(1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

43.

Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

44.

Lance

C. E.

Vandenberg

R. J.

(2000). Latent growth models of newcomer change: The case of newcomer adjustment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 107-140.

45.

Landry

Vandenberghe

(2009). Role of commitment to the supervisor, leader-member exchange, and supervisor-based self-esteem in employee-supervisor conflicts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 5-28.

46.

Lavelle

J. J.

Rupp

D. E.

Brockner

(2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of Management, 14, 841-866.

47.

Leung

Morris

M. W.

(2001). When is criticism not constructive? The roles of fairness perceptions and dispositional attributions in employee acceptance of critical supervisory feedback. Human Relations, 54, 1155-1187.

48.

Leung

Wang

Smith

P. B.

(2001). Job attitudes and organizational justice in joint venture hotels in China: The role of expatriate managers. International Journal of Human Resource Management,12, 926-945.

49.

Lind

E. A.

(2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In Greenberg

Cropanzano

(Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56-88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

50.

Lind

E. A.

Tyler

T. R.

(1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum.

51.

Lipponen

Koivisto

Olkkonen

M. E.

(2005). Procedural justice and status judgments: The moderating role of leader in-group prototypicality. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 517-528.

52.

Lord

R. G.

Brown

D. J.

(2004). Leadership processes and follower identity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

53.

Lord

R. G.

Brown

D. J.

Feiberg

S. J.

(1999). Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 167-203.

54.

Luo

(2007). The independent and interactive roles of procedural, distributive, and interactional justice in strategic alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 644-664.

55.

Mael

F. A.

Ashforth

B. E.

(1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-123.

56.

Manogran

Stauffer

Conlon

E. J.

(1994, August). Leader-member exchange as a key mediating variable between employees’ perceptions of fairness and organizational citizenship behaviors. National Academy of Management meeting proceedings, Dallas, TX.

57.

Masterson

S. S.

Lewis

Goldman

B. M.

Taylor

M. S.

(2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738-748.

58.

Mayer

K. J.

Sparrowe

R. T.

(2013). Integrating theories in AMJ articles. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 917-922. doi:10.5465/amj.2013.4004

59.

Moorman

R. H.

(1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845-855.

60.

Olkkonen

Lipponen

(2006). Relationships between organizational justice, identification with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 202-215.

61.

Peterson

M. W.

White

T. H.

(1992). Faculty and administrator perceptions of their environments: Different views or different models of organization? Research in Higher Education, 33, 177-204.

62.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

63.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

64.

Riketta

(2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358-384.

65.

Roch

S. G.

Shanock

L. R.

(2006). Organizational justice in an exchange framework: Clarifying organizational justice distinctions. Journal of Management, 32, 299-322.

66.

Rupp

D. E.

Cropanzano

(2002). The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925-946.

67.

Scandura

T. A.

(1999). Rethinking leader-member exchange: An organizational justice perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 25-40.

68.

Scandura

Graen

G.B.

(1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428-436.

69.

Scott

B. A.

Colquitt

J. A.

Paddock

E. L.

(2009). An actor-focused model of justice rule adherence and violation: The role of managerial motives and discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 756-769.

70.

Sluss

D. M.

Ashforth

B. E.

(2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32, 9-32.

71.

Sluss

D. M.

Ashforth

B. E.

(2008). How relational and organizational identification converge: Processes and conditions. Organization Science, 19, 807-823.

72.

Sluss

D. M.

Gooper

Morrell

D. L.

Thompson

B. S.

(2008, June). Coming into focus: Exploring work relationships through exchange and identity lenses. Paper presented at the 15th meeting of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology, Opatija, Croatia.

73.

Sluss

D. M.

Ployhart

R. E.

Cobb

M. G.

Ashforth

B. E.

(2012). Generalizing newcomers’ relational and organizational identifications: Processes and prototypicality. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 949-975.

74.

Sousa

F. H.

Vala

(2002). Relational justice in organizations: The group-value model and support for change. Social Justice Research, 15, 99-121.

75.

Steenkamp

J.-B. E. M.

Baumgartner

(1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-90.

76.

Steffens

N. K.

Haslam

S. A.

Reicher

S. D.

(2014). Up close and personal: Evidence that shared social identity is a basis for the “special” relationship that binds followers to leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 296-313.

77.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1986). The social identity theory of inter group behaviour. In Worchel

Austin

W. C.

(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

78.

Thibaut

Walker

(1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

79.

Tyler

T. R.

Blader

S. L.

(2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

80.

Tyler

T. R.

Blader

S. L.

(2002). Autonomous vs. comparative status: Must we be better than others to feel good about ourselves? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision processes, 89, 813-838.

81.

Tyler

T. R.

Blader

S. L.

(2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349-361.

82.

Tyler

T. R.

De Cremer

(2005). Process-based leadership: Fair procedures and reactions to organizational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 529-545.

83.

Tyler

T. R.

Lind

E. A.

(1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In Zanna

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (25th ed., pp. 115-121). New York, NY: Academic Press.

84.

Vandenberg

R. J.

Lance

C. E.

(2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement equivalence literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-70.

85.

Van den Bos

Lind

E. A.

(2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1-60). Boston, MA: Elsevier.

86.

van Knippenberg

De Cremer

van Knippenberg

(2007). Leadership and fairness: The state of the art. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 113-140.

87.

Williams

L. J.

Cote

J. A.

Buckley

M. R.

(1989). Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 462-468.

88.

J. B.

Tsui

A. S.

Kinicki

A. J.

(2010). Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 90-106.

89.

Zhang

Chen

X. P.

Liu

Johnson

M. D.

(2012). Relational versus collective identification within workgroups: Conceptualization, measurement development, and nomological network building. Journal of Management, 40, 1700-1731.

Personalized and Depersonalized Responses to Leaders’ Fair Treatment: Status Judgments and Leader–Member Exchange as Mediating Mechanisms

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Conceptual Background and Hypothesis Development

Reasons for Leader Interactional Fairness

Bifurcating Effects of Leader Interactional Fairness

Leader Fairness Within the Framework of LMX Theory and SIT

A Leader’s Interactional Fairness Through the Personalized Path

A Leader’s Interactional Fairness Through the Depersonalized Path

Method

Sample and Procedure

Assessment of Non-Random Sampling Bias

Measures

Interactional justice (Time 1)

LMX (Time 2)

Pride and respect (Time 2)

Relational identification (Times 1 and 3)

Work-group identification (Times 1 and 3)

Control Variables

Construct Validity and Assessment of Common Method

Results

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

Practical Implications

Limitations and Future Directions

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Notes

Author Biography

References