Small Group Research

Small http://sgr.sagepub.com/ Group Research

The Effects of Procedural Justice Climate on Work Group Performance Stefanie E. Naumann and Nathan Bennett Small Group Research 2002 33: 361 DOI: 10.1177/10496402033003004 The online version of this article can be found at: http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/33/3/361

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Small Group Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://sgr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://sgr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/33/3/361.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jun 1, 2002 What is This?

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY on March 26, 2014

SMALL GROUP Naumann, BennettRESEARCH / PROCEDURAL / June JUSTICE 2002 CLIMATE

THE EFFECTS OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE CLIMATE ON WORK GROUP PERFORMANCE STEFANIE E. NAUMANN University of the Pacific

NATHAN BENNETT Georgia Institute of Technology

The authors examined the effect of procedural justice climate, defined as a distinct grouplevel cognition about how the work group as a whole is treated, on work group performance in a sample of 34 work groups from two organizations. They hypothesized that the relationship between procedural justice climate and performance is indirect, operating through helping behavior. Group-level helping behavior fully mediated the relationship between procedural justice climate and perceived performance. However, the same results were not found when financial performance data were used as a measure of work group performance. Implications for the study’s findings are discussed.

In a recent review of the research on work group effectiveness, Cohen and Bailey (1997) suggested that considerable progress has been made in the work group literature. However, they presented a framework identifying several areas where more work is needed. The framework moves away from the input-process-output model of previous group research (e.g., McGrath, 1986) by drawing attention to the group as a social entity that has shared psychosocial traits that affect its behavior. Specifically, Cohen and Bailey (1997) argued that group processes are embedded in group psychosocial factors such as shared understandings, team mental models, and group affect. They noted that most previous work group research has viewed cohesiveness or norms as group processes but has not considered the impact of shared group beliefs, understandings, or SMALL GROUP RESEARCH, Vol. 33 No. 3, June 2002 361-377 © 2002 Sage Publications

361


362

SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 2002

emotional tones on work group effectiveness. Our review of the literature suggests that this gap persists. The present study adds to the emerging literature on the effects of shared group beliefs on group performance. We examined the effects of procedural justice climate, a group-level measure of procedural justice on work group performance. Procedural justice may be defined as the perceived fairness of the procedures used to arrive at decisions (Greenberg, 1987). A recent review of the procedural justice literature indicated that procedural justice has mainly been conceptualized as an individual-level phenomenon (Konovsky, 2000). Researchers have begun to argue that this limited focus impedes the evolution and generalizability of the construct. As Lind, Kray, and Thompson (1998) noted, “Most of the potential information about the fairness of any given authority or institution lies in collective, not personal, experiences” (p. 19). An emerging body of research on procedural justice climate, based on this premise, is beginning to appear in the management literature. Researchers have defined procedural justice climate as a distinct group-level cognition about how the work group as a whole is treated (Naumann & Bennett, 2000). The purpose of the present study is to examine the effects of procedural justice climate on work group performance. We hypothesize that the relationship between procedural justice climate and performance is indirect, operating through helping behavior.

PROCEDURAL JUSTICE CLIMATE AND HELPING BEHAVIOR

Investigations of the relationship between individual-level procedural justice perceptions and individual performance have generally produced mixed or nonsignificant results. However, one element of performance, helping behavior, has been found to be positively associated with procedural justice (e.g., Moorman, 1991). Of all the components of organizational citizenship behav-


Naumann, Bennett / PROCEDURAL JUSTICE CLIMATE

363

ior (Organ, 1988), helping behavior is the most comprehensive and most deeply rooted in the literature. Helping behavior involves discretionary behavior not required by one’s job description, such as helping out a coworker with a heavy workload. Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) has been used to explain the relationship between individual-level justice and helping behavior: Employees who view the organization’s procedures as fair will reciprocate by engaging in helping behaviors. The relationship between group-level procedural justice (i.e., procedural justice climate) and helping behavior has been described in terms of group dynamics and socialization (Naumann & Bennett, 2000). Through socialization, group members learn about incidents when group values have been violated (e.g., a supervisor treating the group unfairly) and about how other members react to such incidents. Coworkers provide evidence to the group about the overall positive or negative orientation to their work environment and how the group gets treated (i.e., procedural justice climate). Furthermore, group members shape each others’ reactions to the work environment and create obligations on members to support the climate (Schneider & Reichers, 1983). Niehoff and Moorman (1993) posited that in the presence of fair group procedures, work group members might use helping behaviors as a way of improving the group’s welfare. Lind and Earley (1992) maintained that procedural justice activates group concerns because it elicits a sense of group harmony that causes group members to ignore their own interests without fear of being exploited by the group. Conversely, a growing body of research has suggested that group members may react negatively when group members perceive the group as a whole is treated unfairly (e.g., Brockner & Wisenfeld, 1996; George, 1990; Lind & Earley, 1992). In sum, whereas most justice research has focused exclusively on supervisors as agents for providing justice information, work group members can also be important sources of justice information, especially in contexts where team members dominate day-to-day operations (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000).


364


HELPING BEHAVIORS AND WORK GROUP PERFORMANCE

Helping behaviors have long been thought to improve individual productivity and work group effectiveness. However, much of the basis for this relationship has been intuitive and conceptual rather than empirical. Instead, most helping behavior research has concentrated on identifying its antecedents, with the assumption that helping behavior will improve organizational performance. Moreover, more studies have examined the relationship of performance to team conflict rather than team cooperation. In general, low levels of team conflict have been related to higher levels of team performance (Devine, Clayton, Philips, Dunford, & Melner, 1999). A body of research indicating that helping behavior is positively associated with the performance of individuals (e.g., Allen & Rush, 1998) and work groups (e.g., Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997) is now beginning to accumulate. Still, the helping behavior– performance relationship is not unequivocal. For instance, Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1994) found a negative relationship between helping behavior and performance. In a recent review of the helping behavior literature, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000) suggested that, given the inconsistent findings regarding the helping behavior–performance relationship, future research should continue to clarify this relationship. Researchers have summarized several factors that may account for a positive association between helping behavior and performance. Specifically, helping behaviors may increase organizational performance because they (a) diminish the need to allocate scarce resources to maintenance duties, (b) allow these resources to be used for more productive uses, (c) heighten managers’ and coworkers’ efficiency, (d) coordinate duties among group members, and (e) improve organizational selection and retention practices by contributing to an enjoyable workplace (Podsakoff et al., 1997). Social information processing theory (e.g., Lord, 1985) has also been used to describe how helping behavior affects performance



365

ratings provided by managers (Allen & Rush, 1998). The theory proposes that because humans have limited information processing capabilities, numerous mental shortcuts are made when deriving meaning from individuals’ behaviors. For instance, whether subordinates engage in helping behavior influences how they are categorized. Employees who engage in helping behaviors match the prototype of the good employee. Such employees are thought to make their managers’ jobs easier; thus, helping behavior events are likely to heighten managers’ liking for their subordinates. This positive affect is thought to be positively associated with managers’ performance ratings (e.g., Cardy & Dobbins, 1994). Furthermore, managers may come to believe that employees who engage in helping behaviors are more committed to the organization because they are willing to “go the extra mile.” As a result, Allen and Rush (1998) argued, managers are likely to give such employees higher performance ratings. The authors noted that more research is needed to identify other variables in the nomological net surrounding the effect of helping behaviors on performance. The present study identifies procedural justice climate as one variable thought to affect this relationship. Now that we have presented some evidence from the literature from which to make predictions about work group performance, we turn our attention to how work group performance is measured. No uniform measure of work group performance currently exists in the work group literature. It has been operationalized by various means, including group-produced outputs (e.g., quantity, quality, and customer satisfaction), the consequences a group has for its members, and a team’s future ability to perform well (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). Both objective and subjective (e.g., supervisor or team raters) measures have been used. Several work group researchers have theorized about the different meanings of objective and subjective performance measures. For instance, Cohen and Bailey (1997) argued that a team may be successful in terms of its goals but may not contribute to the business unit’s success because it wastes resources or hampers other efforts: “Objective measures should be sought if what we are interested in is how well the group


366


is achieving quantitative goals. But in many instances, what we are interested in are perceptions of effectiveness from key stakeholders” (p. 282). Some researchers have begun to speculate about in what situations team climates would be related to the various indicators of team performance. For example, Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1994) found that helping behavior was negatively related to insurance agency effectiveness in one sample. They explained their results in terms of the high turnover and low tenure of their sample. Specifically, they postulated that although inexperienced agents may have higher sales with the help of their more experienced group members, many of the inexperienced agents may leave the organization; thus, any increase in their sales may not be offset by the corresponding drop in the experienced agents’ sales caused by helping out the less experienced group members. In contrast, the authors found that in another sample with very high tenure, helping behavior appeared to pay off in terms of increased productivity. In a recent review of the literature on team performance in organizational contexts, Guzzo and Dickson (1996) suggested that groups are embedded in larger social systems (e.g., organizations), which help to shape the context in which team performance occurs. Thus, due to the influence of contextual factors, actions to improve one indicator of team performance may not result in performance gains for the entire organization. Such contextual factors include measurement, the nature of social systems, reward practices, business environments, customer demands, technology, and cross-level influences (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). This is consistent with the findings of a recent meta-analysis of 131 field studies that indicated that multifaceted, system-wide interventions (i.e., beyond the team level) exhibited the greatest effect on financial indicators of work group effectiveness (Macy & Izumi, 1993). In the present study, we made differential predictions for subjective and financial measures of performance. Our sample included two banks with two measures of work group performance: supervisor-rated work group performance and work group net profitability. We expected that net profitability would be associated with numerous factors beyond group



367

members’ control, such as the number of clients the bank serves or the location of the organization. In sum, we predict the following: Hypothesis 1: Procedural justice climate will be positively associated with the amount of helping behavior exhibited by a work group. Hypothesis 2: Group helping behavior will be positively associated with perceived work group performance. Hypothesis 3: Group helping behavior will not be associated with group financial performance. Hypothesis 4: Group helping behavior will fully mediate the relationship between procedural justice climate and perceived work group performance.

METHOD SAMPLE

The data used to test the hypotheses were collected from 220 employees at 40 locations of two banks in a major metropolitan area in the southeastern United States. In each bank, branches were conceptualized as formally defined work groups of interdependent individuals at the same level of the organizational hierarchy who performed similar tasks, worked together, and shared a supervisor. Two branches from each bank did not participate due to high turnover of employees and a recent reassignment of branch managers. Two other branches in the first bank did not participate because they contained fewer than 3 individuals. Group size in the remaining 34 branches ranged from 3 to 14 individuals. The average group size was 6.1 employees. In the 16 branches from the first bank, 92% of employees were full-time, 87% were women, and 66% were White. The average age was 30 years, and the average tenure was 4.7 years. In the 18 branches representing the second bank, 57% of employees were full-time, 84% were women, and 64% were White. The average age was 32.9 years, and the average tenure was 6.9 years. The two banks did not differ significantly from one another in terms of employee demographics, except for education


368


level. In the first bank, 10% of employees were college graduates, compared with 28% in the second bank. This reflects a deliberate effort, described to us by bank officials, to increase the qualifications of its staff. Before combining the surveys from the two banks, Box’s M test was performed on all study variables. Box’s M is the most commonly used statistical test for testing the equality of the covariances of two samples (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). Results indicated the covariances of the two samples were not significantly different from one another. Thus, the two samples were combined for the subsequent analyses. PROCEDURE

Surveys were administered to employees at each of the 34 bank branches on work time by one of the authors. The response rate was 100%. A coding system was devised to allow us to match employee surveys with a different survey administered to their branch manager. Employees were assured of their anonymity and told that (a) the number on their survey was for matching purposes only, (b) no individual employee could be identified by the researchers, and (c) no bank employee would see their individual survey. MEASURES

Procedural justice climate. To obtain a work group–level measure of procedural justice climate, employees responded to the nine items (α = .90) from Naumann and Bennett’s (2000) scale. Sample items included the following: “As a whole, the people in my work group feel that around here: consistent rules and procedures are used when making decisions, our input is obtained prior to making decisions, or accurate information is used to make decisions.” Within each work group, responses to this measure were aggregated to generate a group-level procedural justice measure. Group helping behaviors. Supervisors completed seven items (α = .84) from Williams and Anderson’s (1991) scale to gauge the extent to which each of their subordinates engaged in helping



369

TABLE 1: Descriptive Statistics

1. Procedural justice climate 2. Helping behavior 3. Perceived performance 4. Financial performance

M

SD

1

3.63 3.72 3.50

0.49 0.47 0.44

(.90) .36** .30* –.25

2 (.84) .61*** –.36**

3

4

(.93) .01**

NOTE: N = 34 groups. Alpha reliabilities are reported on the diagonal. *p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

behaviors directed toward the organization and coworkers in their work group. Within each work group, responses to this measure were aggregated to generate a group-level helping behavior measure. Perceived work group performance. Two performance measures were obtained. First, supervisors completed eight items (α = .93) to gauge the extent to which each of their subordinates met expectations regarding performance dimensions (e.g., productivity, accuracy, dependability). Within each work group, responses to this measure were aggregated to generate a group-level perceived performance measure. Financial work group performance. Second, financial measures of net profitability for each work group were obtained from each bank’s records. Because of subtle differences in the way the banks collected the data, these measures were converted to z scores.

ANALYSES AND RESULTS

Descriptive statistics for all study variables appear in Table 1. Before aggregating individual ratings on group-level measures, we had to demonstrate within-group agreement. James, Demaree, and Wolf’s (1993) interrater agreement index (rwg) was computed for procedural justice climate, helping behavior, and perceived performance. The majority of the groups exhibited high levels of agreement on each group-level measure. Some researchers (e.g., Janz, Colquitt, & Noe, 1997) suggested that aggregation may be justified


370


TABLE 2: Results of Multiple Regression Analyses Dependent Variable

Independent variable Helping behavior Procedural justice climate 2

R F(1, 34)

Helping Behavior

Perceived Performance

Financial Performance

b

b

b

SE

.36** .15 .13 4.95**

SE

b

SE

SE

b

SE

.61***.13

.57***.14

–.36** .35

–.31

.38

.30*

.09

–.25

–.14

.36

.15

.13

.38 9.6***

.34

.15 2.7

NOTE: N = 34 groups. *p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

by a median agreement index of .70 or greater; each of our scales exceeded this criterion. There are no absolute standards regarding acceptable levels of interrater agreement, but those obtained here are comparable with others observed in similar work group research (e.g., Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993). The hypotheses were tested using the procedures outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for testing for mediation. First, group helping behavior, the hypothesized mediator, was regressed on procedural justice climate. Next, perceived performance was regressed on procedural justice climate in the absence of the hypothesized mediator. Finally, perceived performance was regressed on procedural justice climate and the mediator, group helping behavior. As described by Baron and Kenny (1986), mediation is established when the three regression equations meet the following conditions: The independent variable (procedural justice climate) exhibits an effect on the proposed mediator (group helping behavior), the independent variable affects the dependent variable (work group performance), and, finally, the mediator affects the dependent variable when taken together with the independent variable. The results of the multiple regression analyses appear in Table 2. Hypothesis 1, which suggested that procedural justice climate will be positively associated with the amount of helping behavior exhibited by a work group, was supported (β = .36, p < .05). Hypotheses 2



371

and 3, which stated that group helping behavior will be positively associated with perceived performance (β = .61, p < .01) but not financial performance (β = –.36, p < .05), were supported. Hypothesis 4, which stated that group helping behavior will fully mediate the relationship between procedural justice climate and perceived work group performance, was also supported (β = .57, p < .01).

DISCUSSION

The present study adds to the emerging literature on factors associated with effective work group performance. It begins to address Cohen and Bailey’s (1997) call for more empirical field research on the relationship of group cognition to work group effectiveness and Konovsky’s (2000) call for research on group-level procedural justice. Most research on performance exists at the macro (e.g., organizational) and individual levels. Despite the fact that approximately half of U.S. organizations use work teams (Devine et al., 1999), significantly less research has been conducted on the factors associated with effective work group performance (Wheelan, Murphy, Tsumura, & Kline, 1998). The current results suggest that group helping behavior mediated the relationship between procedural justice climate and perceived performance. The mechanism underlying the observed relationships may be explained by social information processing (SIP) theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). SIP indicates that employees’ perceptions of their work environments are as much affected by social factors (e.g., cues from their coworkers) as by their own judgments. Realizing that relying solely on their own perceptions will not give them a complete view of their work environment, group members frequently turn to their coworkers to learn “how things are” (Hackman, 1992). Employees often think that coworkers have more knowledge of the work environment than they do. Other group members are, in turn, motivated to provide their coworkers with information concerning certain aspects of the work environment (Hackman, 1992). Those aspects that are most likely to be communicated include perceptions of the degree of fair treatment or how


372


the pay and promotion systems work (Hackman, 1992). Topics that are less relevant to behavior and are not likely to disrupt the group (e.g., the number of employees in the organization, the color of the office walls) tend to be overlooked (Hackman, 1992). Hackman (1992) argued that groups affect members’ behavior through exposing members to “ambient stimuli,” aspects of the work environment that members are exposed to as a regular part of their life in the group (e.g., interaction patterns among group members, evidence of fair or unfair treatment). Ambient stimuli vary considerably from work group to work group. These groupsupplied stimuli are usually immediate and highly salient and are the primary proximal cause of variation in work group members’ individual behaviors. Considered the “glue” that keeps groups together, ambient stimuli provide a context for member behavior that significantly shapes what happens in the group (Hackman, 1992). In this way, procedural justice may create a context for member behavior. When group members have similar past experiences (e.g., groups that have had the opportunity to witness the supervisor managing co-workers), their behavior is most likely to be affected by ambient stimuli present in their work group. Ambient stimuli are thought to heighten the motivation of work group members to behave in a certain way (e.g., engage in helping behaviors, perform as team players). As predicted, group helping behavior was not associated with financial performance. Several explanations are possible for the pattern of findings reported here. First, it may be that when work group members spend a considerable amount of time performing helping behaviors, less time is available to perform in-role behaviors. Second, it may be that an inexperienced group member may have higher performance with the help of an experienced coworker; however, this will enhance financial work group performance only if the increase in the inexperienced member’s performance is able to offset the corresponding decrease in the experienced member’s performance resulting from spending time helping the inexperienced coworker (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994). Or, as noted earlier, group members who engage in helping behaviors make supervisors’ jobs easier; thus, helping behaviors may be more salient to



373

supervisors than financial indicators of group performance, which are not as directly beneficial to supervisors’ daily lives. To that end, helping behaviors may become a proxy for perceived group performance: Group members engaging in helping behaviors make the environment a good place to work. As a result, the supervisors’ distinction between helping behavior and perceived group performance is blurred. From a methodological standpoint, the different findings for subjective and financial measures of performance are consistent w i t h t h e fi n d i n g s o f a r e c e n t m e t a - a n a l y s i s o n t h e interchangeability of objective and subjective performance measures. The researchers found a lack of convergent validity in the two measures (Bommer, Johnson, Rich, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 1995). In addition, whereas measures of job attitudes like procedural justice are designed to maximize the amount of variance capable of being explained, measures of performance are often constrained by situational variables (Organ, 1977). For instance, technology may cause the amount of work to be done per unit time and per person to vary only within a small range (Organ, 1977). Furthermore, group members may not perceive increased performance as an appropriate form of reciprocation. It may be that, at least for some jobs, individuals are aware that significant increases in performance, beyond a minimally acceptable level, are not of much interest to organizational administrators. The more salient way to reciprocate may be through working as a team player (e.g., decreased absenteeism or lateness or increased helping behaviors). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Recent research has found that whereas organizations devote considerable resources to team selection, most do not provide much ongoing support and development (Devine et al., 1999). Given the current study’s findings regarding performance, organizations would be advised to ensure that supervisors are acting as procedural fairness lenses to the employees in the work teams they supervise. In particular, supervisors should be concerned with managing work group procedural justice perceptions rather than


374


only individual procedural justice perceptions. Some researchers have suggested that employees working in environments characterized by high levels of distrust (e.g., a negative procedural justice climate) would be expected to react through altering norms regarding their performance (Goodman, Ravlin, & Schminke, 1987). Tyler and Lind (1992) suggested that unfair procedures (e.g., poorly resolved disputes among group members) can jeopardize longterm relationships, whereas fair procedures can preserve positive relations among group members. In addition, fair procedural justice climates may be regarded as substitutes for management control (Schneider, 1990). Those organizational practices that get rewarded, supported, and expected are a way for top managers’ objectives to be reinforced. LIMITATIONS

Several caveats should be considered in the interpretation of the results of the current study. First, the employee and manager surveys were collected at a single point in time. The use of crosssectional data diminishes the ability to make causal inferences. Furthermore, the large number of contextual factors operating in organizational contexts makes identifying cause-and-effect relationships harder than in laboratory studies of groups (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). Second, the design used to test the hypotheses was nonexperimental and thus precluded causal conclusions. Third, the results presented here may not be generalizable to all other organizations. It could be that whereas helping behaviors are especially critical to work group effectiveness in service organizations, the same effect might not be detected in other industries such as manufacturing. Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1994) postulated that helping behavior may have had a negative effect on performance in their study due to high levels of turnover in their industry (e.g., group members receiving help may leave the industry before the benefits of the help manifest in group performance). Future research in multiple industries should help to clarify the relationships tested here. Despite these important caveats, because the model was based on



375

theory, more confidence can be placed in the findings. Furthermore, the fact that procedural justice climate was an aggregate measure provided by subordinates and helping behavior was an aggregate measure provided by supervisors indicates that common method variance was not a serious problem in these data. SUMMARY

In summary, empirical research on the relationship between individual-level procedural justice perceptions and performance has produced mixed results. The results reported here suggest that it may be worthwhile to examine the work group level of analysis when investigating the justice-performance relationship. Notably, helping behaviors appear to mediate this relationship.

REFERENCES Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 247-261. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1995). On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48, 587-606. Brockner, J., & Wisenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189-208. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850. Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1994). Performance appraisal: The influence of liking on cognition. In J. F. Porac, J. R. Meindl, & C. Stubbart (Eds.), Advances in managerial cognition and organizational information processing (Vol. 5, pp. 115-140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290.


376


Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S. B. (1999). Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30, 678-711. George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 107-116. Goodman, P. S., Ravlin, E. C., & Schminke, M. (1987). Understanding groups in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 121-173. Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9-22. Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-338. Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. Handbook of Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 3, 199-267. Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of within group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309. Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: The role of autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextual support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50, 877-904. Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 489-511. Lind, E. A., & Earley, P. C. (1992). Procedural justice and culture. International Journal of Psychology, 27, 227-242. Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. (1998). The social construction of injustice: Fairness judgments in response to own and others’unfair treatment by authorities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 1-22. Lord, R. G. (1985). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership, and behavioral measurement in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 87-128). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Macy, B. A., & Izumi, H. (1993). Organizational change, design, and work innovation: A meta-analysis of 131 North American field studies—1961-1991. In W. Passmore & R. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 7, pp. 235313). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., 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. McGrath, J. E. (1986). Studying groups at work: Ten critical needs for theory and practice. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 362-392). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 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. Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. (2000). A case for procedural justice climate: Development and test of a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 881-889. Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527-556.



377

Organ, D. W. (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causesperformance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 2, 46-53. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262-271. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 351-363. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-252. Schneider, B. (1990). The climate for service: An application of the climate construct. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 383-412). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36, 19-40. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Wheelan, S. A., Murphy, D., Tsumura, E., & Kline, S. F. (1998). Member perceptions of internal group dynamics and productivity. Small Group Research, 29, 371-393. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.

Stefanie E. Naumann is an assistant professor of management and organizational behavior in the Eberhardt School of Business at University of the Pacific. Her current research interests include organizational justice and work group climates. Nathan Bennett is associate dean and professor of management in the DuPree College of Management at Georgia Tech. His current research interests include justice climates in organizations, the development of human resource practices in rapidly growing organizations, and multilevel analysis.
