Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:43:57.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Justice Climates and Management Team Effectiveness: The Central Role of Group Harmony

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 December 2017

Ali F. Ünal ,
Chao C. Chen  and
Katherine R. Xin
Ali F. Ünal*
Affiliation:
Uludag University, Turkey
Chao C. Chen
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, USA
Katherine R. Xin
Affiliation:
China Europe International Business School, China
*
Corresponding author: Ali F. Ünal ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although social harmony is one of the most important cultural values in many of Asian societies it has rarely been studied in the mainstream management literatures. Based on the group-value theory of justice we examined how group justice climates influence group effectiveness through group harmony. Analyses of data on 106 upper-level management teams from Chinese organizations showed that justice climates were positively associated with group harmony, which in turn was positively associated with team task performance and team helping behavior. Group harmony was found to significantly mediate the positive effect of both distributive and interactional justice climates on team helping behavior but only marginally on team task performance. Finally, in support of past research both at the group and individual level, procedural justice climate had the weakest effect on group processes and outcomes. By applying the group value theory on group harmony this paper aims to integrate Eastern and Western perspectives on one hand and the justice climates and group harmony research on the other. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

摘要:

摘要:

尽管和谐是亚洲很多社会最重要的文化价值观之一, 主流管理文献却很少研究这个问题。基于公平的群体价值理论, 我们探讨了群体的公平氛围如何通过群体和谐影响群体的绩效。对于106个中国企业的高层管理团队的数据分析发现, 公平氛围与群体和谐呈正向关系, 而群体和谐进而与团队任务业绩和团队的助人行为呈正向关系。我们还发现, 群体和谐显著地中介了分配公平氛围和互动公平氛围对于团队助人行为的正向作用, 但只是临界显著地中介了两种公平氛围对团队任务业绩的作用。最后, 程序公平氛围对于群体过程和结果的作用最弱, 这支持了以往在群体和个体水平上的研究发现。通过将群体价值理论应用于群体和谐中, 本文一方面旨在整合东西方的理论观点, 另一方面也整合了公平氛围与群体和谐的研究。我们讨论了本研究的理论和实践意义。.

यद्यपि सामाजिक समरसता बहुत से एशियाई देशों में एक महत्वपूर्ण सामाजिक मान्यता है, तथापि इसका प्रबंधन शोध साहित्य की मुख्यधारा में कभी कभार ही अध्ययन हुआ है. न्याय के समूह-मान्यता सिद्धांत के आधार पर हमने यह आकलन किया कि किस प्रकार सामूहिक न्याय वातावरण सामाजिक समरसता के माध्यम से समूह की प्रभाविता पर असर डालते हैं. चीनी फर्मों के 106 उच्च-स्तरीय प्रबंधन दलों के आकड़ों के अध्ययन में न्याय वातावरण और सामूहिक समरसता में सकारात्मक सम्बन्ध मुखरित हुआ और यह अपने स्तर पर दलीय कार्य प्रदर्शन और दल -स्तरीय सहयोग व्यवहार से सकारात्मक रूप से जुड़ा दिखा. सामूहिक समरसता दलीय समरसता पर वितरण-परक और पारस्परिक न्याय के प्रदर्शन पर सकारात्मक प्रभाव के लिए महत्वपूर्ण मध्यस्थ के रूप में उभरी लेकिन सामूहिक प्रदर्शन पर इसका अत्यल्प प्रभाव था. अंततः समूह एवं व्यक्ति स्तरीय पूर्व अध्ययनों के अनुरूप प्रक्रियात्मक न्याय का सामूहिक प्रक्रिया और परिणाम पर सबसे कमज़ोर प्रभाव था. सामूहिक मान्यता सिद्धांत को सामूहिक समरसता पर लागू जहाँ कर इस शोध ने प्राच्य एवं पाश्चात्य परिप्रेक्ष्य में सामंजस्य प्रस्तुत किया है वहीं न्याय वातावरण एवं सामूहिक समरसता के शोध को भी जोड़ा है. शोध पत्र में सैद्धांतिक और व्यावहारिक पक्षों की भी चर्चा की गयी है.

Sumário:

SUMÁRIO:

Embora a harmonia social seja um dos valores culturais mais importantes em muitas das sociedades asiáticas, raramente foi estudada na literatura gerencial dominante. Com base na teoria da justiça de valor coletivo, examinamos como o clima de justiça do grupo influencia a eficácia do grupo por meio da harmonia do grupo. Análises de dados sobre 106 equipes de gestão de alto nível de organizações chinesas mostraram que climas de justiça estavam positivamente associados com harmonia do grupo, o que por sua vez estava positivamente associado ao desempenho de tarefas da equipe e ao comportamento de ajuda da equipe. Concluiu-se que a harmonia do grupo media significativamente o efeito positivo dos climas de justiça distributivo e interacional no comportamento de ajuda da equipe, mas apenas marginalmente no desempenho de tarefa da equipe. Finalmente, em suporte à pesquisa existente tanto a nível de equipe como individual, o clima de justiça procedural teve o efeito mais fraco nos processos e resultados da equipe. Ao aplicar a teoria do valor do grupo na harmonia do grupo, este trabalho pretende por um lado integrar perspectivas orientais e ocidentais, e por outro clima de justiça e a pesquisa de harmonia em grupo.

Implicações teóricas e práticas são discutidas.

Аннотация:

Аннотация:

Хотя социальная гармония является одной из важнейших культурных ценностей во многих азиатских сообществах, это понятие редко изучается в основной литературе по управлению. На основании теории справедливости как ценности для группы, мы изучали, как климат справедливости в группе влияет на эффективность группы благодаря групповой гармонии. Анализируя данные из 106 команд высшего звена в китайских организациях, мы пришли к выводу о том, что климат справедливости положительно влияет на гармонию в группе, что, в свою очередь, положительно взаимосвязано с выполнением командной задачи и взаимопомощью в группе. Как оказалось, гармония в группе значительно усиливает положительный эффект как распределительного, так и интерактивного климата справедливости на взаимопомощь в команде, но лишь незначительно влияет на выполнение командной задачи. Наконец, в подтверждение прошлых исследований как на групповом, так и на индивидуальном уровне, процессуальный климат справедливости наименее влияет на групповые процессы и результаты. Применяя теорию ценности для гармонии в группе, эти работы направлены, с одной стороны, на соединение восточной и западной перспектив, а, с другой стороны, на объединение исследований по климату справедливости и гармонии в группе. В статье также делаются теоретические и практические выводы.

Resumen:

RESUMEN:

Aunque la armonía social es uno de los valores culturales más importantes en muchas de las sociedades asiáticas rara vez ha sido estudiada en las principales literaturas de gestión. Con base en la teoría de justicia de valores grupales examinamos cómo los climas de justicia grupal influencian la efectividad través de armonía grupal. Los análisis de datos de 106 equipos gerenciales de nivel superior en organizaciones Chinas mostraron que los climas de justicia se asocian positivamente con la armonía grupal, la cual a su vez se asocia positivamente con el desempeño de las tareas grupales y con el comportamiento de ayuda del equipo. Se encontró que la armonía grupal medía de manera significativa el efecto positivo de los climas de justicia tanto distributiva como interaccional en el comportamiento de ayuda del grupo pero sólo de manera marginal en el desempeño de tareas de equipo. Finalmente, apoyando las investigaciones anteriores a nivel grupal e individual, el clima de justicia procesal tuvo el efecto más débil en los procesos y resultados grupales. Aplicando la teoría de valor grupal a la armonía del grupo, este artículo tiene como objetivo integrar las perspectivas Orientales y Occidentales por un lado y los climas de justicia y la investigación en armonía grupal por el otro lado. Implicaciones teóricas y prácticas son discutidas.

Keywords

group harmonyintragroup relationshipjustice climateteam helping behaviorteam performance群体和谐群体内关系公平氛围团队助人行为团队业绩सामूहिक समरसताअंतः सामूहिक सम्बन्धन्याय वातावरणदलीय सहयतापरक व्यवहारदलीय प्रदर्शनHarmonia do gruporelacionamento intragrupoclima de justiçacomportamento de ajuda da equipedesempenho da equipeгармония в группеотношения внутри группыклимат справедливостивзаимопомощь в командепроизводительность командыarmonía grupalrelaciones dentro del grupoclima de justiciacomportamiento de ayuda al grupodesempeño grupal
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 13 , Issue 4: Special Issue Celebrating and Advancing the Scholarship of Kwok Leung (1958–2015) , December 2017 , pp. 821 - 849
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adams, J. S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2: 267–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambrose, M. L., Schminke, M., & Mayer, D. M. 2013. Trickle-down effects of supervisor perceptions of interactional justice: A moderated mediation approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98 (4): 678–689.Google Scholar
Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. 1998. Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19 (3): 235–258.Google Scholar
Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. M. 2001. Discriminating among organizational politics, justice, and support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22 (4): 347–366.Google Scholar
Barsade, S. G. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47 (4): 644–675.Google Scholar
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. 1986. Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1 (1): 43–55.Google Scholar
Blau, P. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Bliese, P. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: 512–556. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K. K. 1986. The social psychology of Chinese people. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. 1996. An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120 (2): 189–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., . . . & Shapiro, D. 2001. Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37 (4): 300–315.Google Scholar
Brockner, J., Konovsky, M., Cooper-Schneider, R., Folger, R., Martin, C., & Bies, R. J. 1994. Interactive effects of procedural justice and outcome negativity on victims and survivors of job loss. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (2): 397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. 2005. Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97 (2): 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, B. M. 2013. Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (2): 234–246.Google Scholar
Chang, A., & Bordia, P. 2001. A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-group performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32 (4): 379–405.Google Scholar
Chen, C. C. 1995. New trends in rewards allocation preferences: A Sino-US comparison. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (2): 408–428.Google Scholar
Chen, C. C., Chen, X. P., & Huang, S. S. 2013. Chinese guanxi: An integrative review and new directions for future research. Management and Organization Review, 9 (1): 167–207.Google Scholar
Chen, C. C., Ünal, A. F., Leung, K., & Xin, K. 2016. Group harmony in the workplace: Conception, measurement, and validation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33: 903–934.Google Scholar
Chua, R. Y. 2013. The costs of ambient cultural disharmony: Indirect intercultural conflicts in social environment undermine creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56 (6): 1545–1577.Google Scholar
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 (3): 239–290.Google Scholar
Cole, M. S., Carter, M. Z., & Zhang, Z. 2013. Leader–team congruence in power distance values and team effectiveness: The mediating role of procedural justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98 (6): 962–973.Google Scholar
Colquitt, J. A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3): 386–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. 2001. Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3): 425–445.Google Scholar
Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. 2002. Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55 (1): 83–109.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. 2003. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (4): 741–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degoey, P. 2000. Contagious justice: Exploring the social construction of justice in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22: 51–102.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M. 1985. Distributive justice. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. 2008. Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (6): 1438–1446.Google Scholar
Emerson, R. M. 1976. Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2 (1): 335–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. 2010. Differentiated leader–member exchanges: The buffering role of justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (6): 1104–1120.Google Scholar
Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. 2004. Organizational citizenship behavior in the People's Republic of China. Organization Science, 15 (2): 241–253.Google Scholar
Fields, D., Pang, M., & Chiu, C. 2000. Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of employee outcomes in Hong Kong. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 (5): 547–562.3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Financial Times. 2016. Executive MBA ranking 2015. [Cited 15 May 2016]. Available from URL: http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/executive-mba-ranking-2015Google Scholar
Forgas, J. P. 1990. Affective influences on individual and group judgments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20 (5): 441–453.Google Scholar
George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. 1990. Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (6): 698–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, J. M. 1990. Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (2): 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, C. B. 1999. Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (2): 138–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Romá, V., Peiró, J. M., & Tordera, N. 2002. An examination of the antecedents and moderator influences of climate strength. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (3): 465–473.Google Scholar
Guo, C., & Giacobbe-Miller, J. K. 2012. Understanding survivors' reactions to downsizing in China. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27 (1): 27–47.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. C. 1994. Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration of the ‘team’ label. In Staw, B. M. & Cummings, L. L. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 16: 171–213. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
He, W., Chen, C. C., & Zhang, L. 2004. Rewards-allocation preferences of Chinese employees in the new millennium: The effects of ownership reform, collectivism, and goal priority. Organization Science, 15 (2): 221–231.Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. I. 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25 (1): 121–140.Google Scholar
Hwang, K. K. 1998. Guanxi and mientze: Conflict resolution in Chinese society. Intercultural Communication Studies, 7: 17–42.Google Scholar
Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. 1991. Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 (5): 675–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S. E., Chuang, C., Harden, E. E., & Jiang, Y. 2006. Toward developing human resource management systems for knowledge-intensive teamwork. In Martocchio, J. J. (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, 25: 27–70. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
James, L. R., Demaree, R. J., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (1): 85–98.Google Scholar
Janis, I. L. 1972. Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Oxford: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Jehn, K. A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (2): 256–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, Y., & Chen, C. C. In press. Integrating knowledge activities for team innovation: Effects of transformational leadership. Journal of Management.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. 1998. Data analysis in social psychology. In Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2): 233–265. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. 1978. Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. 1994. Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19 (2): 195–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, K. 1997. Negotiation and reward allocations across cultures. In Earley, P. C. & Erez, M. (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/ organizational psychology: 640–675. San Francisco, CA: The New Lexington Press/Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Leung, K., & Brew, F. P. 2009. A cultural analysis of harmony and conflict: Towards an integrated model of conflict styles. In Wyer, R. S., Chiu, C.-Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (Eds.), Understanding culture: Theory, research and application: 411–428. New York: Psychology PressGoogle Scholar
Leung, K., Brew, F., Zhang, Z. X., & Zhang, Y. 2011. Harmony and conflict: A cross-cultural investigation in China and Australia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42 (5): 785–816.Google Scholar
Leung, K., Koch, P. T., & Lu, L. 2002. A dualistic model of harmony and its implications for conflict management in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19 (2–3): 201–220.Google Scholar
Leung, K., Smith, P. B., Wang, Z., & Sun, H. 1996. Job satisfaction in joint venture hotels in China: An organizational justice analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 27 (5): 947–962.Google Scholar
Leventhal, G. S. 1976. Fairness in social relationships. In Thibaut, J. W., Spence, J. T., & Carsa, R. C. (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology: 211–239. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
Leventhal, G. S. 1980. What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In Gergen, K., Greenberg, M., & Willis, R. (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research: 27–55. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. 2005. The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: A cross-level multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (2): 242–256.Google Scholar
Lin, S. P., Tang, T. W., Li, C. H., Wu, C. M., & Lin, H. H. 2007. Mediating effect of cooperative norm in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors from procedural justice climate. Psychological Reports, 101 (1): 67–78.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A. 2001. Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In Greenberg, J. & Cropanzano, R. (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice: 56–88. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A., & Earley, P. C. 1992. Procedural justice and culture. International Journal of Psychology, 27 (2): 227–242.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. B. 2009. How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108 (1): 1–13.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. 2005. Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48 (5): 874–888.Google Scholar
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. 1992. Research notes. Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35 (3): 626–637.Google Scholar
McGrath, J. E. 1984. Groups: Interaction and performance (Vol. 14). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N., & Martin, C. L. 1998. A multilevel analysis of procedural justice context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19 (2): 131–141.Google Scholar
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. 1998–2017. Mplus User's Guide (eighth edition). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & MuthénGoogle Scholar
Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. 2000. A case for procedural justice climate: Development and test of a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (5): 881–889.Google Scholar
Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. 2002. The effects of procedural justice climate on work group performance. Small Group Research, 33 (3): 361–377.Google Scholar
O'Reilly, C. A. III, Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. 1989. Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34 (1): 21–37.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12 (4): 531–544.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2012. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63: 539–569.Google Scholar
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36 (4): 717–731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. 2010. A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15 (3): 209–233.Google Scholar
Rahim, M. A. 1983. A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26 (2): 368–376.Google Scholar
Redding, G. 1990. The spirit of Chinese capitalism (Vol. 22). Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. 2002. The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89 (1): 925–946.Google Scholar
Salancik, G. J., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23 (2): 224–253. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaubroeck, J. M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S. W., Lord, R. G., Treviño, L. K., Dimotakis, N., & Peng, A. C. 2012. Embedding ethical leadership within and across organization levels. Academy of Management Journal, 55 (5): 1053–1078.Google Scholar
Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40 (3): 437–453.Google Scholar
Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. 1983. On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36 (1): 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. 2009. The popularity contest at work: Who wins, why, and what do they receive? Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (1): 20–33.Google Scholar
Seashore, S. E. 1954. Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Shaw, J. D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shih, H. A., & Susanto, E. 2011. A contingency model of conflict and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (2): 391–400.Google Scholar
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. 2010. Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13 (3): 456–476.Google Scholar
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. 2000. Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (1): 102–111.Google Scholar
Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. 2005. Modeling the multilevel determinants of top management team behavioral integration. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (1): 69–84.Google Scholar
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. 1975. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Treviño, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & McCabe, D. L. 1998. The ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8 (3): 447–476.Google Scholar
Triandis, H. C. 1995. Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. 2003. The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7 (4): 349–361.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K., & Spodick, N. 1985. The influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (1): 72–81.Google Scholar
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. 2004. Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (6): 1008–1022.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. 1998. The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (5): 540–555.Google Scholar
Whitman, D. S., Carpenter, N. C., Horner, M. T., & Bernerth, J. B. 2012. Fairness at the collective level: A meta-analytic examination of the consequences and boundary conditions of organizational justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97 (4): 776–791.Google Scholar
Williams, L. J., Hartman, N., & Cavazotte, F. 2010. Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods, 13 (3): 477–514.Google Scholar
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G. Jr, & Chen, Q., 2010. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (2): 197–206.Google Scholar
Zohar, D. 2000. A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (4): 587–596.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed