2. Justice across cultures Ron Fischer Psyc338

3. Reward Allocation and Justice Perceptions of justice Distributive Justice & Reward Allocation –Contextual model of reward allocation –Review of research related to this model –Some generalizations to organizations Procedural Justice (Perceptions of decisions made by authorities) –Importance of cultural values Justice in a broader context

5. Contextual Model of Reward Allocation (Leung, 1997) Culture interacts with situational variables Goal-directed view of allocation behaviour Interaction goals act as mediators between culture and allocation preferences Two important situational factors: –Role of recipient –Role of allocator

6. Role of allocator Allocator is recipient (dual role) –Importance of the role of the recipient –In-group/Out-group differentiation in more collectivistic cultures –Harmony motive when allocating to in-group members Allocator not recipient (supervisory role) –Allocator not tied to recipients in zero-sum situation –Allocation norm reflects situational goal (e.g., productivity in work setting) –No cultural differences

7. ‘Allocator is recipient’ studies Some support for cultural differences Hui et al. (1990): IndCol can explain cultural differences for the unlimited resource condition, but not for the limited resource condition Problems: –Equality – self-serving vs. other-serving/generosity –Availability of resources –IndCol too global and non-specific?

8. ‘Allocator not recipient’ studies Fischer & Smith (2003) Meta-analysis of previous studies Goal: Quantitative review of cross-cultural studies investigating differences in the use of reward allocation principles –20 usable studies with 25 comparisons (23 independent experiments) –4646 participants from 14 countries Questions: –Are there cross-cultural differences? –If yes, do the effect sizes found co-vary with cultural dimensions?

9. Method Experimental studies: scenario/laboratory studies –Contrast analysis (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1985) to calculate effect size r (Rosenthal, 1992; 1994)

10. Analysis Potentially important variables: –Students versus employees –Study design –Cultural characteristics

11. Results Descriptive results –r =.07; p <.05 Students prefer different allocation principles than do employees –Students’ r =.15 –Employees’ r = -.49 Correlation with Culture –GINI index: r =.46, p =.05 –Hierarchy: r =.67, p <.01

12. Conclusions There are reliable, although small differences across nations Experiments with students not representative of employees Cultural dimensions covary with effect sizes –Hierarchical differentiation is associated with more equitable allocations –Individualism not or only weakly related to cross- cultural differences –Future studies need to include both variables!

13. Problems with previous studies Scenario studies (artificial, no real-life consequences) Student samples Organization level variables (sector, organizational culture, organizational performance) neglected (Fischer, 2004) Narrow focus on countries studied (Child et al., 2000) Ecological fallacies

14. What is happening in the ‘real’ world? Fischer, Smith & Richey (in review); Fischer (2004) Focus on full-time employees Justice perceptions of allocation norms used in a company when various decisions (pay raise, promotion, dismissal) are made

15. Allocation norms Equity (performance) Need Equality (Deutsch, 1975) Seniority How often used when company gave pay raises, promotions, asked employees to leave the organisation

16. Allocations in European organizations (Fischer, 2004) Equity more important in British organizations Need more important in British organizations Important sector differences (public versus private): equity, need, equality, seniority

18. How to explain these differences? Importance of cultural, economic, and organizational variables

19. Survey measures Organizational success: alpha >.72 (exc. UK:.65) Organizational culture: economic and egalitarian culture (alphas above.60) Cultural values: Hierarchy (ICC =.16), Conservatism (ICC =.13) Average unemployment rate (International Labor Organization)

20. General results Differences across samples in reported use of allocation principles Organizational variables explain differences (mediators) (in the case of equity and equality), national values have little effect National values and socio-economic indicators (average unemployment rate) operate as mediators (in the case of need), organization level variables have little effect

21. Predicting reliance on equity Organization level variables: Δ R² =.19** –Private sector: β =.15, p <.01 –Economic culture: β =.09, p =.08 –Egalitarian culture: β =.41, p <.001 Nation level variables: Δ R² =.02 ns.

22. Predicting reliance on equality Organization level variables: Δ R² =.22** –Egalitarian culture: β =.47, p <.001 Nation level variables: Δ R² =.01 ns.

23. Predicting reliance on need Organization level variables: Δ R² =.01 Nation level variables: Δ R² =.03** –East Germany: β = -.12, p <.05 –Mediators: Conservation & Hierarchy (Δ R² =.02**) –Mediators: Unemployment rate: β = -.16, p <.01

24. Cultural variablesEconomic variables Organizational Practices, Culture and Structure Reward Allocations Theory-driven multi-level research (Fischer, 2003; Fischer et al., 2004)

25. How do people react? Fischer & Smith (2004) What is seen as fair? –Smith et al. (1989) How do employees react when their manager uses certain allocation principles? Focus on values as standards to guide the selection or evaluation of behaviour, people and events

26. Values as moderators Use of allocation principles Equity & Seniority Is this fair ??? Values Decision-Maker

27. Schwartz Value Survey (1992)

28. Sample East German (N = 184) and British (N = 120) full- time employees Equity & seniority: LISREL analysis (49.50 < χ² [15] 15.85;.92 < GFI <.98;.91 < CFI < 1.00) Justice: shortened Niehoff and Moorman (1993) scale; general perceptions of organizational justice (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman & Taylor, 2000); LISREL analysis (χ² (28) = 31.60, n.s.; CFI = 1.00, GFI =.98) Schwartz Value Survey (1992): 44 values, alphas >.75

29. Interaction between self-enhancement (high) versus self-transcendence (low) values and consideration of work performance on justice

30. Interaction between self-enhancement (high) versus self-transcendence (low) values and consideration of seniority on justice

31. Conclusions Values influence how we perceive organizational events (moderation effects) Ethnic and cultural diversity in the workforce create challenges, because value differences will lead to different perceptions of the same event Managers need to build consensus to ensure harmonious and productive work atmosphere

32. Updated summary Cultural values Socio-economic condition Organizational culture Sector & Industry Work attitudes & behavior HR Decisions

33. A broader perspective Justice important social constructions Issues of accountability and social justice Mikula & Wenzel (2000): –Injustices can elicit or invoke social conflicts (trigger function) –Justice as a rhetorical function –Justice as a conflict resolution principle

34. Take home message There are differences in what people people perceive as fair (importance of values) Both socio-cultural (power distance), economic (unemployment rate) and organizational factors (organizational culture, sector) are important for understanding justice We need to get a better understanding of the social, cultural and temporal processes going on Issues of justice are important!!!!