The research register for this journal is available at

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

Journal of
Managerial
Psychology
17,8

Power distance as a moderator

of the relationship between
justice and employee outcomes
692
in a sample of Chinese
Received September 2001
Revised April 2002
employees
Accepted July 2002
Thomas M. Begley and Cynthia Lee
College o f Business Administration, Northeastern University,
Boston, Massachusetts, USA

Yongqing Fang
Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore, and

Jianfeng Li
College o f Business Administration, The Peoples University o f China,
Beijing, China
K eyw o rd s Procedures, Equal opportunities, Employees, China
A b stra c t Power distance was tested as a moderator of the relationship between justice concerns
and employee outcomes in a sample of employees in the Peoples Republic of China. Two
hypotheses were developed based on the quality of authority-member relations prescribed by the
relational model o f authority in groups. In two-way interactions, higher power distance combined
with procedural justice to predict employee outcomes, whereas lower power distance combined
with distributive justice.

Fair treatment of employees has become a focus of investigation in

organizational behavior. Organizational justice, a socially constructed
dimension (Colquitt et al., 2001), has explained workplace attitudinal and
behavioral reactions, including job satisfaction (Masterson et al., 2000;
Mossholder et al., 1998), organizational commitment (McFarlin and Sweeney,
1992; Masterson et al., 2000), withdrawal (Dailey and Kirk, 1992; Masterson
et al., 2000), and organizational citizenship behavior (Moorman, 1991; Skarlicki
and Latham, 1996). Organizational justice has most often encompassed two
subjective perceptions:
(1) the fairness of outcome distributions, i.e. distributive justice; and
(2) the fairness of procedures used to decide outcome distributions,
i.e. procedural justice.
joumal of Managerial Psychok>gy,
v o 1. 17 no. 8,2o2, pp. 692-711
MCB UP Limited, 0268-3946
d o i 10.1108/02683940210450493

Early research on distributive justice, fueled by social exchange theorys (Adams,

1965) emphasis on equity, subsequently expanded to consider principles such as
equality and need (Deutsch, 1975). Early procedural justice research studied the
J
,
i
,
j- 1
1 1

-1
^
1
impact of control over the process on evaluation of legal decisions (i hibaut and

Walker, 1975). Applying it to organizational behavior, Leventhal (1980) identified

six criteria by which to judge procedural fairness. Although sometimes highly
correlated (e.g. Sweeney and McFarlin, 1997), procedural and distributive justice
are widely used as separate, sometimes complementary, dimensions. In research
on their relationships with employee outcomes, each has shown differential
associations with outcomes studied. Typically, procedural justice has predicted
institutional evaluations such as organizational trust while distributive justice
has predicted personal assessments such as job satisfaction (e.g. Folger and
Konovsky, 1989; Kim and Mauborgne, 1996; Sweeney and McFarlin, 1993).
Researchers have found the multiplicative interaction of procedural with
distributive justice to predict outcomes (Brockner and Wiesenfeld, 1996; Skarlicki
and Folger, 1997). Most often, the low procedural-low distributive justice
condition in particular has predicted very low outcome scores.
Most studies reviewed in Colquitt et al.s (2001) meta-analysis of the last 25
years of organizational justice research were conducted in Western settings.
Recently, Aryee and Chay (2001) found that perceived union support and union
instrumentality mediated workplace justice perceptions and union OCB in
Singapore. Union instrumentality also partially mediated the procedural
justice-turnover intention relationship. In a study conducted in Taiwan, Farh
et al. (1997) reported that procedural justice was strongly related to OCB among
Taiwanese who endorse modern as opposed to traditional values. Our study
contributes to the existing literature by examining justice-outcome
relationships in China.
Although researchers have begun to explore more complex models
involving these constructs, few studies have placed them in a larger context of
organizational, situational, or personal variables (Sweeney and McFarlin, 1993;
Lee and Farh, 1999). Of particular interest, the impact of individual difference
variables on justice-outcome relationships has received relatively little
attention. Yet perceptions of fairness seem likely to differ based on such
personal factors. Further, employees who perceive injustice may differ in
willingness to give their organization or supervisor the benefit of the doubt.
As an individual difference variable, power distance seems likely to shape
peoples relationships with authorities. Power distance indicates a tendency to
view the hierarchical gap between authorities and subordinates as substantial
but also legitimate and acceptable (Hofstede, 1980). Employees high in power
distance should perceive barriers that will limit their attempts to form
relationships with authorities. In the present paper, we examine the moderating
role of power distance in predicting justice-outcome relationships. We develop a
framework that builds on the relational model of authority in groups (Tyler, 1989;
Tyler et al., 1998), a theory that emphasizes the importance of authority-member
relationships. Finally, we test these ideas in a sample of Chinese employees.
Moderating role of power distance

According to Hofstede (1980), people in countries high in power distance

endorse submissiveness to superiors, prefer superiors who exercise autocratic

Power distance
and justice

693

Journal of
Managerial
Psychology
17,8

694

or paternalistic leadership, and do not expect to participate in decision making.

Although Hofstedes dimensions are derived at the societal level, social and
organizational psychologists have begun to use them as individual difference
variables (e.g. Bochner and Hesketh, 1994; Earley, 1993; Ackerman and
Brockner, 1996). Expecting superiors to act autocratically, those high in power
distance see little value attempting to influence decision making. Rather, they
believe its superiors have the prerogative to make decisions without consulting
subordinates. Low power distance subordinates, on the other hand, expect
superiors to consult them (Lam et al., 2002) and approach superiors to express
their views on matters of importance. Therefore, they have the opportunity to
develop closer relationships with superiors than high power distance
subordinates, who presume a safe distance from superiors to be appropriate.
The implications of this discrepancy can be more fully understood through the
relational model of authority in groups.
The relational model of authority in groups

The group-value model of procedural justice (Lind and Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1989)
addresses aspects of leader-subordinate relations that are central to the power
distance relationship with justice and employee outcomes. According to this
model, people value groups because they derive feelings of self-worth from
their group memberships. As a result, they attend closely to information about
their status within groups. When group procedures, which provide information
about member standing, reflect a positive, full-status position in the group, they
are judged to be fair. A subset of the group-value model, the relational model of
authority in groups (Tyler, 1989; Tyler et al., 1998), identifies three features of
authority-group member relations that contribute to procedural justice:
standing, neutrality, and trust. When procedures show concern for respect,
courtesy, and dignity (standing), are enacted with honesty and lack of bias
(neutrality), and show authority as trustworthy (trust), their fairness positively
affects group member attitudes and behaviors.
In extending the relational model of authority, Tyler et al. (1995) argue that
power distance predicts attitudes toward authority; more specifically, that
those low in power distance should closely attend to their relationship with
authorities. Presumably because of their relative equality with superiors, those
low in power distance develop strong personal connections to authorities. As a
result, they judge the legitimacy of authority actions by their relational fairness
toward subordinates. In studies conducted in China, Aryee and Chen (1999,
2000) reported procedural justice to relate positively to leader-member
exchange and Rousseau et al. (2002) found procedural justice to relate
positively to affective commitment. In studies of people from the USA, Japan,
Germany, and Hong Kong, Tyler et al. (1995) found support for power distance
as a moderator: for those lower in power distance, the perceived relational
fairness of an authority predicted the perceived legitimacy of the authoritys
actions. Procedural fairness seemed especially relevant to those who question
such legitimacy.

Tyler et al. s (1995) theory focused on procedural justice, but their line of
reasoning applies also to distributive justice. Those low in power distance, with
their greater perceived equality to authorities, also judge the legitimacy of
authorities actions by their distributive fairness. Social exchange theories have
focused on fair distribution (Adams, 1965; Rousseau, 1995). In its most basic
form, an exchange involves a favor performed by one party that creates an
expectation of reciprocity from the other (Gouldner, 1960). A social exchange
approach to justice in authority-member relations expects authorities and
subordinates to develop closer relationships through exchanges that take place
over time, enduring due to mutual judgments of an equitable response. From
the subordinates perspective, the perceived fairness of allocated outcomes
should affect attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.
We posit that power distance will interact with procedural and distributive
justice to explain justice-outcome dynamics. From a relational perspective,
lower power distance enables employees to build closer relations with
authorities, leading to the exchange of favors and obligations. A high-quality
relationship with authorities obviates the need to attend to procedural issues
because those who feel secure in their relationships need not constantly
monitor interactions for signs of meaning. Those higher in power distance, on
the other hand, find it more difficult to develop close relationships with their
bosses. Without this relationship, they cannot take procedural fairness for
granted. Therefore, procedural justice more greatly affects their responses in
such areas as satisfaction, citizenship, trust, and desire to stay with the
organization.
At the same time, a primary value of high-quality relationships is the
advantageous outcomes they are expected to produce. But the bosss
effectiveness in gaining resources from the larger organization affects such
favorable results. For those lower in power distance, distributive justice is
relevant because it is contingent on factors beyond their control. Their
perceptions of fairness in reward allocation should predict work-related
attitudes and behaviors. On the other hand, employees without a close
supervisor-subordinate connection are less likely to expect favorable rewards.
For those higher in power distance, distributive issues are less relevant because
their expectations are modest. Therefore, we predict that:
HI. Higher power distance will more strongly predict a relationship of
procedural justice with positive attitudinal and behavioral outcomes
than lower power distance.
H2. Lower power distance will more strongly predict a relationship of
distributive justice with positive attitudinal and behavioral outcomes
than higher power distance.
Power distance and justice in a Chinese context

The present study examines power distance, justice, and outcomes in a Chinese
factory. Most research on justice perceptions has been conducted in the West,

Power distance
and justice

695

Journal of
Managerial
Psychology
17,8

696

predominantly in the USA. Procedures construed as fair in Western liberal

thought (e.g. Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut and Walker, 1975) are influenced by the
Anglo-American legal system. Prevalent norms of fairness that influence
justice perceptions vary across societies or cultures (e.g. Haidt et al., 1993).
Thus, scholars have begun to test the generalizability of findings on justice to
other societies or cultures. While much cross-cultural research on fairness has
explored distributive justice (Chiu and Hong, 1997; Hui et al., 1991; Leung and
Bond, 1984; Leung and Iwawaki, 1988), recent research has looked also at the
validity of procedural justice models (Lam et al., 2002; Kirkman et al., 2000).
Though limited, available evidence locates procedural justice in a similar
nomological network of antecedents and consequences across such cultures as
Hong Kong (Lam et al., 2002; Lee et al., 1997), China (Kirkman et al., 2000; Leung
et al., 1997), Germany, Hong Kong, Japan and the USA (Tyler et al., 1995; Lind
et al., 1997), and Taiwan (Farh et al., 1997). Thus, relationships of procedural
and distributive justice with outcomes have been replicated in Asia and
elsewhere.
Studies have begun to explore the relationship of power distance with justice
outside the USA (e.g. Ackerman and Brockner, 1996). Power distance should be
relevant to the Chinese context (Lam, 2002). A power orientation is consistent
with essential aspects of the Confucian heritage: the five cardinal relations (wu
lun), the rules of correct behavior (li), and righteousness (yi) all emphasize
respect for hierarchical order and age (Bond and Hwang, 1987) as well as role
expectations (Chiu, 1991). These Chinese values reinforce subordinate
subservience to superiors (Laaksonen, 1988). As Yang (1993) notes, Chinese
social orientation developed in the traditional Chinese agricultural economy
and social structure. However, as this agricultural society transforms into an
industrial and commercial one, Chinese social orientation loses its original
intensity and slowly changes. Further, though traditional Chinese cultural
patterns supported paternalistic hierarchies (Pye, 1985), the Cultural
Revolution from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s, combined with the countrys
prevailing communist ideology, supported the value of equality (Meindl et al.,
1990). Thus, Chinas social, economic, and political environment have
somewhat altered the traditional cultural values (Ralston et al., 1997). Instead of
a unified culture of power distance, Chinese predispositions should vary.
Dependent variables

Colquitt et al.s (2001) meta-analysis noted that although procedural justice is

well represented in studies of satisfaction, commitment, evaluation of
authorities, withdrawal, and negative reactions, it is relatively under
represented in studies of performance, organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB), and trust. Since OCB and trust in particular involve willingness to go
above and beyond the duties of their jobs and ability to trust their supervisors,
they should be related to the fairness shown by their supervisors. In this paper,
we examine OCB and trust as well as job satisfaction and turnover intentions.
The first three measures have shown positive relationships with measures of

justice in the West (e.g. Folger and Konovsky, 1989; Kim and Mauborgne, 1996;
McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992) as well as in the East (Farh et al., 1997; Rousseau
et al., 2002). The fourth variable, intent to quit, has received frequent use in the
USA (e.g. Ashford et al., 1989; Schaubroeck et al., 1994) but not much attention
in China until recently (Aryee and Chay, 2001; Chen et al., 2001; Lee et al., 2002)
because of the low rates of labor mobility up through the 1980s. In recent years,
however, the development of joint ventures, foreign-owned subsidiaries, and
town and village enterprises, as well as reduction in size and number of stateowned firms, has created an active job market. We included intent to quit to
test its relevance to employees who experience discontent from perceptions of
injustice.
Methods

Sample
The state-owned firm used in this study, which produced machine tools in
Beijing, was contacted by the fourth author. Senior management agreed to
permit the study after its purpose was explained, with assurance of academic
intent that would not harm the factory or its employees.
Of the 1,031 employees in the factory, 600 were chosen to receive
questionnaires. Six large workshops (production departments), each with 100
150 employees performing work of comparable skill, existed in the factory. In
addition, ten departments of support staff such as finance, sales, personnel, and
technology each had between five and 20 employees. Four workshops and four
support departments were selected at random to participate in the study. One
person in each unit distributed questionnaires to all employees in their unit. A
letter accompanying the questionnaire explained its purpose, its voluntary
nature, intent for research purposes only, and the confidentiality of responses.
Each potential respondent received an inexpensive pen to complete the
questionnaire because most employees, especially blue-collar ones, did not have
ready access to writing instruments. Pens were distributed as a means to
increase the response rate by providing a writing instrument and serving as a
small inducement to participate.
Respondents were instructed to return completed responses to a specific
secretary affiliated with the factorys training school and, as such, not in the
organizational hierarchy. At two weekly intervals, the person in each
department who distributed the questionnaires reminded all potential
respondents to complete and return their copy if they had not already done so.
Of the 600 questionnaires distributed, 440 completed responses were received, a
response rate of 73.3 percent, which compares favorably with the average of
55.6 percent reported in a study of response rates (Baruch, 1999). The typical
respondent was 35 years old, had 14 years tenure in the organization, the
equivalent of a high school degree, and earned 495 renmimbi (about US$60) per
month. A total of 56 percent were male. Factory-provided information indicated
that the median age of employees was 35 years, median education was high
school equivalent, and 53 percent were women.

Power distance
and justice

697

Journal of
Managerial
Psychology
17,8

698

The questionnaire was translated from the original English version using
the back translation method recommended by Brislin (1980). A team of
bi-lingual colleagues at the Institute of Psychology of the Chinese Academy of
Sciences performed the original translation, led by a coauthor of this paper.
They developed a consensus Chinese-language translation, which was then
translated back to English by a bi-lingual Chinese academic in Singapore and
checked for accuracy by a US academic, both also coauthors of this paper.
Discrepancies were addressed by a three-person team in Singapore, then the
new version was sent back to the team in Beijing for further checks, where the
final version was fixed.
Independent variables
The independent variables tested in this study are power distance, procedural
justice, and distributive justice:
Power distance. A six-item scale to measure power distance was taken
from the research of Dorfman and Howell (1988) who, with Clugston
et al. (1997), provided evidence for the scales reliability and validity.
Items in this scale assess the degree to which inequality in the manageremployee relationship is acceptable. Items include: Employees should
not disagree with management decisions; Managers should seldom
ask for the opinions of employees; and It is frequently necessary for a
manager to use power and authority when dealing with subordinates.
A seven-point response scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly
disagree was used. In a Taiwanese sample (Dorfman and Howell, 1988)
and a subsequent study of Americans (Clugston et al., 1997), the scale
reliabilities were 0.63 and 0.70, respectively. The internal reliability of
the scale in this paper, using Cronbachs alpha, was 0.69. In the studies
previously cited, the Taiwanese and US means were 2.99 and 2.03 on a
five-point scale and standard deviations were 0.80 and 0.40. These
statistics compare with a mean of 3.16 and standard deviation of 1.06 on
a seven-point scale in the present study. We attempted to boost Dorfman
and Howells (1988) modest reliabilities through use of a seven-point
scale to permit greater systematic variability.
Procedural justice. The four-item scale developed by McFarlin and
Sweeney (1992) and used by Sweeney and McFarlin (1993) was
employed. The four items ask how fair or unfair are the procedures used
to determine salary increases, evaluate performance, provide feedback
about performance, and determine who gets promoted. A five-point
response scale ranged from very unfair to very fair. The scale
showed reliabilities of 0.82 and 0.85 in those two studies, respectively,
compared with 0.89 in the present study. Means of 2.97 and 4.24 in the
just-mentioned studies and standard deviations of 0.77 and 1.09
compare with a mean of 2.67 and standard deviation of 0.93 in the
present study.

 Distributive justice. The six-item scale developed by Price and Mueller

(1986) was used. These authors and others (Moorman, 1991; McFarlin
and Sweeney, 1992; Sweeney and McFarlin, 1993) present support for
scale reliability and validity. On a seven-point strongly disagree to
strongly agree response format, the scales items measured how
respondents evaluated the fairness of rewards in relation to six workrelated factors: considering my responsibilities; in view of the amount
of experience I have; in view of my educational level; for the amount
of effort I put forth; for the work I have done well; and for the stresses
and strains of my job. The scales reliability averaged 0.91 in the
studies previously mentioned; it was 0.79 in the present study. Means
and standard deviations in previously mentioned studies ranged from
2.98 to 3.86 and 0.67 to 0.96, respectively, on a five-point scale compared
with the present studys mean of 3.05 and standard deviation of 1.02 on a
seven-point scale. To reduce the chance of inflated reliabilities based on
proximate grouping of same-scale items in the questionnaire, we
intermixed items from several scales, including the previously five-point
scales for distributive justice and job satisfaction.
Dependent variables
These were:
Job satisfaction. The three-item job satisfaction scale is taken from the
short form of the job diagnostic survey (Hackman and Oldham, 1975).
The three items are: Generally speaking I am very satisfied with this
job; I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do in this job; and
Most people in this job are very satisfied with the job. Using a sevenpoint strongly disagree to strongly agree response format, the scales
mean, standard deviation, and reliability were 3.86, 1.14, and 0.69,
respectively. Two recent studies using the five-item scale reported
comparative statistics of 4.90,1.20, and 0.77 (Munz et al., 1996) and 4.89,
1.35, and 0.85 (Renn and Vandenberg, 1995).
Affective trust. A five-item scale measured affect-based trust in
supervisor. This scale, developed by McAllister (1995), assesses trust of
employee for supervisor. Items included: We have a sharing
relationship. We can both share our ideas, feelings, and hopes and I
can talk freely to this individual about difficulties I am having at work
and know that (she/he will want to listen. Using a seven-point strongly
disagree to strongly agree response format, the scales mean, standard
deviation, and reliability are 3.91,1.24, and 0.87, respectively. McAllister
(1995) reported comparative figures of 4.71,1.47, and 0.89.
Intention to quit. The five-item intent to quit scale, also used in Ashford
et al. (1989), indicated turnover intent through such items as: I am
thinking about quitting my job and I intend to leave this organization
within the next six months. Although employees in Chinese

Power distance
and justice

699

Journal of
Managerial
Psychology
17,8

700

state-owned firms reputedly have regarded their jobs as lifelong,

respondents showed no difficulty in answering items. The mean of 3.47
and standard deviation of 1.41 on the seven-point agree-disagree format,
which were higher than the mean of 2.30 and standard deviation of 1.06
reported by Ashford et al. (1989) for their US respondents, indicated that
quitting was actively considered by many employees. The scales
reliability was 0.87; in Ashford et al. (1989), it was 0.92.
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Podsakoff and MacKenzie
(1989; see also Podsakoff et al., 1990; Moorman, 1991; Niehoff and
Moorman, 1993) developed a frequently used scale of organizational
citizenship behavior. Two of the scales five subscales were chosen for
this study: altruism represented the social treatment of individuals at
work and civic virtue represented a structural response to the
organization, distinctions made by Greenberg (1993). The 0.62
correlation between the two subscales aligned with correlations of 0.68
and 0.50 reported in Niehoff and Moorman (1993) and Moorman (1991),
respectively. Since eigenvalues and the scree plot in an exploratory
factor analysis supported a single factor that included all eight items,
they were used to form a scale with a reliability of 0.78. A seven-point
strongly disagree to strongly agree response format was employed.
Although researchers frequently obtain supervisory evaluations of OCB,
in this study they are self-reports. Compared to the self-rated mean of
4.68 in the present study, the supervisor-rated means of the two
subscales averaged together, 5.51 in Moorman (1991) and 5.10 in Niehoff
and Moorman (1993), indicate that the US supervisors rated their
employees higher than the Chinese employees rated themselves. Data
collection was performed just before a Taiwanese-based OCB scale was
developed by Farh et al. (1997) to represent ethnic Chinese OCB
tendencies. Nevertheless, Farh et al. (1997) found the two subscales used
in the present study to be etic, as did studies of Chinese in Hong Kong
(Lam et al., 1999) and the PRC (Chen et al., 1998).
Control variables
Negative affectivity. The ten-item scale of negative affectivity developed by
Watson et al. (1988) was used in this study. The scale indicates a persons
tendency toward negativity as a generalized response. Individuals high in
negative affectivity focus on negative aspects of themselves, their jobs, and the
world in general. Watson et al. (1987) argued that this tendency may bias
responses in psychological research in a reverse form of social desirability
affect. Frequently used in job stress research (e.g. Wright and Cropanzano,
1998), negative affectivity has increasingly been applied in justice studies
(e.g. Wanberg et al., 1999; Ball et al., 1994) as well as research on outcomes such
as job satisfaction, intent to quit, and OCB (Brief et al., 1995; Hochwarter et al.,
1999; Hui et al., 1999; Williams and Shiaw, 1999). Following Folger and
Konovskys (1989) lead in studying justice, we included this measure as a

control variable. On a five-point response scale ranging from very slightly to

extremely, employees indicated the extent to which they had felt such
emotions as guilt, shame, irritability, and fear during the previous year. The
Folger and Konovsky (1989) mean, standard deviation, and reliability of 1.75,
0.65, and 0.88 on a seven-point scale are similar to the present studys mean of
1.77, standard deviation of 0.73, and reliability of 0.87 on a five-point scale.
Analysis
Subsets were entered into hierarchical regressions of:
negative affectivity;
power distance, procedural justice, and distributive justice; and
the interactions of power distance with procedural and distributive
justice and of procedural with distributive justice.
The latter was entered because a substantial body of evidence supports its
ability to predict individual outcomes (Brockner and Wiesenfeld, 1996).
Regressions using the full set of variables employed 257 cases. Negative
affectivity had a substantial number of missing values. We expected some
nonresponse to this scale because it inquired about direct emotional reactions, a
dimension onwhich Chinesemightbereluctantto respond in a questionnaire. Since
previous literature had indicated the value of including the scale (e.g. Folger and
Konovsky, 1989), we were reluctant to exclude it from the analysis. To examine
systematic differences, we classified the sample into two groups, those who had
completed the scale versus those who had not, and conducted t-tests to examine
intergroup differences. No differences were observed for age, sex, job satisfaction,
affective trust, and organizational citizenship behavior. Those who had not
completed the scale showed higher education and job position, higher scores on
power distance, procedural justice, and distributive justice, and higher intent to
quit. Nonrespondents seemed to be primarily from higher organizational levels.
Regressionsexcludingnegativeaffectivitypresentedresultssimilarto,thoughnot
the same as, those obtained when including it. In this analysis, negative affectivity
is included in the regressions.
Results

Table I presents means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities, and correlations

for the major variables in this study. Means scores on all variables are on the
low side. Only organizational citizenship behavior was above the mid-point on
its response scale. Prior to collecting data, we were told that morale in this
state-owned firm was relatively low. The job security previously provided
by state-owned firms is under threat and workers in a city like Beijing are
aware of the substantially higher wages offered by private companies, joint
ventures, and multinationals.
The correlation of procedural justice with distributive justice in the present
study (0.43) was similar to that found in previous works (average of 0.48

Power distance
and justice

701

Journal of
Managerial
Psychology
17,8

702

reported Colquitt et a ls (2001) meta-analysis). The modest associations of

procedural and distributive justice with OCB seen here have been reported
elsewhere (e.g. Moorman, 1991; Niehoff and Moorman, 1993). In Table I,
statistically significant correlations are found for power distance with both
justice variables, job satisfaction, and affective trust.
Table II presents the results of regressing the four outcome measures on the
independent variables. Consistent with previous results, procedural justice
more strongly associates with the institution-related assessment of trust than
distributive justice. Distributive justice more strongly associates with the
personal assessment of job satisfaction.
All four sets of interaction terms are statistically significant in the equations.
Graphs depicting significant interactions are presented in Figure 1. As the
graphs indicate, different trends emerged for those higher in power distance
Variable
1. Power distance13
2. Proced. justicea
3. Distrib. justice*3
4. Negative affecta
5. Job satisfaction*3
6. Intent to quitb
7. Affective trust*3
8. Org. cit. beh.b

Mean
3.16
2.67
3.05
1.77
3.86
3.23
3.91
4.68

SD

1.06 (0.69)
0.93 0.18 (0.79)
1.02 0.33
0.43 (0.89)
0.73 -0.10 -0.04
0.06 (0.87)
1.14 0.22
0.44 -0.17 (0.69)
0.34
1.36 0.04
0.02 -0.04
0.26 -0.31 (0.87)
1.24 0.38
0.30
0.32 -0.01
0.15 -0.09 (0.87)
1.06 0.05
0.20
0.15
0.00
0.25 -0.21 0.15 (0.78)

Table I.
Means, standard
deviations, reliabilities,
and correlations for the Notes: Coefficient alpha reliability estimates are shown on the diagonal. n = 257. a Fivepoint scale; b seven-point scale. r = 0.10, p < 0.05; r = 0.14, p < 0.01; r = 0.19, p < 0.001
studys variables

Outcomes

Negative effectivity
AR2

AT

IQ

OCB

-0.15*
0.02*

0.01
0.00

0.27**
0.07**

0.01
0.00

0.06
0.16**
0.39**
0.25**

0.30**
0.20**
0.15*
0.23**

0.11
0.06
-0.12
0.02**

0.00
0.19**
0.09
0.06**

PD x PJ
PD x DJ
PJ x DJ
AR2

0.23**
-0.17*
0.06
0.04**

-0.02
-0.25**
0.01
0.07**

-0.19*
0.23**
-0.07
0.04**

0.28**
-0.24**
-0.12
0.06**

F
Total R2
n

16.33**
0.32
257

15.10**
0.30
257

5.31**
0.13
257

4.81**
0.12
257

Power distance (PD)

Procedural justice (PJ)
Distributive justice (DJ)
AR2

Table II.
Results of analysis
using hierarchical
regression

JS

Notes: JS = job satisfaction; AT = affective trust; IQ = intent to quit; OCB = organizational

citizenship behavior. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01

Power distance
and justice

Job Satisfaction

703
PJ

DJ
Affective Trust

DJ

Intent to Q uit

High PD

Low PD

PJ

DJ

O rganizational C itizenship Behavior

Low PD
H igh PD
O CB

PJ

DJ

Note: PD = Power Distance; PJ = Procedural Justice; DJ = Distributive Justice; JS = Job

Satisfaction; AT = Affective Trust; IQ = Intent to Quit; OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Figure 1.
Power distance as a
moderator of the
relationships of
procedural justice and
distributive justice with
job satisfaction, affective
trust, intent to quit, and
organizational
citizenship behavior

Journal of
Managerial
Psychology
17,8

704

than those lower. Higher power distance relates with procedural justice while
lower power distance relates with distributive justice. For those higher in
power distance, increases in procedural justice predict increased job
satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior and decreased intent to
quit. For those lower in power distance, increases in distributive justice predict
increased job satisfaction and OCB and decreased intent to quit. As indicated
by its absence from Figure 1, the higher power distance interaction with
procedural justice does not predict affective trust. However, the low power
distance interaction with distributive justice in predicting affective trust is
evident. Interactions of procedural with distributive justice, frequently
observed in previous studies, are absent here.
H I postulated that a stronger relationship of procedural justice with positive
outcomes would be found among those higher in power distance. H2 predicted
that a stronger relationship of distributive justice with positive outcomes
would be found among those lower in power distance. Both predictions
received support.
Discussion

In the interactive effects tested in this study, power distance moderated the
associations of justice perceptions with employee outcomes in the predicted
directions. A theory of authority-member relations in groups (Tyler, 1989;
Tyler et al., 1998), served as the basis for the hypotheses. This theory connects
the perceived legitimacy of authority-group member relations to assessments
of justice. Tyler et al. (1995) extended this model by identifying power distance
as an individual difference construct expected to predict attitudes toward
authority, especially as it guides those lower in power distance to connect
leader legitimacy with procedural fairness. Adapted to justice-employee
outcome relations, these notions led us to argue that those lower in power
distance develop strong relationships with authorities, obviating worries about
procedural fairness while leaving expectations of distributive justice more
tenuous. Those higher in power distance, on the other hand, have more distant
relationships with superiors, making procedural justice an important concern
while reducing expectations of distributive justice.
The study assumes that the main constructs are etic, that is, generalizable
across cultures. With the exception of OCB (Farh et al., 1997), this assumption
has not been validated in Chinese samples. However, most of the scales showed
good reliabilities, the means and standard deviations compared reasonably
well with samples of mainly US employees, the questionnaire was
backtranslated by Chinese bi-linguals, and the results fit comprehensibly with
previous findings, all of which supports the constructs as etic. Further, recent
studies using samples from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and China have
found justice constructs effective in predicting outcomes (e.g. Lam et al., 2002;
Aryee and Chay, 2001; Lee and Farh, 1999). In addition, the main tenets of the
relational model of authority in groups echo the concept of guanxi, which is a
key feature of Chinese relationships (Yeung and Tung, 1996). Guanxi translates

as connections or relationships (Yeung and Tung, 1996), but at a deeper

level refers to the manner in which Chinese strategically employ relations as a
social resource . .. [it] implies a special connection between people, a connection
which brings along with it interactants special rights and obligations,
resulting from including the interactants as ingroup members (Chang and
Holt, 1991, p. 256). In Chinese society, which does not have the legalistic,
objective framework of many Western societies, people rely on particularistic,
subjective relationships to obtain desired benefits. Connections with authorities
who have greater access to valued resources is vital in securing these benefits.
Those who have such connections benefit from mutual exchanges in the favor
game (Hwang, 1987). At work, ones boss is a key connection in obtaining
resources from the larger organization (Wall, 1990).
Results of our study also showed that negative affectivity related negatively
to job satisfaction but positively to turnover intention. People with negative
affect may be more critical of their work environment and thus more likely to
scan for job opportunities. Our results are consistent with Hui et al. (1999) who,
in a study of a Sino-Hong Kong joint venture in Shenzhen, China, found
negative affectivity to relate positively to job mobility. Future studies should
examine the relations of negative affectivity with other organizational
outcomes.
In absolute terms, the average power distance score reported in the
organization studied was relatively low, so comparisons here may be between
those who report low assessments versus those who report moderate ones.
The scores call into question the tendency to characterize China as a high
power distance society (e.g. Pye, 1985). The results also support the
relevance of assessing intent to quit in Chinese samples. Not only did the
Chinese sample show relatively high scores on intent to quit, but also the
independent variables predicted it in ways consistent with other outcome
measures.
A study weakness is its cross-sectional nature, making causal inference
impossible. Additionally, all study measures are self-report, which raises the
possibility of response set bias. As a partial attempt to address the latter, we
included negative affectivity as a control variable. Common method variance is
less likely to be a problem in this study than in other self-report studies,
because it is hard for common methods to produce the complex results depicted
by interactive terms. Any study of a single organization raises questions about
generalizability. However, characteristics of the data conform reasonably well
with those reported in previous studies. Finally, based on reported employee
morale and differences found in testing for the effects of missing cases, we are
most confident in the applicability of the findings to lower level workers in
factories characterized by relatively low morale.
Weaknesses notwithstanding, this study sought to understand the role
played by power distance in moderating relationships of justice with employee
outcomes. Power distance relates not only to justice but also to the literature
on cross-cultural relations. The central role ascribed to relationships in

Power distance
and justice

705

Journal of
Managerial
Psychology
17,8

706

the group values model and by scholars characterizing Chinese social life
indicate the value of testing these theories in additional samples of Chinese
employees.
If the results of this study hold up in future research, practical ramifications
include the need to attend to power distance in predicting procedural and
distributive justice relations with important employee outcomes. Procedural
concerns predict job satisfaction, intent to quit, and OCB among those higher in
power distance; distributive concerns predict all four outcome variables among
those lower in power distance. The results also reinforce the value of leaders
and subordinates forging strong working relationships and suggest that efforts
to reduce perceptions of injustice should contribute to more effective
organizational relations. Finally, comparative knowledge of Western and
Chinese patterns of organizational life guides understanding of multi-cultural
interactions that are increasingly common within existing organizations and in
cross-border interorganizational relations.
References
Ackerman, G. and Brockner, J. (1996), Comparing the role of voice in the Peoples Republic of
China and the United States: the mediating effect of power distance, paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Cincinnati, OH.
Adams, J.S. (1965), Inequity in social exchange, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 267-99.
Aryee, S. and Chay, Y.W. (2001), Workplace justice, citizenship behavior and turnover
intentions in a union context: examining the mediating role of perceived union support and
union instrumentality,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 154-60.
Aryee, S. and Chen, Z.X. (1999), Social exchange perspective of employee work attitude
and behavior: a comparison of perceived organizational support and leader-member
exchange in China, paper presented at the National Academy of Management Meetings,
Chicago, IL.
Aryee, S. and Chen, Z.X. (2000), Organizational antecedents of leader-member exchange (LMX)
and the mediating role of psychological empowerment in the LMX-work outcome
relationship: an investigation in China, Paper presented at the National Academy of
Management Meetings, Toronto.
Ashford, S.J., Lee, C. and Bobko, P. (1989), Content, causes, and consequences of job insecurity: a
theory-based measure and substantive test, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32,
pp. 803-29.
Ball, H.P., Trevino, L.K. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1994), Just and unjust punishment: influences on
subordinate performance and citizenship, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37,
pp. 299-322.
Baruch, Y. (1999), Response rate in academic studies - a comparative analysis, Human
Relations, Vol. 52, pp. 421-38.
Bochner, S. and Hesketh, B. (1994), Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job-related
attitudes in a culturally diverse work group, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 25,
pp. 233-57.
Bond, M.H. and Hwang, K.K. (1987), The social psychology of Chinese people, in Bond, M.H.
(Ed.), The Psychology of Chinese People, Oxford University Press, New York, NY,
pp. 213-66.

Brief, A.P., Butcher, A.H. and Roberson, L. (1995), Cookie, disposition, and job attitudes: the
effects of positive mood-inducing events and negative affectivity on job satisfaction in a
field experiment, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 62,
pp. 55-62.
Brislin, R. (1980), Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials, in Triandis, H.
and Berry, J. (Eds), Handbook o f Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 2: Methodology, Allyn &
Bacon, Boston, mA, pp. 389-444.
Brockner, J. and Wiesenfeld, B.M. (1996), An integrative framework for explaining reactions to
decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 120,
pp. 189-208.
Chang, H.C. and Holt, G.R. (1991), More than relationship: interaction and the principle of kuanhis, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp. 251-71.
Chen, X., Hui, C. and Sego, D.J. (1998), The role of organizational citizenship behavior in
turnover: conceptualization and preliminary tests of hypotheses, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 922-31.
Chen, Z-X, Lee, C. and Bobko, P. (2001), Test of a multidimensional model of job insecurity in
China: comparison and extension, paper presented at the 2001 National Academy of
Management Meetings, August 3-8, Washington, DC.
Chiu, C.Y. (1991), Responses to injustice in popular Chinese sayings among Hong Kong Chinese
students,Journal o f Social Psychology, Vol. 131, pp. 655-65.
Chiu, C.Y. and Hong, Y.Y. (1997), Justice in Chinese societies: a Chinese perspective, in Kao,
H.S.R. and Sinha, D. (Eds), Asian Perspectives on Psychology, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Clugston, M., Howell, J.P. and Dorfman, P.W. (1997), Examining organizational commitment
across cultural dimensions, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of
Management, Boston, MA.
Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O.L.H. and Ng, I. (2001), Justice at the
millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 425-45.
Dailey, R.C. and Kirk, D.J. (1992), Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of job
dissatisfaction and intent to turnover, Human Relations, Vol. 45, pp. 305-17.
Deutch, M. (1975), Equity, equality and need: what determines which value will be used as the
basis for distributive justice?,Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 31, pp. 137-49.
Dorfman, P.W. and Howell, J.P. (1988), Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership
patterns: Hofstede revisited, Advances in International Comparative Management, Vol. 3,
pp. 127-50.
Earley, P.C. (1993), East meets West meets Mideast: further explorations of colletivistic and
individualistic work groups, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 319-48.
Farh, J.L., Earley, P.C. and Lin, S.C. (1997), Impetus for action: a cultural analysis of justice and
organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 42, pp. 421-44.
Folger, R. and Konovsky, M.A. (1989), Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions
to pay raise decisions, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 32, pp. 115-30.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960), The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 25, pp. 161-78.
Greenberg, J. (1993), Justice and organizational citizenship: a commentary on the state of the
science, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 249-56.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1975), Development of the job diagnostic survey, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 159-70.

Power distance
and justice

707

Journal of
Managerial
Psychology
17,8

708

Haidt, J., Koller, S.H. and Dias, M.G. (1993), Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat
your dog?,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 613-28.
Hochwarter, W.A., Zellars, K.L. and Perrewe, P.L. (1999), The interactive role of negative
affectivity and job characteristics: are high-NA employees destined to be unhappy at
work?,Journal o f Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 29, pp. 2203-18.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values,
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hui, C., Law, K.S. and Chen, Z.X. (1999), A structural equation model of the effects of negative
affectivity, leader-member exchange, and perceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role
performance: a Chinese case, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 77, pp. 3-21.
Hui, C.H., Triandis, H.C. and Yee, C. (1991), Cultural differences in reward allocations: is
collectivism the explanation?, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 30, pp. 145-57.
Hwang, K.K. (1987), Face and favor: the Chinese power game, American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 92, pp. 944-74.
Kim, W.C. and Mauborgne, R.A. (1996), Procedural justice and managers in-role and extra-role
behavior: the case of the multinational, Management Science, Vol. 42, pp. 499-515.
Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B. and Peng, D. (2000), The role of procedural justice, perceived
organizational support, and individualism-collectivism in motivating organizational
citizenship behavior of employees in the Peoples Republic Of China, paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Toronto.
Laaksonen, O. (1988), Management in China During and after Mao in Enterprises, Government,
and Party, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
Lam, S.S.K., Schaubroeck, J. and Aryee, S. (2002), Relationship between organizational justice
and employee work outcomes: a cross-national study,Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 23, pp. 1-18.
Lam, S.S.K., Hui, C. and Law, K.S. (1999), Organizational citizenship behavior: comparing
perspectives of supervisors and subordinates across four international samples, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, pp. 594-601.
Lee, C., Bobko, P. and Chen, Z.X. (2002), Investigation of the multidimensional model of job
insecurity: are all components necessary?, Northeastern University working paper.
Lee, C., Law, K.S. and Pillutla, M. (1997), Procedural justice in Hong Kong: a replication and
extension of North American models, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Academy of Management, Boston, MA.
Lee, C. and Farh, J.L. (1999), The effects of gender in organizational justice perception, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, pp. 133-43.
Leung, K. and Bond, M.H. (1984), The impact of cultural collectivism on reward allocation,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 793-804.
Leung, K. and Iwawaki, S. (1988), Cultural collectivism and distributive behavior, Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 19, pp. 35-49.
Leung, K., Smith, P.B., Wang, Z. and Sun, H. (1997), Job satisfaction in joint venture hotels in
China: an organizational justice analysis, in Beamish, P.W. and Killing, J.P. (Eds),
Cooperative Strategies: Asian Pacific Perspectives, New Lexington, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 226-44.
Leventhal, G.S. (1980), What should be done with equity theory?, in Gergen, K.J., Greenberg,
M.S. and Willis, R.H. (Eds), Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum,
New York, NY, pp. 27-55.
Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of ProceduralJustice, Plenum, New York,
NY.

Lind, E.A., Tyler, T.R. and Huo, YJ. (1997), Procedural context and culture: variations in the
antecedents of procedural justice judgments,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 73, pp. 767-80.
McAllister, D.J. (1995), Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations, Academy o f Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 24-59.
McFarlin, D.B. and Sweeney, P.D. (1992), Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of
satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 35, pp. 626-37.
Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M. and Taylor, M.S. (2000), Integrating justice and social
exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships,
Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 43, pp. 738-48.
Meindl, J.R., Cheng, Y.K. and Jun, L. (1990), Distributive justice in the workplace: preliminary
data on managerial preferences in the PRC, in Shaw, B.B., Beck, J.E., Ferris, G.R. and
Rowland, K.M. (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Suppl. 2,
JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 221-36.
Moorman, R.H. (1991), Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 845-55.
Mossholder, K.W., Bennett, N. and Martin, C.L. (1998), A multilevel analysis of procedural
justice context,Journal o f Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 131-41.
Munz, D.C., Huelsman, T.J., Konold, T.R. and McKinney, J.J. (1996), Are there methodologies and
substantive roles for affectivity in job diagnostic survey relationships?,Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 795-805.
Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), Justice as a mediator of the relationship between
methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 527-56.
Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1989), A second generation measure of organizational
citizenship behavior, unpublished manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on trust, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp. 107-42.
Price, J.L. and Mueller, C.W. (1986), Handbook of Organizational Measurement, Pittman,
Marshfield, MA.
Pye, L.W. (1985), Asian Power and Politics: The Cultural Dimensions of Authority, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ralston, D.A., Holt, D.H., Terpstra, R.H. and Kai-Cheng, Y. (1997), The impact of national culture
and economic ideology on managerial work values: a study of the United States, Japan,
Russia, and China,Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 28, pp. 177-207.
Renn, R.W. and Vandenberg, R.J. (1995), The critical psychological states: an underrepresented
component in job characteristics model research, Journal of Management, Vol. 21,
pp. 279-303.
Rousseau, D.M. (1995), Psychological Contracts in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Rousseau, D.M., Hui, C. and Lee, C. (2002), Organization versus relationships in China:
are organizational influences distinguishable from personal relations with ones
manager?, paper presented at the National Academy of Management Meetings, Denver,
CO.
Schaubroeck, J., May, D.R. and Brown, F.W. (1994), Procedural justice explanations and
employee reactions to economic hardship: a field experiment, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 455-60.

Power distance
and justice

709

Journal of
Managerial
Psychology
17,8

710

Skarlicki, D.P. and Folger, R. (1997), Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive,
procedural, and interactional justice,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 434-43.
Skarlicki, D.P. and Latham, G.P. (1996), Increasing citizenship behavior within a labor union: a
test of organizational justice theory,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 161-9.
Sweeney, P.D. and McFarlin, D.B. (1993), Workers evaluations of the ends and means: an
examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 55, pp. 23-40.
Sweeney, P.D. and McFarlin, D.B. (1997), Process and outcome: gender differences in the
assessment of justice,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 83-98.
Thibaut, J. and Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Lawrence
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Tyler, T.R. (1989), The psychology of procedural justice: a test of the group value model,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 57, pp. 830-8.
Tyler, T.R., Lind, E.A. and Huo, Y. (1995), Culture, ethnicity, and authority: social categorization
and social orientation effects on the psychology of legitimacy, working paper, University
of California, Berkeley, CA.
Tyler, T.R., Lind, E.A., Ohbuchi, K.I., Sugawara, I. and Huo, Y. (1998), Conflict with outsiders:
disputing within and across cultural boundaries, Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, Vol. 24, pp. 137-46.
Wall, J.A. (1990), Managers in the Peoples Republic of China, Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 4, pp. 19-32.
Wanberg, C.R., Bunce, L.W. and Gavin, M.B. (1999), Perceived fairness of layoffs among
individuals who have been laid off: a longitudinal study, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52,
pp. 59-84.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A. and Tellegan, A. (1988), Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 1063-70.
Watson, D., Pennebaker, J.W. and Folger, R. (1987), Beyond negative affectivity: measuring
stress and satisfaction in the workplace,Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,
Vol. 8, pp. 141-57.
Williams, S. and Shiaw, W.T. (1999), Mood and organizational citizenship behavior: the effects
of positive affect on employee organizational citizenship behavior intentions, Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 133, pp. 656-68.
Wright, T.A. and Cropanzano, R. (1998), Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance
and voluntary turnover,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 486-93.
Yang, K.S. (1993), Chinese social orientation: an integrative analysis, in Cheng, L.Y., Cheung,
F.M.C. and Chen, C.N. (Eds), Psychotherapy for the Chinese: Selected Papers from the First
International Conference, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, pp. 19-56
Yeung, I.Y.M. and Tung, R.L. (1996), Achieving business success in Confucian societies: the
importance of guanxi (connections), Organizational Dynamics, Autumn, pp. 54-65.
Further reading
Alexander, S. and Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in
organizational behavior, SocialJustice Research, Vol. 1, pp. 177-98.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (1998), OrganizationalJustice and Human Resource Management,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Greenberg, J. and Cropanzano, R. (2001), Advances in OrganizationalJustice, Stanford University

Press, Stanford, CA.
Lee, C., Pillutla, M. and Law, K. (2000), Power-distance, gender and organizational justice,
Journal of Management, Vol. 26, pp. 685-704.
Leung, K. (1987), Some determinants of reactions to procedural models for conflict resolution: a
cross-national study,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 898-908.
Leung, K. and Li, W.K. (1990), Psychological mechanisms of process control effects, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 613-20.
Leung, K. and Lind, E.A. (1986), Procedural justice and culture: effects of culture, gender, and
investigator status on procedural preferences, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 1134-40.

Power distance
and justice

711