Relationship Between Organizational Justice and Employee Work Outcomes: A Cross-National Study

Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 23, 1±18 (2002)

DOI: 10.1002/job.131
Relationship between organizational

justice and employee work outcomes:
a cross-national study
SIMON S. K. LAM1*, JOHN SCHAUBROECK2 AND SAMUEL ARYEE3
1
School of Business, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
2
Department of Management, Drexel University, Philadelphia, U.S.A.
3
Department of Management, School of Business, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong
Summary This study examined the in¯uence of organizational justice perceptions on employee work
outcome relationships as moderated by individual differences that are in¯uenced by societal
culture. Power distance, but not country or individualism, moderated the relationships
between perceived justice and satisfaction, performance, and absenteeism. The effects of per-
ceived justice on these outcomes were stronger among individuals scoring lower on power
distance index, and most of these study participants were in the U.S. (versus Hong Kong) sam-
ple. Limitations of the study and the implications of the ®ndings for managing cross-culturally
are discussed. Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
Justice perceptions have long been explanatory variables in organizational research (Adams, 1965;
Deutsch, 1975; Leventhal, 1976). Organizational justice describes the individuals' (or groups') percep-
tion of the fairness of treatment received from an organization and their behavioral reaction to such
perceptions (James, 1993). A two-dimensional conceptualization of justice appears to have been
widely adopted in the extant literature. Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of the out-
comes employees receive, while procedural justice describes the perceived fairness of the means used
to determine those outcomes. The latter is re¯ected in concerns about employee participation, consis-
tency, impartiality, and rationality (Folger and Konovsky, 1989; Cropanzano and Greenberg, 1997).
Both distributive and procedural justice are consistently found to be related to employee
work-related attitudes and behaviors (see the review by Greenberg, 1990). For example, Folger and
Konovsky (1989) reported distributive justice to be more strongly related to pay satisfaction
than procedural justice, whereas procedural justice was more strongly related to organizational
commitment and trust in supervisor than distributive justice. In general, ®ndings in the extant justice
* Correspondence to: Simon S. K. Lam, The University of Hong Kong, School of Business, 712 Meng Wah Complex, Pokfulam
Road, Hong Kong.
Email: simonlam@business.hku.hk
Received 20 December 1999

Revised 10 March 2000
Accepted 5 November 2001
Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published online 13 December 2001
2 S. S. K. LAM ET AL.
literature indicate that distributive justice is more strongly related to personal outcomes (e.g. job satis-
faction), while procedural justice is more strongly related to evaluation of institutions and employee
contributions (Lind and Tyler, 1988). It also appears that when people receive unfavorable outcomes,
negative affect and behavioral consequences tend to be mitigated when procedural justice is practiced
(Brockner et al., 1997; Schaubroeck et al., 1994).
The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the relationship between organizational
justice perceptions and job satisfaction, job performance and absenteeism differs depending on indi-
vidual psychological predispositions. The psychological predispositions we studied tend to differ in
mean levels across societal cultures. The increasingly globalized economy in which most organiza-
tions operate has created the challenge of understanding, communicating and motivating employees
of different cultural backgrounds. The prevailing values and norms very often determine whether man-
agerial practices will be effective in a particular cultural context (Black and Porter, 1991). As stated by
Greenberg (1996, p. 406), `whether organizational justice researchers are motivated by the desire to
understand the universality of their phenomena or the operation of the global economy, now is the time
to `complicate' our studies in the workplace by incorporating cross-cultural variables'. As we review
below, studies of the effects of procedural and distributive justice do not provide consistent and
mutually supportive conclusions as to generalizability across cultures. A ®eld study conducted in
essentially equivalent occupational and organizational settings in different cultures examined whether
speci®c individual differences that are often used to characterize and differentiate particular cultures
are moderators of justice effects.
Reward allocation preferences across cultures
Although they are not the only factor determining the outcomes of justice perceptions, differences in
workers' preferences for particular reward allocation rules (e.g., equity versus equality) may partially
explain variation in the effects of procedural and distributive justice. Bond et al. (1982) reported that
Chinese subjects tend to emphasize equality or need in reward allocation, whereas their American sub-
jects emphasized equity. They explained the differences in allocation preferences in terms of the col-
lectivistic orientation of their Chinese participants and the individualistic orientation of their American
participants. Individualism represents the extent to which personal identities are psychologically sepa-
rate from the group, and it is associated with an emphasis on personal autonomy and the advancement
of self-interest. Collectivism represents the extent to which personal identities are bound up with group
identities, and it is associated with an emphasis on interpersonal harmony and the advancement of in-
group interests. In student samples in two societies, Hong Kong and Israel, Bond et al. (1992) found
that participants indicated that their expectancies and valences concerning harmony and performance
quality both in¯uenced their reward allocation preferences.
Whereas the above ®ndings may be consistent with many researchers' assumptions about the impli-
cations of harmony-driven societal norms on psychological outcomes, the results of comparative stu-
dies are not all consistent with this perspective. Chen (1995) found that employees within the China
mainland endorsed equity-based (versus equality-based) reward allocations to a signi®cantly greater
extent than their American counterparts. Given the higher average collectivism scores obtained in
China mainland samples in recent years (Arrindell et al., 1997; Bond and Hwang, 1995), these ®ndings
are not consistent with the view that collectivistic employees favor equality-based allocation norms
because of a high premium placed on group harmony. Chen (1995) interpreted his ®ndings as being
suggestive of a swinging social pendulum, such that equality had been emphasized to such a great
extent on the China mainland in years past that workers desired change in the opposite direction.
Whereas this is only one possible interpretation of their ®ndings, if it is a valid interpretation then
Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 23, 1±18 (2002)
ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND EMPLOYEE WORK OUTCOMES 3
the discrepancy between the Chen (1995) study and other studies is related to unique institutional pro-
cesses in China rather than collectivism or other psychological variables. On the other hand, more
recent studies found that reward allocation preferences across diverse cultures converged under similar
performance contexts. Chen et al. (1998) found that Hong Kong Chinese and American subjects
exhibited similar reward allocation preferences when task interdependence and nature of task goal
were the same (see also Chen et al., 1997; Leung and Park, 1986). In a study of university students
in three different countries (Japan, U.S., and South Korea) responding to the same hypothetical task
scenario, Kim et al. (1990) observed largely equivalent endorsement of an equity norm for reward
allocation.
Thus the main corpus of research that bears on the generalizability of procedural and distributive
justice effects has focused on reward allocation preferences across cultures that are known to differ on
collectivism and individualism. However, the results of these studies are not entirely consistent in that
some suggest preferences for more equality-based reward allocations in collectivistic cultures
(Bond et al., 1992; Bond et al., 1982; Leung and Bond, 1984), whereas other did not (Chen, 1995;
Chen et al., 1998; Kim et al., 1990; Leung and Park, 1986). None of these studies demonstrated that
cultural value dimensions such as collectivism or individualism underlay the cross-cultural differences
they observed. Given that many factors besides the relative emphasis on harmony versus self-interest
tend to distinguish the societies within which the studies were conducted, a host of other variables
may be responsible for cross-national differences. Indeed, in these reward allocation studies, holding
constant task-related variables led to lesser disparities between nations believed to have distinctly
different cultures.
Procedural and distributive justice across cultures
Whereas differences in reward allocation preferences may help to explain why cultures may differ in
the effects of global concepts of procedural and distributive justice, these global concepts are in¯u-
enced by other factors besides reward allocation preferences. A few studies have examined the effects
of global organizational justice variables on individual outcomes either across distinct cultures or
within non-Western cultures. Yoon (1996) argued that when cultural values and social norms empha-
size collective welfare and social harmony, they bias fairness or justice principles in favor of equality
norms endorsing procedural justice. Contrary to the ®ndings in the extant American literature, Yoon
(1996) found that among Korean employees procedural justice was more strongly related to job satis-
faction than distributive justice. Leung et al. (1996) similarly found stronger procedural justice effects,
relative to distributive justice effects, on job satisfaction in joint venture companies in China. They
cautioned against generalizing American-based justice theories of organizational justice to different
cultures. However, there is no direct evidence that the in¯uence of organizational justice on employee
reactions differs across cultures. Pillai et al. (1999) found that procedural and distributive justice had
signi®cant and equally strong effects on job satisfaction across employee samples obtained in
Australia, Colombia, India, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. In their study of the effects
of procedural justice on employee work outcomes in a sample of American and Lithuanian engineers
and managers, Pearce et al. (1998) found procedural justice to be equally related to organizational
commitment and coworker trust in both samples.
The group values model of procedural justice developed by Lind and Tyler (1988) posits that being
treated unfairly by others causes one to perceive a loss of social esteem within the immediate social
sphere, and it is this `loss of face' that underlies the effects of procedural injustice. As suggested by
Bond et al. (1992), Chinese people may tend to place even more value than Westerners on equitable
treatment because it re¯ects on their status within the work group. The high emphasis on in-group
social status associated with collectivistic cultures should indeed promote greater concern about loss of
social esteem. Bond et al. suggested that procedural justice is `pan-cultural' in its effects (p. 238),
whereas the value attributed to outcomes may vary across cultures (see also Lind and Earley,
1992). However, the effects of organizational justice perceptions may depend as much, if not more,
on expectancies associated with different organizational and practices as they do on the valences asso-
ciated with these practices. Even if after controlling for all cultural values one could con®dently infer
that collectivistic and individualistic cultures value equity in the distribution of rewards to the same
extent, satisfaction with similar circumstances of treatment may differ because people in different cul-
tures differ in the probabilities they assign to the relationship between the speci®cs of treatment and
various outcomes (Bond et al., 1992). For example, participants within different cultures may differ in
the extent to which they expect a procedurally just system will ensure that their own best efforts will
result in valued rewards. Thus, cultural values are not expected to promote obvious differences in the
effects of justice variables that can be understood simply in terms of the content of the values them-
selves. On the other hand, general values in¯uence the patterns of behavior within a society in ways
that promote speci®c behavioral expectations and valences. It therefore remains an empirical question
whether the cultural value dimensions that are commonly posited to explain differences in effects
across cultures are indeed the causes of these observed differences.
Individual difference moderators
Erez and Earley (1993, p. 7) observed that `The ®eld of international management often neglects
speci®c aspects of culture in favor of a more easily de®ned (and less theoretically precise) parameter
denoted by geopolitical boundaries'. An increasing number of studies have examined the moderating
in¯uence of individual differences that are in¯uenced by culture on human resource management prac-
tices (Palich et al., 1995; Ramamoorthy and Carroll, 1998; Earley and Erez, 1997). In pursuing an
understanding of how culturally instilled beliefs may lead to different outcomes of procedural and dis-
tributive justice, we chose an individual level of analysis for two reasons. First, when studying indi-
vidual level variables such as justice perceptions and psychological traits, group-level constructs
require a strong theoretical and empirical basis for aggregation. If a trait is expected to be clustered
homogeneously by nation (usually a dubious assumption), aggregating individual reports of this trait
would permit only a categorical measure of this construct unless multiple nations that differ appreci-
ably on arithmetic means of the trait are sampled. To the extent there is within-culture variation in
perceptions of societal norms, treating individuals' reports about the nature of their culture as
group-level variables creates potentially serious problems of misspeci®cation. Second, even if one
is con®dent about the grouping variable for aggregation purposes and a considerable number of clus-
ters of individuals are sampled, ultimately the inference that differences observed among individuals
can be attributed to the clustering variable might still be better explained by a ®ner-grained analysis
conducted at the individual level.
Hence although we studied two very distinct cultures, Hong Kong and the United States, rather than
measuring culture-level constructs we measured individual differences in personality that tend to be
strongly related to societal culture. In theory, the effect of the immediate societal context in determin-
ing psychological reactions to circumstances is distal rather than proximal. Because the effects of cul-
tural variables on individual psychological reactions are mediated by the individual's personalities,
one proximal factor underlying individual reactions is the speci®c personality variable itself. The indi-
vidual personality constructs we investigated are signi®cantly determined by the cultural environment,
but they re¯ect other in¯uences as well. The effects of these individual differences may not require a
particular type of immediate societal culture to be observed.
The effectiveness of human resource management practices has been shown to be contingent upon
their ®t with individual characteristics (Earley and Erez, 1997; Ramamoorthy and Carroll, 1998). For
example, group-based incentive systems are more effective than individual-based incentive systems in
motivating performance in collectivistic cultures (Gomez-Mejia and Welbourne, 1991). Differences in
culturally based values may be expected to in¯uence individual reactions to perceptions about the
work environment through the mediating in¯uence of expectancies and outcome valences. Employees
may be more motivated and satis®ed by a particular practice simply because it is consistent with their
values. In such cases it may be said that the employees have a high intrinsic valence for the practice.
Expectancies are an alternative pathway between practices and reactions. Because an individualistic
person values personal achievement and recognition, he may see certain practices as being more likely
to lead to these outcomes, even though he does not value these practices intrinsically. For example, the
®ndings of stronger equity (versus equality) reward allocation norms among Chinese workers than
among American workers were explained by Chen (1995) in terms of both valences and expectancies
that were quite independent of the stereotypical view of Chinese people as supporting harmony-
maintenance practices in every case. Bond et al. (1992) found that across different cultures, both
expectancies and valences accounted for differences between collectivistic and individualistic indivi-
duals in the decisions concerning resource allocation and con¯ict resolution. Below we develop and
test predictions about how individual differences across cultures determine the effects of justice per-
ceptions on individual outcomes using this expectancy±valence framework as a basis for reasoning
about how different types of individuals should react to distributive and procedural justice.
Individualism and collectivism

In cross-cultural research on psychology, it is acknowledged that people maintain self-related concepts
(such as self-ef®cacy and self-esteem) in ways that are intertwined with their relationships and stand-
ing within the social groups to which they belong (Bond and Hwang, 1995; Hofstede, 1980, 1991;
Triandis et al., 1990). Markus and Kitayama (1991) observed that Westerners generally have an ìnde-
pendent view' of the self that emphasizes the separateness, uniqueness, and internal attributes of indi-
viduals, whereas Asians hold an ìnterdependent view' of the self that stresses connectedness, social
context, and relationships.
As reviewed above, comparative research between Western and Asian subjects investigating
reward allocation and organizational justice has attributed observed differences between cultures
through the lens of the high average individualism that is observed in Western countries and the high
collectivism observed in Asian countries (see reviews of national trends in individualism and collec-
tivism by Arrindell et al., 1997; Bond and Hwang, 1995; Smith et al., 1996). Although individualism±
collectivism was originally regarded as a national/cultural difference variable (Hofstede, 1980), in
recent times, it has also been conceptualized as an individual difference variable. Individualism and
collectivism can be measured by one's perceptions of prevailing values, whereas researchers refer to
one's own individualistic tendencies as ìdiocentrism' and to one's own collectivistic proclivities as
àllocentrism'. Samples of individuals drawn from collectivistic and individualistic societies tend to
have higher mean reports of allocentrism and individualism, respectively (Triandis et al., 1985). Other
researchers have treated individualism±collectivism as an individual difference variable in organiza-
tional research (Wagner, 1995; Moorman and Blakely, 1995; Palich et al., 1995).
Organizational justice dimensions that emphasize performance-based reward systems, coupled with
structures that facilitate consistent treatment of employees, should enhance an employee's control over
his/her attainment of personal outcomes (Thibaut and Walker, 1975). Employees who are high on indi-
vidualism (idiocentrics) are achievement-oriented and are motivated by the need to maximize personal
outcomes. Thus, regardless of the societal culture in which they live and work, for more idiocentric
individuals an environment that ensures an equitable distribution of rewards through a fair process
justice should be expected to be more critical to motivation and job satisfaction than it is among more
allocentric individuals.
Hypothesis 1: Organizational justice perceptions will be more strongly related to the work out-
comes of job satisfaction, performance and absenteeism among employees high rather than low
on individualism.
Power distance
As a characteristic of a society, power distance describes `the extent to which less powerful members
of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally
(Hofstede, 1991, p. 28). High power distance societies tend to be hierarchically ordered. Many privi-
leges are reserved for high status or ranking individuals and subordinates tend to be reverential towards
their supervisors. Low power distance societies, on the other hand, are egalitarian. They tend to mini-
mize status differentials and subordinates are less reverential toward and less likely to submit to autho-
rities. As an individual difference variable, individuals low on power distance expect to have input into
decisions that affect them and are less willing to accept arbitrary treatment from their superiors. Indi-
vidual reports about their personal predilections toward power distance are signi®cantly related to
country of residence (Smith et al., 1996). However, as in the case of individualism and collectivism,
when examining individual reactions it is more practical to focus on individual variation in power dis-
tance than on national averages. It is well known that employees within the same organization differ
substantially in their beliefs about how authority ®gures should be treated, irrespective of the relatively
strong societal differences in the means of these perceptions. On the other hand, sampling across
nations that are known to differ on mean scores of power distance ensures a less skewed distribution
on this construct.
Recognition of expectations concerning organizational justice constrains managers from arbitrarily
exercising their authority. However, this recognition is more consistent with the expectations of indi-
viduals low on power distance than it is for individuals scoring high on power distance. Performance
equity-based reward systems ensure that managers do not use personalistic criteria for reward distri-
bution. When that is the case, employees low on power distance can expect to satisfy their desire for
self-determination at work by having some control over the attainment of important work outcomes.
Consistent with the expectations of individuals low on power distance, voice mechanisms inherent in
procedural justice will provide on opportunity to persuade decision-makers to make equitable deci-
sions about reward allocation. In addition to voice, procedural justice also implies impartiality, con-
sistency, and rationality on the part of decision makers. Thus the development of reciprocity
relationships with decision makers, as is often preferred by high power distance individuals but not
by low power distance individuals, is not encouraged within a procedurally just social environment.
Given the consistency between the self-determination expectation of individuals low on power dis-
tance and the constraining effect of organizational justice on managers' arbitrary exercise of authority,
we expect power distance to moderate the organizational justice perceptions±work outcome relation-
ships examined in this study.
Hypothesis 2: Distributive and procedural justice perceptions will be more strongly related to the
work outcomes of job satisfaction, performance and absenteeism among employees low on power
distance than those high on power distance.
In order to test the role of these individual differences, we studied employees in the same position
within the same company. The only clear difference between the two samples we examined was the
location (Hong Kong and United States) and national origin of the participants. (All were natives of
the culture in which they were working.) The differences in national origin were expected, based on
previous research cited above, to provide considerable variation on individualism and power distance.
The global nature of the organization required that it maintain common organizational practices in
different countries, and these practices must conform to international norms for ®nancial service
organizations.
Contextual Sidebar
The Company
The company is one of the largest banking and ®nancial services organizations in the world with
thousands of of®ces in more than 70 countries. It provides a comprehensive range of ®nancial ser-
vices. The current study was conducted in the personal retail section of the company, which has a
large number of customer service workers. The company is known to maintain a stable human
resource policy toward its workers.
The Workers
At the time the survey data were collected, both the company and its staff morale were relatively
stable with little evidence of major problems or concerns. Employee turnover rate of this company
was among the lowest in the industry and the company has been voted as one of the most admirable
organizations for which to work.
Time
The study was conducted in 1996.
Method
Sample and procedure

Respondents for this study were Hong Kong Chinese and American tellers of a large multinational
bank. The existing human resource practices of this bank could be considered largely traditional in
nature. The general belief of the senior management was that when employees felt well treated by
management's human resource practices, they could devote their energies to effectively treating cus-
tomers. Consistent and stable human resource practices among employees were emphasized in order to
defuse the feeling of distributive injustice. The bank's policy was to select and promote based on merit,
although it also rewarded seniority. The bank also invested heavily in training its employees and
endeavored to ®nd ways to decrease turnover. Employee turnover rate of this bank was among the low-
est in the industry and the company was voted as one of the most admirable organizations for which to
work. Consistent with the methodological consideration of sample comparability in cross-national
research, our respondents were matched in terms of organization and job demographics. The two sam-
ples were not signi®cantly different in terms of sex, age, education and tenure.
Questionnaire packages were sent to potential respondents through the company's internal mail sys-
tem. A cover letter that explained the objectives of the survey, assured respondents of con®dentiality,
and showed senior management's endorsement of the survey was attached to each questionnaire.
Respondents were requested to provide their employee numbers in order to match job performance
and absenteeism data. They were assured that employee numbers would be used strictly for the pur-
poses of this research. A reminder letter was sent to all potential respondents a week after the ques-
tionnaire packages were distributed.
Of the 285 questionnaires sent to tellers in the Hong Kong branch, 218 completed questionnaires
were returned for a 76 per cent response rate. Three tellers did not provide their employee identi®ca-
tion numbers and were excluded from the analysis. Of the 281 questionnaires sent to tellers in the
United States branch, 185 completed questionnaires were returned for a 66 per cent response rate. Five
tellers did not provide their employee identi®cation numbers and were also excluded from the analysis.
Questionnaires were returned in stamped, pre-addressed envelopes provided by the researchers. Data
on performance were obtained from supervisory ratings and on absenteeism, from archival records.
Supervisors, however, failed to return performance ratings for 12 and 32 respondents in Hong Kong
and the United States, respectively. A comparison of the 44 respondents whose supervisors did not
return performance ratings with those whose supervisors did return the ratings revealed no signi®cant
differences between the two groups on the variables that we measured (Wilks' lambda 0.98,
F 1.74, p n.s.).
To determine sample representativeness, we compared data from respondents with (a) company data
available for the total teller population in the organization and (b) employees who received question-
naire packages in each country. There were no signi®cant differences in age, sex, education and tenure
between respondents and non-respondents. Respondents also did not differ signi®cantly from the total
teller population in the organization on any of the demographic variables. Respondents ranged in age
from 20 to 38 years with a mean age of 25.2 years and 89 per cent were female. In terms of educational
attainment, 95 per cent had completed high school and 8 per cent had an undergraduate degree.
Respondents' position tenure ranged from 1 to 10 years with a mean tenure of 2.8 years. The
Hong Kong respondents were all Chinese. The ethnic/racial background of the American respondents
obtained from archival records' was as follows: 72.1 per cent Caucasian-American, 15.6 per cent
Asian-American, 7.9 per cent Hispanic-American, 2.4 per cent African-American, and 21.4 per cent
Native American.
Measures
The questionnaire distributed in Hong Kong was typed in Chinese. The conventional method of back-
translation (Brislin et al., 1973) was used to translate the measures from English to Chinese. All of the
translators had received college education in translation. The human resource director of the organiza-
tion in Hong Kong and the ®rst author also discussed and veri®ed each translated questionnaire item to
assure its clarity. The translated version was pre-tested on 15 tellers who were asked to comment on
items that they found ambiguous or dif®cult to understand. The pretest did not reveal any major
changes that needed to be made to any of the items.
Organizational justice
Moorman's (1991) measures of distributive and procedural justice were employed in this study. For the
overall sample, the alpha reliability coef®cient was 0.89 for the 5-item distributive justice measure
(e.g. `fairly rewarded considering the responsibilities' and `fairly rewarded in view of the amount
of experience you have') and 0.92 for the 6-item procedural justice measure (e.g. `company has
procedures that provide opportunities to appeal or challenge a decision' and `company has procedures
to generate standards so that decisions could be made with consistency.').
Job satisfaction
A 4-item scale developed by Hoppock (1935) was used to measure global job satisfaction (e.g., Àll
things considered, I am very satis®ed with my job.') The scale's alpha reliability in this study was 0.93.
Performance ratings
A modi®ed 3-item perceived competence scale developed by Heilman et al. (1992) was used to mea-
sure performance. The immediate supervisor rated the teller's performance on these three items which
were: `this employee is very competent', `this employee gets his or her work done very effectively' and
`this employee performs his/her job well'. The scale's alpha reliability in this study was 0.87.
Absenteeism
Data pertaining to absence episodes in the past 12-month period was obtained from organizational
®les. This is the number of times an employee reported non-attendance leave for periods of one
week or less. The frequency of short-term absences is often presumed to re¯ect voluntary absence
(Chadwick-Jones et al. 1982; Harrison and Martocchio, 1998).
Power distance
A 6-item scale developed by Erez and Earley (1987) was used to measure power distance. Sample
items are Èmployees should not express disagreements with their managers' and Èmployees in a
company should pay high respect to their direct supervisors'. The scale's alpha reliability in this study
was 0.88.
Individualism
An 8-item scale developed by Triandis and Gelfand (1997) was used to measure individualism. Sample
items are Ì would rather depend on myself than others' and `My personal identity, independent of
others, is important to me'. The scale's alpha reliability in this study was 0.86.
With the exception of absenteeism, response options for the measures ranged from (1) `strongly dis-
agree' to (5) `strongly agree'.
Results
Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations of the study variable for the Hong Kong and U.S.
samples are presented in Table 1. The two samples did not differ signi®cantly on performance
( p < 0.13), job satisfaction ( p < 0.31), distributive ( p < 0.14) or procedural ( p < 0.11) justice. The
Hong Kong means were signi®cantly higher than the U.S. means for absenteeism (t 2.23,
p < 0.05) and power distance (t 4.48, p < 0.001) while the U.S. means was signi®cantly higher on
individualism (t 9.09, p < 0.001) than the Hong Kong means. In both samples, distributive and
procedural justice were signi®cantly and positively correlated with job satisfaction and performance
and, negatively correlated with absenteeism. Consistent with the research of Triandis and his collea-
gues (Triandis, 1989, 1994; Triandis et al., 1990), the correlation between individualism and power
distance was statistically signi®cant but not of high magnitude in the U.S. (r 0.19) and Hong Kong
(r 0.20) samples.
Moderated regression analysis (Cohen and Cohen, 1983) was used to test the hypothesized modera-
tor effects. In the ®rst step, we regressed the dependent variables separately, on each of the justice
predictors. In step 2, we entered the moderator, and in the ®nal step the justice predictor and moderator
interaction term. The results of the moderated regression analyses are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 1(a). Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for Hong Kong sample
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Performance 3.42 0.83 Ð

2. Absenteeism 4.81 1.47 0.19 Ð
3. Job satisfaction 3.62 0.51 0.29 0.19 Ð
4. Distributive justice 3.47 0.74 0.28 0.17 0.45 Ð
5. Procedural justice 3.41 0.77 0.30 0.20 0.46 0.35 Ð
6. Individualism 2.67 0.94 0.08 0.07 0.15 0.14 0.16 Ð
7. Power distance 3.44 1.02 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.20 Ð
Note: Hong Kong (n 203).
Correlations greater than 0.13 are signi®cant at p < 0.05.
Table 1(b). Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for USA sample
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Performance 3.54 0.79 Ð

2. Absenteeism 4.27 1.29 0.21 Ð
3. Job satisfaction 3.66 0.48 0.32 0.17 Ð
4. Distributive justice 3.57 0.88 0.24 0.12 0.51 Ð
5. Procedural justice 3.53 0.72 0.34 0.23 0.44 0.38 Ð
6. Individualism 3.43 1.02 0.10 0.09 0.15 0.11 0.13 Ð
7. Power distance 2.78 1.05 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.19
Note: United Sates (n 148).
As shown in Tables 2 distributive and procedural justice were related to the work outcomes of
job satisfaction, performance and absenteeism and, these relationships were not moderated by
individualism. These ®ndings indicate lack of support for Hypothesis 1. The ®ndings in Table 3,
however, show that the justice power distance interaction terms made a signi®cant contribution to
the explained variance in each of the work outcomes. These ®ndings indicate support for the
Table 2. Hierarchical regressions for justice, individualism, and their interactions predicting job performance,
absenteeism and job satisfaction
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Total
Outcome variable R2 F R2 F R2 F R2
Distributive justice
Job performance 0.17 50.36y 0.01 1.54 0.00 0.57 0.18
Absenteeism 0.14 38.41y 0.01 1.89 0.00 1.01 0.15
Job satisfaction 0.21 64.25y 0.03 7.22y 0.01 1.58 0.24
Procedural justice
Job performance 0.20 21.09* 0.00 0.89 0.01 1.25 0.21
Absenteeism 0.15 43.54y 0.00 1.11 0.00 1.05 0.15
Job satisfaction 0.24 72.87y 0.02 4.22* 0.00 0.25 0.26
Note: n 351. Step 1 enter distributive or procedural justice; step 2 enter individualism; step 3 enter interaction term
between justice and individualism.
*p < 0.5; y p < 0.1.
Table 3. Hierarchical regressions for justice, power distance, and their interactions predicting job performance,
absenteeism and job satisfaction
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Total
Outcome variable R2 F R2 F R2 F R2
Distributive justice
Job performance 0.17 50.36y 0.03 7.06y 0.03 7.27y 0.23
Absenteeism 0.14 38.41y 0.02 4.88* 0.03 7.13y 0.19
Job satisfaction 0.21 64.25y 0.04 9.58y 0.04 9.44y 0.29
Procedural justice
Job performance 0.20 21.09* 0.04 10.18* 0.04 9.14y 0.28
Absenteeism 0.15 43.54y 0.02 4.25* 0.04 9.05y 0.21
Job satisfaction 0.24 72.87y 0.05 14.21y 0.05 14.54y 0.34
Note. n 351. Step 1 enter distributive or procedural justice; step 2 enter power distance; step 3 enter interaction term
between justice and power distance.
*p < 0.5; y p < 0.1.
hypothesized moderating in¯uence of power distance on the justice perceptions±work outcome rela-
tionships (Hypothesis 2).
Plots were constructed to illustrate the nature of the signi®cant interactions. The ®gures were con-
structed by plotting the justice perceptions scores using cut points of one standard deviation below and
above the mean on power distance.
Figures 1 to 3 depict the nature of the moderating effects for power distance on the relationship
between distributive justice and work outcomes. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, the ®gures show a more
positive trend line between distributive justice, performance and job satisfaction and a more negative
trend line between distributive justice and absenteeism among persons having relatively low power
distance scores. Figures 4 to 6 depict the moderating in¯uence of power distance on the relationship
between procedural justice and each of the work outcomes. As for procedural justice, the plots indicate
that perceptions of procedural justice tend to be more strongly associated with the work outcomes
among the low power distance participants. Thus Hypothesis 2 was supported for procedural justice
as well.
Figure 1. The interaction effect of power distance on distributive justice and job satisfaction
Figure 2. The interaction effect of power distance on distributive justice and job performance
Figure 3. The interaction effect of power distance on distributive justice and absenteeism
Figure 4. The interaction effect of power distance on procedural justice and job satisfaction
Figure 5. The interaction effect of power distance on procedural justice and job performance
Figure 6. The interaction effect of power distance on procedural justice and absenteeism
Although we did not hypothesize a moderating effect for country, we tested the justice country
interactions in order to compare them to previous research. None of the interactions approached
statistical signi®cance.
Discussion
This study tested whether individual differences that are affected by societal culture moderate the
effects of procedural and distributive justice perceptions on key individual work outcomes. We found
that whereas justice perceptions were related to the work outcomes of job satisfaction, performance
and absenteeism in two distinct societal cultures, there was mixed support for the hypothesized mod-
erating effects. The ®ndings revealed that the work outcomes of justice perceptions did not differ
across societal cultures or levels of individualism, but the effects were of stronger magnitude among
low power distance individuals than among high power distance individuals.
As reviewed above, previous studies have examined the moderating effects of country (used as a
proxy to measure societal culture) on the in¯uences of justice perceptions and preferences for parti-
cular types of allocation norms. The lack of support for a moderating effect of country in this and other
studies suggests that a ®ner-grained focus on individual and situational differences in reactions to
workplace justice is needed. One situational factor that seems to moderate individual outcomes of jus-
tice perceptions is the task-goal context. Chen et al. (1998) found that their American and Hong Kong
Chinese respondents preferred equity under conditions of low interdependence and productivity goal,
whereas parity was preferred under conditions of high interdependence and the solidarity goal (see
also Chen et al., 1997). Although we did not experimentally manipulate contextual variables or goal
types, both samples were drawn from the same pro®t-oriented organization and the nature of the tasks
in which bank tellers regularly engage suggest the primacy of the productivity goal. The lack of a mod-
erating effect for culture is consistent with James' (1993, p. 31) observation that ` . . . stripping
procedural or distributive judgment of their context may increase the likelihood of supporting a com-
mon set of instrumental processes across cultures'. Thus, it seems possible that when a ®eld study ®nds
differences in the effects of justice variables on individual outcomes any confounding of societal cul-
ture with the immediate work context bears close examination. Moreover, country is seldom, if ever, a
reliable representation of the theoretical attribute on which predictions are based. It is one thing to
predict that the generally collectivistic orientation of Hong Kong people will lead certain societal
and workplace norms to evolve; it is quite another to argue that individual psychological reactions
to individual perceptions will mirror the collective's responses. Moreover, the Hong Kong and U.S.
differ on other attributes, thus preventing one from isolating any single unique difference between
them. For example, Chinese societies are characterized as highly personalistic, meaning decision
makers often use particularistic criteria in judging others. Notwithstanding many individual cases of
arbitrariness and toadyism, Western cultures are seen as using a more universalistic perspective (Tsui
and Farh, 1997). It is dif®cult to predict how such a con¯uence of societal differences may be expected
to in¯uence the effects of organizational justice perceptions. Thus, we would encourage future studies
of individual reactions to justice to employ either individual-level or cross-level statistical designs,
whereas the study of how particular justice practices evolve may be very suitable for a societal level
analysis in which societal norms determine the patterns of change.
The predictions concerning the moderating role of individualism were based on previous ®ndings
concerning preferences for allocation norms. These are not the only major in¯uence on how people
react to particular perceptions they have about procedural and distributive justice. The lack of support
for the hypothesized moderating effect of individualism on the justice perceptions±work outcome rela-
tionships may be explained in terms of the instrumentality of justiceÐthe job rewards individuals
receive. Individualism and power distance affect both outcome valences and expectancies for speci®c
practices. Individuals often value workplace practices intrinsically because they are consistent with
their beliefs, but they also have a higher or lower expectation that a given practice will lead to
certain outcomes for them. Thus an individualist may, for example, not prefer procedurally just
systems if he thinks he would be better off if the system allocated outcomes on an equal basis or
on the basis of need. Thus, variables that we did not examine, such as job self-ef®cacy, might be critical
to whether individualism is a moderator or not. The situational context could also in¯uence partici-
pants to have relatively uniform expectancies and valences regardless of their respective levels of
individualism. Triandis and his colleagues have emphasized that all persons sampled from domains
of individualistic and collectivistic cognitions, and environmental cues play a strong role in determin-
ing which type of cognition prevails (Triandis et al., 1990). As suggested by Lind and Earley (1992),
` . . . judgment of justice in general, and procedural justice in particular, affects the balance of group
and individual concerns within any given cultural context because, we suggest, people are more
inclined to suspend attempts to protect their own interest and more likely to give themselves over
to group concerns when a state of justice exists (p. 240). Future studies of the situational cues that elicit
uniformity of responses to justice practices are needed, because to the extent managers know how to
elicit uniform responses they can strengthen the desirable outcomes of their pro-justice behavior.
Whereas justice perceptions were positively related to job satisfaction, rated job performance, and
attendance regardless of individuals' status on the personality variables, those scoring low on power
distance exhibited stronger effects than those scoring high on power distance. This can be explained in
terms of met expectations. For low power distance individuals, a more equitable workplace permits the
exercise of self determination at work. This con®rms their expectations, thus leading to increased satis-
faction and motivation. Although high power distance individuals are supposed to be reverential
towards their superiors and they may be more accepting of arbitrary treatment from their superiors,
the ®ndings indicate that such individuals also appreciate equitable treatment and outcomes. It is note-
worthy that whereas Hong Kong and the U.S. are recognized to have different mean levels of power
distance, and this difference was observed in the present study, this did not translate into a nationality
moderator. These societal cultures may well be characterized as high and low on power distance,
respectively, but this only applies to averages in each population. The distributions of individual scores
on power distance overlapped considerably between these two samples.
When interpreting this study's ®ndings one must bear in mind a number of limitations. First, this
study's cross-sectional design limits the extent to which cause±effect relations can be inferred from the
®ndings. Because of its low base rate, absenteeism must be aggregated over some time period as a
cumulative total. Although the aggregation period determines the time that perceived injustice in¯u-
ences absenteeism, the cross-sectional design of this study did not permit a time lag between our mea-
sure of perceived justice before absenteeism accrued. Future research with longitudinal designs may
help establish the causal status of the relationships examined in this study. Additionally, whereas the
use of samples drawn from the same organization and in the same occupation/position (i.e., bank tell-
ers) provided on inbuilt control for the contextual variables such as the task and organizational mod-
erators studied by Chen and his colleagues (Chen, 1995; Chen et al., 1997, 1998) and thus a clear
comparison across societies, future studies that are more heterogenous on occupational status will
enhance inferences about external validity. Lastly, the use of a predominantly female sample (both
the supervisors and the tellers) limits the extent to which our ®ndings are generalizable to a gender-
mixed or male sample. This is because previous research has found gender to moderate the effects of
justice perceptions on employee attitudes and work behavior (Sweeney and McFarlin, 1997; Farh et al.,
1997). Gender differences in preferences for the allocation norms which in¯uence justice perceptions
occur when the individual is reporting about an allocation in which he or she is included as a recipient
(see the review by Major and Deaux, 1982). Dobbins et al. (1983) found that male and female super-
visors differed in how attributions for failure and gender of subordinate in¯uenced how the subordinate
was treated. The role of gender as a micro-cultural in¯uence deserves attention in future studies of
procedural and distributive justice effects, because not only do males and females appear to differ
in how they are treated following the same performance, they also differ in how they evaluate whatever
treatment they receive.
These limitations are balanced by certain strengths of the study. First, by using samples drawn from
two cultures that are known to differ on mean levels of individualism and power distance, a relatively
full distribution on these focal moderating variables was obtained. Further, it examined the moderating
in¯uence of these culturally inspired individual difference variables on the relationships between
justice perceptions and employee outcomes. This enhances our understanding of the generalizability of
justice effects on work attitudes and behavior across both nations and individuals. Second, data were
collected from multiple types of sources, including bank tellers, their supervisors, and archival
sources. This minimizes the problem of common method variance, thus increasing the internal validity
of the study.
One key ®nding of this study was that the effects of procedural and distributive justice were rela-
tively invariant across country and levels of individualism. This has implications for managing in a
globalized economy. Adherents of the cultural relativity school have argued against the standardiza-
tion of management practices. Instead, they have called for a need to develop an awareness and under-
standing of how different cultures and people attempt to solve the human problems of the workplace
(e.g., Hofstede, 1983). The ®ndings of this study, however, caution against overstating the cultural
boundedness of Western-inspired managerial practices. At the very minimum, the central ®nding of
this study suggest that managers should design and implement organizational policies and practices
that promote fairness as a basic requirement for the effective functioning of organizations and the per-
sonal satisfactions of individuals they employ. Individual differences that tend to differ across cultures
(such as power distance) may in¯uence the strength of these relationships, but there is every reason to
believe that the positive effects of workplace justice are a highly generalizable phenomenon.
Author biographies
Simon S. K. Lam is an Associate Professor of Management at the School of Business, The University
of Hong Kong. He received a PhD in Management from Australian National University. His research
focuses on quality management, work-related commitments and cross-cultural human resource man-
agement.
John Schaubroeck is a Professor of Management and Head of the Department of Management,
LeBow College of Business, Drexel University. He received a PhD in Organizational Behavior and
Human Resource from Purdue University. Research interests include work stress and coping, and
cross-cultural issues in organizational behavior.
Samuel Aryee is a Professor of Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior in the
Department of Management at the Hong Kong Baptist University. He obtained his undergraduate
degree from the University of Ghana and his MA and PhD from McMaster University in Hamilton,
Canada. His areas of research interest include careers, management of expatriate employees, and
work±family interface.
References
Adams JS. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In Advances in Experimental Psychology 2: 267±299.
Arrindell WA, Hatzichristou C, Wensik J, Rosenberg E, van Twillert B, Stedema J, Meijer D. 1997. Dimensions of
national culture as predictors of cross-national differences in well-being. Personality and Individual Differences
23: 37±53.
Black JS, Porter LW. 1991. Managerial behaviors and job performance: a successful manager in Los Angeles may
not succeed in Hong Kong. Journal of International Business Studies 22: 99±113.
Bond MH, Hwang KK. 1995. The social psychology of Chinese people. In The Psychology of the Chinese People,
Bond MH (ed.). Oxford University Press: Hong Kong.
Bond MH, Leung K, Wan KC. 1982. How does cultural collectivism operate? The impact of task and maintenance
contributions on reward distribution. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 13: 186±200.
Bond MH, Leung K, Schwartz S. 1992. Explaining choices in procedural and distributive justice across cultures.
International Journal of Psychology 27: 211±225.
Brislin RW, Lonner W, Thorndike RM. 1973. Cross-Cultural Research Methods. John Wiley: New York.
Brockner J, Siegel PA, Daly J, Tyler TR, Martin C. 1997. When trust matters: the moderating effect of outcome
favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly 42: 558±583.
Chadwick-Jones JK, Nicholson N, Brown C. 1982. Social Psychology of Absenteeism. Praeger: New York.
Chen CC. 1995. New trends in rewards allocation preferences: a Sino-U.S. comparison. Academy of Management
Journal 38: 408±428.
Chen CC, Meindl J. Hunt RG. 1997. Testing the effects of vertical and horizontal collectivism: a study of reward
allocation preferences in China. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 28: 44±70.
Chen CC, Meindl J, Hui H. 1998. Deciding an equity or party: a test of situational, cultural, and individual factors.
Journal of Organizational Behavior 19: 115±129.
Cohen J, Cohen P. 1983. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Erlbaum:
Hillsdale, NJ.
Cropanzano R, Greenberg J. 1997. Progress in organizational justice: tunneling through the maze. International
Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 12: 317±372.
Deutsch M. 1975. Equity, equality and need: what determines which value will be used as the basis for distributive
justice? Journal of Social Issues 31: 137±149.
Dobbins GH, Pence EC, Orban JA, Sgro JA. 1983. The effects of sex of the leader and sex of the subordinate on the
use of organizational control policy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 32: 325±343.
Earley PC, Erez M. 1997. The Transplanted Executive. Oxford University Press: New York.
Erez M, Earley PC. 1987. Comparative analysis of goal-setting strategies across cultures. Journal of Applied
Psychology 72: 658±665.
Farh JL, Earley PC, Lin SC. 1997. Impetus for action: a cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship
behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly 42: 421±444.
Folger R, Konovsky M. 1989. Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions.
Academy of Management Journal 32: 851±866.
Gomez-Mejia LR, Welbourne T. 1991. Compensation strategies in a global context. Human Resources Planning
14: 29±42.
Greenberg J. 1990. Organizational justice: yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Management 16: 399±432.
Greenberg J. 1996. The Quest for Justice on the Job: Essays and Experiments. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks,
California.
Harrison DA, Martocchio JJ. 1998. Time for absenteeism: a 20-year review of origins, off shoots, and outcomes.
Journal of Management 24: 305±350.
Heilman ME, Block CJ, Lucas JA. 1992. Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and af®rmative action efforts.
Journal of Applied Psychology 77: 536±544.
Hofstede G. 1980. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. Sage: Beverly Hills.
Hofstede G. 1983. The Cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International
Business Studies 14: 75±89.
Hofstede G. 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill: London.
Hoppock R. 1935. Job Satisfaction. Harper: New York.
James K. 1993. The social context of organizational justice: cultural, intergroup and structural effects on justice
behaviors and perceptions. In Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource
Management, Cropanzano R (ed.). Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NT; 21±50.
Kim KI, Park HJ, Suzuki N. 1990. Reward allocations in the United States, Japan, and Korea: a comparison of
individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Academy of Management Journal 33: 188±198.
Leung K, Bond MH. 1984. The impact of cultural collectivism on reward allocation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 47: 793±804.
Leung K, Park HJ. 1986. Effects of interactional goal on choice of allocation rule: a cross-national study.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 37: 111±120.
Leung K, Smith PB, Wang ZM, Sun H. 1996. Job satisfaction in joint venture hotels in China: an organizational
justice analysis. Journal of International Business Studies 27: 947±962.
Leventhal GS. 1976. The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology 9: 91±131.
Lind E, Earley PC. 1992. Procedural justice and culture. International Journal of Psychology 37: 227±242.
Lind EA, Tyler TR. 1998. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Plenum Press: New York.
Major B, Deaux K. 1982. Individual differences in justice behavior. In Equity and Justice in Social Behavior,
Greenberg J, Cohen R (eds). Academic Press: New York.
Markus H, Kitayama S. 1991. Culture and self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
Psychological Review 98: 224±253.
McFarlin DB, Sweeney PD. 1992. Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal
and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal 35: 626±637.
Moorman R. 1991. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: do
fairness perceptions in¯uence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology 76: 845±855.
Moorman R, Blakely GL. 1995. Individualism±collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 16: 127±142.
Palich LE, Hom PW, Griffeth RW. 1995. Managing in the international context: testing cultural generality of
sources of commitment to multinational enterprises. Journal of Management 21: 671±690.
Pearce JL, Bigley GA, Branyiczki I. 1998. Procedural justice as modernism: placing industrial/organizational
psychology in context. Applied Psychology: An International Review 47: 371±396.
Pillai R, Scandura TA, Williams EA. 1999. Leadership and organizational justice: similarities and differences
across cultures. Journal of International Business Studies 30: 763±779.
Ramamoorthy N, Carroll SJ. 1998. Individualism/collectivism orientations and reactions toward alternative
human resource management practices. Human Relations 51: 571±588.
Schaubroeck J, May DR, Brown FW. 1994. Procedural justice explanations and employee reactions to economic
hardship: a ®eld experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology 79: 455±460.
Smith PB, Dugan S, Trompenaars F. 1996. National culture and values of organizational employees: a dimensional
analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 27: 231±264.
Sweeney PD, McFarlin DB. 1997. Process and outcome: gender differences in the assessment of justice. Journal
of Organizational Behavior 18: 83±98.
Thibaut J, Walker L. 1975. Procedural Justice. Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.
Triandis HC. 1989. Self and social behavior in differing social contexts. Psychological Review 96: 269±289.
Triandis HC. 1994. Theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of collectivism and individualism. In
Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications, Kim U, Triandis HC, Kagitcibasi C, Choi
SC, Yoon G (eds). Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA; 41±51.
Triandis HC, Gelfand MJ. 1997. Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and
collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: 118±128.
Triandis HC, Leung K, Villareal MJ, Clack FL. 1985. Allocentric versus idiocentric tendencies: convergent and
discriminant validation. Journal of Research in Personality 19: 395±415.
Triandis HC, McCusker C, Hui CH. 1990. Multimethod problems of individualism and collectivism. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 1006±1020.
Tsui AS, Farh JL. 1997. Where gaunxi matters: relational demography in the Chinese context. Work and
Occupations 24: 56±79.
Wagner JA. 1995. Studies of individualism±collectivism: effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of
Management Journal 38: 152±172.
Yoon JK. 1996. Fairness issues and job satisfaction among Korean employees: the signi®cance of status and
procedural justice in work orientation. Social Justice Research 9: 121±143.

Relationship Between Organizational Justice and Employee Work Outcomes: A Cross-National Study

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Relationship Between Organizational Justice and Employee Work Outcomes: A Cross-National Study

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Journal of Organizational Behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. 23, 1±18 (2002)

Relationship between organizational

Received 20 December 1999

Reward allocation preferences across cultures

Procedural and distributive justice across cultures

Individual difference moderators

Individualism and collectivism

Sample and procedure

1. Performance 3.42 0.83 Ð

1. Performance 3.54 0.79 Ð

Anda mungkin juga menyukai