Manager Trustworthiness or Interactional Justice? Predicting Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) are essential for effective organizational functioning. Decisions by employees to engage in these important discretionary behaviors are based on how they make sense of the organizational context. Using fairness heuristic theory, we tested two important OCB predictors: manager trustworthiness and interactional justice. In the process, we control for the effects of dispositional factors (propensity to trust) and for system-based organizational fairness (procedural and distributive justice). Results, based on surveys collected from 120 employee–supervisor dyads, indicate that manager trustworthiness explains variance in OCBs over and above the variance accounted for by interactional fairness. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.     

Justice in the Organizational Context： How Does Rating Disagreement Matter？

Since managers and employees play unequal roles in organizations, they have different perceptions regarding managerial practices. Understanding such differences and investigating the underlying causes help improve business administration and motivate organizational members. Employing data obtained from a sample of large SOEs （state owned enterprises）, this study evaluates disagreement between managers and employees in terms of their perception of organizational justice. Plausible causes of the disagreement and managerial implications are offered.     

Does Trust Matter? The Relationship Between Equity Sensitivity and Perceived Organizational Justice

The present research study was designed to extend our knowledge about issues of relevance for business ethics by examining the role of equity sensitivity and perceived organizational trust on employees perceptions of procedural and interactional justice. A model was developed and tested, and results revealed that organizational trust and respect mediated the relationship between an employees equity sensitivity and perceptions of procedural, interactional, and social accounts fairness. A discussion of issues related to perceptions of trust and fairness is presented, as well as recommendations for leaders and future scholarship.Jill Kickul, Ph.D., is the Elizabeth J. McCandless Professor in Entrepreneurship at the Simmons School of Management. She teaches courses on Entrepreneurship the New Venture Management, Contemporary Entrepreneurial Opportunities, and Strategic Analysis for Competing Globally. She has taught entrepreneurship internationally for the Helsinki School of Economics and for the International Bank of Asia (Hong Kong MBA Program). Her research interests include entrepreneurial intentions and behavior, strategic and innovation processes in start-up ventures, and women in entrepreneurship. Her articles have appeared in publications such as Journal of Management, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Journal of Small Business Management, and International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation.Lisa Gundry, Ph.D., is Professor of Management in the Charles H. L. Kellstadt Graduate School of Business at DePaul University where she teaches courses in Creativity in Business and Entrepreneurship Strategy. She has authored three books on entrepreneurship and innovation, and written numerous journal articles for publications including Journal of Business Venturing, Journal of Small Business Management, Journal of Management, Human Relations, Organizational Dynamics, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship and Family Business Review. Her research interests focus on entrepreneurship strategy and growth, and creative and innovative processes in organizations. She is Director of the Leo V. Ryan Center for Creativity and Innovation at DePaul University.Margaret Posig, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Charles H. Kellstadt Graduate School of Business at DePaul University, where she teaches courses in Leadership and Change Management. Her research interests are in the areas of organizational leadership and change management, workplace stress, and women in leadership. Her publications appear in the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Women in Management Review, Journal of Managerial Issues, and Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, among others. Dr. Posig is an Industrial/Organizational psychologist, with a Ph.D. from DePaul University, and directs the Leadership and Change Management concentration. Her consulting focuses on management development and workplace stress management.     

Harmony,Justice, Confusion,and Conflict in Family Firms: Implications for Ethical Climate and the “Fredo Effect”

In this study, we analyze the financial performance and the managerial abilities of religious mutual fund managers, implementing a comparative analysis with conventional mutual funds. We use a broad sample, free of survivorship bias, of religious equity mutual funds from the US market, for the period from January 1994 to September 2010. We build a matched-pair conventional sample in order to compare the results obtained for both kinds of mutual fund managers. We analyze stock-picking and market timing abilities, topics widely neglected for the specific case of religious mutual fund managers. We also study style timing abilities. As far as we are aware, this aspect has not been studied previously for religious mutual fund managers. Our results indicate that religious mutual fund managers underperform both the market and their conventional counterparts. This result is driven by negative stock-picking ability which could be generated by excluding “Sin” stocks from their portfolios. Moreover, they are not able to time the market or any of the following styles: size, book-to-market, and momentum.     

The Effects of Performance Rating, Leader–Member Exchange, Perceived Utility, and Organizational Justice on Performance Appraisal Satisfaction: Applying a Moral Judgment Perspective

The performance appraisal process is increasingly seen as a key link between employee behaviour and an organization’s strategic objectives. Unfortunately, performance reviews often fail to change how people work, and dissatisfaction with the appraisal process has been associated with general job dissatisfaction, lower organizational commitment, and increased intentions to quit. Recent research has identified a number of factors related to reactions to performance appraisals in general and appraisal satisfaction in particular. Beyond the appraisal outcome itself, researchers have found that appraisal reactions are affected by perceptions of fairness and the relationship between the supervisor and the employee. To explain the relationships among these factors, the present article proposes a moral cognition perspective. We suggest that employees judge a performance appraisal from the perspective of its moral justifiability, and that appraisal reactions will be determined, at least in part, by the perceived moral justifiability of the process. The proposal was supported by results from a survey of government employees using measures of performance ratings, leader–member exchange, perceived utility, and organizational justice.