Linking justice perceptions,workplace relationship quality and job performance: The differential roles of vertical and horizontal workplace relationships

Abstract

Due to decentralization, flat organizational structures and prevalence of team work, employees interact more frequently and intensively within horizontal relationships with coworkers than within vertical relationships with supervisors. The present study contributes to a more complete understanding of antecedents and outcomes of local, interpersonal workplace relationships by simultaneously investigating employee–supervisor and employee–coworker relationships. Drawing on organizational justice theory and social exchange theory as well as data collected from 571 employees at two points in time, this study explores how justice perceptions affect social exchange relationships with supervisors and coworkers, and identifies mechanisms through which these, in turn, enhance employee job performance. Results suggest that informational and interpersonal justice differentially affect the quality of employee–supervisor and employee–coworker relationships, underlining the relevance of considering both supervisors and coworkers as sources of justice. Moreover, the findings indicate that employee–supervisor and employee–coworker relationships contribute to job performance, but through distinct paths. Job satisfaction mediates the link between both social exchange relationships and job performance, while quality of employee–coworker relationships further enhances job performance through employees’ motivation to engage in learning and knowledge sharing.

Keywords

Job performance leader-member exchange organizational justice social exchange team-member exchange

Introduction

Research on social exchange theory suggests that employees differentiate between different types of workplace relationships, including their relationship with the firm as a whole, their supervisors and their coworkers (Aryee et al., 2002; Cole et al., 2002; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Initially, much research focused on employee–firm and employee–supervisor relationships, examining one or both of these exchange relationships (Brandes et al., 2004; Cole et al., 2002). The employee–firm relationship is considered as a global, distal exchange relationship, while the employee–supervisor relationship represents a local, dyadic relationship that entails regular interpersonal interactions (Brandes et al., 2004).

With increasing decentralization and dissemination of teams as primary organizational work units (Banks et al., 2014; Mesmer-Magnus and Dechurch, 2009), day-to-day and face-to-face interpersonal interactions gain in importance, placing greater emphasis on employees’ local, interpersonal workplace relationships – not only with their immediate supervisors, but also with their coworkers (Liao et al., 2010; Stinglhamber et al., 2006). While empirical research increasingly acknowledges the relevance of social exchanges between employees and their coworkers, studies that simultaneously investigate leader and coworker versions of exchange relationships are scarce (Banks et al., 2014; Liao et al., 2010). As a result, it remains unclear whether ‘one form of social exchange still matters in the presence of the other’ (Liao et al., 2010: 1090). In order to contribute to a more complete understanding of local social exchange relationships, this paper focuses on exchange relationships with both supervisors and coworkers.

As a framework to study these relationships, I turn to organizational justice theory and social exchange theory. Integrating these two research streams, the social exchange approach to organizational justice proposes the following causal chain: when employees are treated fairly at the workplace, they feel that the party responsible for the fair treatment has invested in their bilateral relationship and will thus perceive the quality of that social exchange relationship as higher (Lavelle et al., 2007; Scott and Colquitt, 2007). In turn, employees will feel obliged to reciprocate the fair treatment received by developing attitudes and engaging in behaviours that benefit the party responsible for the fair treatment (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Cropanzano et al., 2017). Transferred to the present research context, the social exchange approach to organizational justice suggests the following: when experiencing fair interactions with a supervisor or coworker, employees should perceive their relationship with that person as being of high quality and respond with positive attitudes and motivation to engage in behaviours that benefit that person and ultimately increase their job performance (Colquitt et al., 2013; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Cropanzano et al., 2017).

The causal chain linking justice perceptions, workplace relationship quality and employee attitudes and behaviour has received considerable empirical support (Colquitt et al., 2013). Moreover, prior research indicates that high-quality relationships both with supervisors and with coworkers are positively related to employee job performance (for meta-analytic reviews, see Banks et al., 2014; Dulebohn et al., 2012; Gerstner and Day, 1997; Martin et al., 2016). Yet with the absence of simultaneous investigations of supervisor and coworker versions of exchange relationships, two questions remain unanswered:

To which extent do employees hold coworkers responsible for the justice they experience, above and beyond the justice perceived to emanate from supervisors?

Do social exchange relationships with coworkers differ from those with supervisors regarding the mechanisms intervening between relationship quality and employee job performance?

Focusing on employees’ exchange relationships with both supervisors and coworkers, the goal of the present study is twofold. First, I aim to contribute to a more complete understanding of the relationship between employees’ justice perceptions and the quality of local, interpersonal workplace relationships. In particular, I aim to answer the following research question: To which extent do employees’ perceptions of informational and interpersonal justice have long-term effects on the quality of both employee–supervisor and employee–coworker relationships? I concentrate on informational justice, which reflects the perceived thoroughness, reasonableness and truthfulness of explanations employees receive for decisions and procedures, and interpersonal justice, which refers to the degree to which employees feel treated with politeness, dignity and respect (Colquitt, 2001; Cropanzano et al., 2001b; Greenberg, 1993), because the two ‘can be judged in virtually any encounter’ (Scott et al., 2007: 1597) and thus should be particularly relevant to fairness experienced in everyday interactions with both supervisors and coworkers (Scott et al., 2014). By examining how informational and interpersonal justice simultaneously and differentially impact the quality of employees’ relationships with supervisors and coworkers, this study integrates and extends preceding research. In contrast to the integrated approach presented here, prior research is limited either by excluding the employee–coworker relationship (e.g. Colquitt and Rodell, 2011; Karriker and Williams, 2009; Roch and Shanock, 2006), subsuming informational and interpersonal justice under the umbrella of interactional justice (Lavelle et al., 2009; Murphy et al., 2003), or both (e.g. Ambrose and Schminke, 2003; Cropanzano et al., 2002; Srikanth and Gurunathan, 2013; Stinglhamber et al., 2006).

Second I aim to shed light on mechanisms intervening between perceptions of local, interpersonal workplace relationships and job performance. While preceding literature discusses various mechanisms that might intervene between exchange relationship quality and job performance, mediating variables are seldom included in empirical studies, especially so with regard to the comparatively small number of empirical studies on employee–coworker relationships. Accordingly, the second research question of this study is this: Through which mechanisms do the quality of employees’ workplace relationship with supervisors and the quality of employees’ workplace relationship with coworkers contribute to individual job performance? The present study elaborates two distinct paths through which the quality of employees’ local, interpersonal workplace relationships might impact their job performance: employees’ job satisfaction on the one hand and employees’ motivation to engage in extra-role behaviour related to learning and knowledge sharing on the other. Results of mediation tests indicate that employee–supervisor and employee–coworker relationships differ in their impact on employee attitudes and thus contribute to job performance through distinct paths.

Theoretical background

In order to develop a model illustrating how justice perceptions affect the quality of employees’ relationships with supervisors and coworkers and identify mechanisms through which those relationships contribute to employee job performance, this study draws on organizational justice theory and social exchange theory. Stimulated by Rawls’ (1971: 3) notion of justice being ‘the first virtue of social institutions’, research on organizational justice aims to explain the impact of justice on the effective functioning of organizations (Colquitt, 2001). It is important to note that the field concentrates on organizational justice, that is, employees’ perceptions of the fairness with which they are treated at work (Aryee et al., 2002).

Within organizational justice literature, one stream of research investigates what qualifies as just, or fair, in an organizational context. A basic assumption of organizational justice theory is that ‘employees evaluate justice along a number of dimensions’ (Scott et al., 2009: 756) that are all subsumed under the overarching concept of organizational justice. Initially, organizational justice research was dominated by investigations of two dimensions of justice: distributive and procedural justice (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001). The construct of distributive justice is rooted in the work of Homans (1961) and Adams’ (1963) equity theory, and refers to the perceived fairness of organizational resource allocation decisions, particularly regarding the distribution of salary and other work-related rewards (Greenberg, 1987). Dating back to the work of Greenberg and Folger (1983), Leventhal (1976) and Thibaut and Walker (1975), procedural justice focuses on how these decisions are made, and refers to the perceived fairness of policies and procedures used in organizations to come to a decision (Greenberg, 1990).

Acknowledging that justice perceptions are influenced by factors beyond the content of allocation decisions and the formal procedures used to make these decisions, Bies and Moag (1986) introduced the concept of interactional justice, and thus consideration of the fairness of interpersonal treatment, into the organizational justice literature. In particular, Bies and Moag (1986) and Tyler and Bies (1990) argued that (a) the interpersonal treatment employees receive from decision makers and (b) the adequacy and thoroughness with which the rationale for decisions are explained to them form employees’ justice perceptions. Building on this notion, Greenberg (1993) suggested interactional justice to be decomposed into two components, namely informational justice and interpersonal justice. Informational justice reflects the perceived thoroughness, reasonableness and truthfulness of explanations provided for decisions and procedures; interpersonal justice refers to the degree to which employees feel treated with politeness, dignity and respect (Colquitt, 2001; Cropanzano et al., 2001b; Greenberg, 1993). Thus, informational and interpersonal justice disentangle the fairness of what is communicated from how it is communicated (Frazier et al., 2009), acknowledging that adequate and truthful content can be conveyed in an impolite and disrespectful manner and vice versa.

Taken together, organizational justice is considered to consist of four dimensions: distributive, procedural, informational and interpersonal justice. The four-factor model of organizational justice has received considerable support, with empirical studies showing that employees do, in fact, discriminate between four dimensions of organizational justice, which tend to exhibit differential relationships with outcome variables (Colquitt, 2001; Loi et al., 2009; Walumbwa et al., 2009).

Over the years, research on organizational justice has clearly linked justice perceptions to various beneficial employee attitudes and behaviours (for meta-analytic reviews, see Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Colquitt et al., 2013). Drawing on these findings, another stream within organizational justice research aims to explain why employees’ justice perceptions influence their attitudes and behaviour, and investigates the mechanisms underlying these relationships. One theoretical approach to explaining these relationships is integration of organizational justice theory with social exchange theory.

Social exchange theory is not a single theory, but a broad, multidisciplinary paradigm embracing a family of related conceptual models (Colquitt et al., 2013; Cropanzano et al., 2017; Rupp and Cropanzano, 2002). Contemporary models of social exchange theory draw primarily on Blau’s (1964) work (Colquitt et al., 2013). Blau (1964) distinguishes two forms of exchange: economic and social. Economic exchanges are quid pro quo transactions, where all the transfers to be made are being agreed upon in advance (Blau, 1964; Rupp and Cropanzano, 2002). The resources exchanged are tangible and have extrinsic benefits, that is, the benefits they entail are detachable from the source that provides the resources (Blau, 1964).

Social exchanges, on the other hand, involve the exchange of mostly intangible, social resources, such as advice, approval, assistance, compliance, esteem or respect (Blau, 1964; Colquitt and Rodell, 2011). These resources tend to provide intrinsic benefits that are bound to the individuals involved and do not have an exact price (Blau, 1964). Blau (p. 92) suggests that ‘the need to reciprocate for benefits received in order to continue receiving them’ is the driver of social exchanges. Thus, in social exchange relationships the dominant rule of exchange is that of reciprocity (Colquitt et al., 2013), a universal norm demanding that individuals ‘help those who have helped them’ (Gouldner, 1960: 171). Yet in contrast to economic exchanges, social exchanges entail unspecified obligations, where the nature and the timing of the return are not specified but left to the discretion of the party that will provide it (Blau, 1964).

In their critical review of social exchange theorizing, Cropanzano et al. (2017) outline the basic causal chain that contemporary models of social exchange theory propose, drawing on Blau’s (1964) seminal work. At the beginning of the social exchange process, an exchange partner provides another party with benefits, without demanding an instant return for the favour. Or, as Blau (p. 98) states, ‘the establishment of exchange relations involves making investments that constitute commitments to the other party’. As a result, the quality of the exchange relationship transforms; feelings of personal obligation, gratitude and trust now characterize the relationship (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano et al., 2017). Motivated to maintain that high-quality exchange relationship, the target individual feels obliged to reciprocate the benefits received and thus provides the exchange partner with valued social resources in return (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano et al., 2017).

Integrating the logic of contemporary social exchange models with organizational justice theory – an approach that dates back to the work of Organ and Konovsky (1989; see also Organ, 1990) – allows for an explanation of why and how organizational justice triggers beneficial employee attitudes and behaviours. Key to this social exchange approach to organizational justice is the notion that justice qualifies as an intangible social resource that can be exchanged within social exchange relationships (Colquitt and Rodell, 2011; Colquitt et al., 2013). When his or her exchange partners at the workplace treat an employee fairly, the employee perceives the exchange partners as investing in their relationship, thereby showing commitment to the employee and their relationship. As a result, the employee should perceive the quality of his or her relationship with the party who provided fair treatment as higher (Scott and Colquitt, 2007). In turn, the employee will feel a personal obligation to reciprocate. In exchange for the fair treatment received, he or she will develop attitudes or engage in behaviours that benefit the according exchange partners, thereby investing social resources in their exchange relationship (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Cropanzano et al., 2017). Taken together, the social exchange approach to organizational justice suggests that the quality of social exchange relationships intervenes between justice perceptions and beneficial employee attitudes and behaviours (Colquitt et al., 2013; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Rupp et al., 2014).

Framework and hypotheses

Building on the social exchange approach to organizational justice outlined above, the research framework (Figure 1) links justice perceptions to quality of employee–supervisor and employee–coworker relationships, which in turn are proposed to affect employee job performance via employee attitudes. As outlined in the following, justice perceptions were measured at time 1, while perceptions of relationship quality, employee attitudes and job performance are assessed 1 year later (time 2). In addition to the hypothesized paths depicted in Figure 1, this study responds to calls for including all four justice dimensions in order to gain a comprehensive picture of justice effects (e.g. Colquitt, 2001; Cropanzano et al., 2001b) and controls for the effect of perceived distributive and procedural justice on both employee–supervisor and employee–coworker relationship quality. Moreover, age and gender are included as control variables with paths to all endogenous variables.

The effect of justice perceptions on the quality of local social exchange relationships

The first set of hypotheses concerns the effect of informational and interpersonal justice on the quality of employees’ local, interpersonal workplace relationships, that is, the vertical relationship with their supervisor and the horizontal relationship with their coworkers. The basic logic underlying these hypotheses is that of the social exchange approach to organizational justice described earlier: employees who experience justice should perceive the fair treatment received as a benefit, signalling that the exchange partner who provided them with fair treatment is committed to and willing to invest in their relationship. Consequently, they should experience the relationship with the exchange partner responsible for the fair treatment as being of high quality. Thus, the key to predicting links between informational and interpersonal justice and workplace relationship quality lies in explaining to whom employees attribute experiences of informational and interpersonal justice (Rupp and Cropanzano, 2002).

As informational and interpersonal justice reflect the perceived fairness of what is communicated and how it is communicated, they are determined by the content and tone of interpersonal encounters employees have at work (Frazier et al., 2009). Supervisors are one of the employees’ most frequent and influential interaction partners at work (Dienesch and Liden, 1986). As they depend on each other to accomplish their goals, supervisors and subordinates need to regularly interact with each other, be it personally or mediated through communication technologies, in order to set goals and deadlines, coordinate tasks, exchange information and feedback, and so forth (Dulebohn et al., 2012). Within these personal encounters, employees will assess whether supervisors adhere to the principles of informational and interpersonal justice, that is, provide thorough, reasonable and truthful explanations, and behave politely and respectfully. As a result, despite their role of representatives of the organization and agents enacting organizational policies (Cropanzano et al., 2001a; Masterson et al., 2000), supervisors should be perceived as having some discretion with regard to the extent to which they treat employees fairly during personal encounters (Al-Atwi, 2018; Scott and Colquitt, 2007; Scott et al., 2014). That is, employees should perceive supervisors to be at least partly accountable for the extent to which they experience informational and interpersonal justice at work.

Following Blau’s (1964) reasoning, when being treated fairly by their supervisors with respect to criteria of informational and interpersonal justice, employees should perceive that their supervisors made a discretionary investment in their relationship, signalling their commitment to the relationship. In turn, employees should evaluate their exchange relationship with their supervisors positively (Roch and Shanock, 2006; Scott and Colquitt, 2007). Taken together, based on the logic of the social exchange approach to organizational justice and in line with previous empirical findings (e.g. Roch and Shanock, 2006; Walumbwa et al., 2009), I propose employees’ perceptions of informational and interpersonal justice to be positively related to the quality of the employee–supervisor relationship.

As an indicator for the quality of employees’ social exchange relationship with their supervisors, the present study draws on leader-member exchange (Dienesch and Liden, 1986). Employee–supervisor relationships high in leader-member exchange are characterized by greater mutual trust, interaction, support and respect, while employee–supervisor relationships low in leader-member exchange are confined to the interactions required by the employee’s role definition (Dienesch and Liden, 1986; Epitropaki and Martin, 2005; Hogg et al., 2005). Integrating the construct of leader-member exchange into the proposed line of reasoning, I hypothesize the following:

H1: (a) Informational and (b) interpersonal justice positively affect leader-member exchange.

In addition to their impact on quality of employee–supervisor relationships, I propose informational and interpersonal justice to significantly contribute to the quality of employee–coworker relationships. In particular, I argue that, besides supervisors, employees should perceive their coworkers as a significant source of informational and interpersonal justice. In modern organizations, decentralization and prevalence of team work (Banks et al., 2014; Mesmer-Magnus and Dechurch, 2009) have reduced the frequency and intensity with which employees and supervisors interact – a tendency that is amplified by trends such as flatter organizational structures, more complex and collective tasks, or greater physical distance from supervisors due to internationalization (e.g. Chiaburu and Harrison, 2008; De Jong et al., 2005; Harrison et al., 2000). Today, task accomplishment and goal attainment depend heavily on frequent, direct and intensive interactions between coworkers (Chiaburu and Harrison, 2008), such that coworkers rather than supervisors should dominate day-to-day operations.

With coworkers becoming more relevant and salient interaction partners, employees who evaluate overall informational and interpersonal justice should particularly take into account whether coworkers provide them with thorough, reasonable and truthful information and treat them politely and respectfully. Hereby, employees should perceive their coworkers’ discretion regarding adherence to the principles of informational and interpersonal justice as at least as great as that of supervisors. While what information supervisors are allowed to share and how they communicate with subordinates might to some extent be prescribed by their formal role and modelled in training, employees might perceive their coworkers’ behaviour in interpersonal interaction to be less restricted by the organization. Taken together, I contend that employees should attribute a significant share of the informational and interpersonal justice they experience at work to their coworkers.

Again, the social exchange approach to organizational justice suggests that, to the extent to which employees assign assessments of informational and interpersonal justice to their coworkers, each of these justice dimensions should uniquely contribute to the quality of exchange relationships with coworkers. To capture the quality of social exchange relationships among coworkers I draw on the construct of team-member exchange, which refers to the perceived effectiveness of working relationships with other members of the work group (Liden et al., 2000; Seers, 1989). Accordingly, I hypothesize the following:

H2: (a) Informational and (b) interpersonal justice positively affect team-member exchange.

It is important to note that I propose perceptions of informational and interpersonal justice to have an enduring impact on the quality of employees’ relationships with both supervisors and coworkers, for two reasons. First, in line with the social entity paradigm of organizational justice (Cropanzano et al., 2001a), in order to appraise general levels of informational and interpersonal justice in their organization, employees should aggregate across specific events. With employees weighting and combining justice perceptions of several events, the resulting judgements of informational and interpersonal justice develop over the course of time and should thus be rather stable (Cropanzano et al., 2001a). Second, as Colquitt et al. (2013: 204) suggest, ‘indicators of exchange quality [such as leader-member and team-member exchange] are shaped not just by the current resource or reciprocation but also by past experiences […] with the exchange partner’. Accordingly, the fair treatment employees have experienced in the past should still impact their current assessment of exchange relationship quality. Taken together, employees’ perception of informational and interpersonal justice should have an enduring effect on the perceived quality of their relationship with supervisors or coworkers respectively. This notion is reflected in the time lag between justice perceptions and perceptions of exchange relationship quality inserted in this study’s framework (cf. Figure 1).

Pathways from quality of local social exchange relationships to job performance

In the following, I develop two pathways through which the quality of employees’ local, interpersonal workplace relationships might contribute to job performance, each of which draws on employee attitudes as a mediating mechanism.

First I propose that job satisfaction, that is ‘the extent to which people like […] their jobs’ (Spector, 1997: 2), intervenes between quality of both employee–supervisor and employee–coworker relationships and job performance. In general, high-quality exchange relationships, be it with supervisors or coworkers, are characterized by mutual respect and liking. These positive feelings should contribute to employees’ overall positive affectivity and result in increased satisfaction with the job as a whole (Dulebohn et al., 2012). In line with this reasoning, meta-analyses show that employees in high-quality relationships with either supervisors (Martin et al., 2016) or coworkers (Banks et al., 2014) tend to be more satisfied with their jobs. Thus, both leader-member and team-member exchange should positively affect job satisfaction.

In line with social exchange theorizing, employees should strive to maintain their high-quality relationships with supervisors or coworkers respectively, and retain high levels of job satisfaction by reciprocating with valued benefits for their exchange partners in return (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Cropanzano et al., 2017). As both supervisors and coworkers benefit from increased job performance, employees should increase their engagement in task-related behaviours and strive to fulfil formal role requirements (Rich et al., 2010) in order to reciprocate their exchange partners’ commitment to their relationship. Taken together, I propose the following:

H3: Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between (a) leader-member exchange and (b) team-member exchange and job performance.

Second I propose that motivational constructs are another pathway through which the quality of employees’ local, interpersonal workplace relationships affect their job performance. Social exchange theory suggests that individuals in high-quality relationships feel a sense of reciprocity that motivates them to engage in behaviours that are valued by and desirable for their exchange partners (Cropanzano et al., 2017; Kamdar and Van Dyne, 2007). Transferring this line of argument to local, interpersonal workplace relationships, employees who experience high-quality relationships with supervisors or coworkers, respectively, should be motivated to go beyond their formal job description and engage in non-mandated extra-role behaviours that support their supervisors or coworkers or help them accomplish their goals (e.g. Aryee et al., 2002; Masterson et al., 2000; Scott and Colquitt, 2007).

This study draws on two motivational constructs: learning motivation, which reflects a favourable attitude to training in general (Warr and Bunce, 1995), and knowledge-sharing motivation, which refers to an individual’s willingness to share information, experiences and ideas with others in the workplace (Kim et al., 2015; Van Woerkom and Sanders, 2010). Drawing on social exchange theorizing outlined earlier, I argue that employees in high-quality relationships with their supervisors and coworkers should experience a higher intrinsic motivation to spend time, effort and energy to engage in learning and knowledge sharing. Yet the motivating force underlying this link should be distinct for employee–supervisor and employee–coworker relationships.

I suggest that employees motivated to maintain high-quality relationships with supervisors will expect job performance to be the exchange currency of greatest value to their supervisors. In order to continue receiving the benefits associated with the relationship to their supervisors, they should thus be motivated to develop their skills and share information, experiences and ideas with others, as these behaviours likely increase their ability to perform well. In other words, employees in high-quality exchange relationships with their supervisors should be motivated to learn and share knowledge as these behaviours are instrumental in enhancing individual job performance – a resource supposedly valued by supervisors.

In contrast, I argue that employees in a high-quality relationship with coworkers exhibit different motives for their engagement in learning and knowledge sharing. In particular, through engaging in learning and knowledge sharing, employees might aim to reciprocate with regard to their coworkers in two ways. Through learning, employees expand their knowledge and enhance their abilities, thereby becoming more valuable exchange partners for their coworkers. By sharing information, experiences and ideas, employees can provide their coworkers with support and help them, for example, to become more effective or make fewer mistakes. Moreover, by engaging in learning and knowledge sharing, an employee can stimulate mutual learning (Hu and Randel, 2014) and add to the creation of new knowledge in his or her work environment (Nonaka, 1994). Thus, employees in high-quality exchange relationships with their coworkers should be motivated to learn and share knowledge as these behaviours are a way to support their coworkers – with support being a resource supposedly particularly valued by coworkers.

Taken together, while the underlying motives might differ, employees should consider their willingness to engage in learning and knowledge-sharing as an appropriate way to reciprocate high-quality relationships with their supervisors and coworkers such that both leader-member exchange and team-member exchange should be positively related to learning motivation and knowledge sharing motivation. An employee who is eager to learn and share knowledge, in turn likely increases his or her personal knowledge resources and, consequently, his or her own job performance (Schmidt et al., 1986; Van Woerkom and Sanders, 2010; Walumbwa et al., 2009). Thus, I propose the following hypotheses:

H4: Learning motivation mediates the relationship between (a) leader-member exchange and (b) team-member exchange and job performance.

H5: Knowledge-sharing motivation mediates the relationship between (a) leader-member exchange and (b) team-member exchange and job performance.

Method

Sample

This study’s sample was drawn from the German workforce of a globally operating information technology (IT) company. Data were collected at two points in time via online questionnaires. At time 1, 9100 employees were contacted, of whom 2029 responded (response rate: 22.3%). One year later, 571 of the 2029 individuals responding at time 1 completed the second survey (response rate: 28.14%). The 1-year interval between the two measurement points aligned with the rhythm of the company’s annual employee survey.

The respondents were nested within six corporate divisions and 15 locations and represented various functions within the organizations. That is, respondents reported to different supervisors and worked with different coworkers, so that their socio-environment at the workplace varies greatly. A total of 15.5% had managerial responsibility, that is, they occupied a leadership role; 29.2% of the respondents were female. On average, participants were 43.9 years old (SD = 8.4) and had 13.3 years of organizational tenure (SD = 8.3). The sample’s characteristics are presented in more detail in Table 1. With these demographics, the sample mirrors the composition of the basic population, that is, the 9100 employees of the company contacted initially. For each data collection wave, comparison of the earliest 10% with the latest 10% of respondents revealed no differences, indicating that non-response bias should not be a concern (Armstrong and Overton, 1977).

Table 1.

Sample characteristics.

Gender	Female	29.2%
Gender	Male	70.8%
Age (years)	20–29	7.0%
	30–39	20.3%
	40–49	44.2%
	50–59	27.6%
	60+	0.9%
Highest school/ university qualification	Certificate of Secondary Education/General Certificate of Secondary Education	13.3%
	University entrance qualification	19.0%
	University degree	63.9%
	PhD	3.5%
	None	0.3%
Highest vocational qualification	Completed vocational qualification	47.4%
	Master craftsman/technician	14.9%
	No vocational qualification	37.7%
Organizational tenure (years)	<5	18.2%
	5–9	21.0%
	10–14	20.0%
	15–19	13.0%
	20–24	17.9%
	25+	9.9%
Job function	Administration	8.1%
	Business planning	3.5%
	Engineering	6.3%
	Finance	4.0%
	Human resources	1.9%
	Information technology	15.9%
	Marketing/Sales	15.3%
	Services	32.9%
	Other	12.1%

Measures

Justice perceptions and control variables were measured at time 1, all endogenous variables at time 2. With exception of age and gender, all variables were assessed using Likert response scales (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). Items for all multi-item scales employed in this study are shown in Appendix 1.

Justice perceptions

Both informational justice and interpersonal justice were measured with three items taken from Colquitt (2001). To allow participants to consider whatever sources of the focal justice dimension they deemed salient, the items did not specify an exchange partner as reference point for the items.

Workplace relationship quality

Leader-member exchange was assessed with four items drawn from Wayne et al. (1997) and team-member exchange with five items from Seers (1989). Respondents were asked to refer to their relationships with the supervisor/coworkers they regularly work with.

Employee attitudes

Job satisfaction was measured using three items taken from the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman and Oldham, 1975). Knowledge-sharing motivation was assessed using a three-item scale which was developed for this study following Collins and Smith (2006) and Maurer et al. (2003). The four-item scale for learning motivation was also developed for this study based on Warr and Bunce (1995) and Pulakos et al. (2000).

Job performance

Job performance represents employees’ assessment of their effectiveness regarding their in-role job behaviour. In the present study, job performance is measured with a five-item scale from Stock (2006). Consistent with the level of analysis of this study, the frame of reference was changed from team to individual level.

Control variables

Distributive justice and procedural justice were assessed using scales with three and four items respectively from Colquitt (2001). Age was measured in years. Gender was coded dichotomously, 0 for female and 1 for male.

Results

Reliability, validity and common method bias

Means, standard deviations, correlations and reliability estimates of all variables appear in Table 2. The reliability of all scales is satisfactory, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.79 to 0.95 (Nunnally, 1978). Factor loadings, composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE) for all scales are reported in Appendix 1.

Table 2.

Means, standard deviations, correlations and internal consistency estimates.

	Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1.	Informational justice t₁	4.34	1.31	(.88)
2.	Interpersonal justice t₁	5.61	1.16	.66**	(.95)
3.	CV: Distributive justice t₁	3.99	1.35	.43**	.32**	(.93)
4.	CV: Procedural justice t₁	4.30	1.12	.59**	.60**	.45**	(.85)
5.	Leader-member exchange t₂	4.98	1.45	.36**	.26**	.23**	.22**	(.93)
6.	Team-member exchange t₂	5.65	.89	.22**	.22**	.03	.08	.25**	(.85)
7.	Job satisfaction t₂	4.54	1.38	.29**	.21**	.23**	.18**	.39**	.21**	(.79)
8.	Learning motivation t₂	6.18	.76	.05	.13**	-.03	.05	.07	.27**	.12**	(.85)
9.	Knowledge-sharing motivation t₂	6.43	.70	.07	.11*	.03	.07	.21**	.49**	.15**	.48**	(.88)
10.	Job performance t₂	6.12	.66	.17**	.17**	.02	.04	.19**	.30**	.24**	.39**	.31**	(.88)
11.	CV: Age t₁	43.87	8.35	-.08	-.14**	.10*	-.03	-.04	-.04	.18**	-.02	.04	-.01
12.	CV: Gender t₁	1.71	.46	-.10*	.00	-.02	-.01	-.05	-.02	-.09*	-.06	-.07	-.13**

Note: n = 571. Internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s alphas) for each variable are displayed in parentheses on the diagonal. * p < .05, ** p < .01, two-tailed tests.

SD: standard deviation; CV: control variable.

In order to assess convergent and discriminant validity, the measurement models of all multi-item scales were subjected to confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs), using Mplus (Version 7.2). Specifically, chi-square difference statistics were used to compare the fit of the proposed factor structure to a one-factor model (Bollen, 1989; Kline, 1998) for the following groups of related constructs: (1) informational and interpersonal justice, (2) leader-member exchange and team-member exchange, and (3) job satisfaction, knowledge-sharing motivation, learning motivation and job performance. In each case, overall fit statistics indicate a good fit to the data, with the proposed factor structure providing a better fit than single-factor models. To further examine discriminant validity, the criterion suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981) was applied. Results confirmed that in all cases the squared correlation between two focal constructs is smaller than the AVE for each of the constructs, indicating that the variables demonstrate discriminant validity.

Following recommendations of Podsakoff et al. (2003), I conducted CFAs that estimate the proposed model including an additional latent common method factor on which every indicator was allowed to load (in addition to its loading on its respective higher order construct). When comparing the significance of all theorized paths with the alternative common method factor model, no differences were found. Thus, there is no indication that common method bias is of serious concern (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Hypothesis testing

The theoretical model and the hypothesized direct effects of justice perceptions on the quality of local social exchange relationships were tested with structural equation modeling (SEM), using Mplus (Version 7.2). Overall, the model fits the data well (χ² = 1,629.13, df = 667, p < .01, comparative fit index (CFI) = .94, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .93, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .05, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .07). As shown in Figure 2, the SEM analysis shows that informational justice positively affects leader-member exchange (β = .36, p < .01), but interpersonal justice has no significant effect on leader-member exchange (β = .04, n.s.), providing support for H1(a) but not for H1(b). Consistent with H2(a) and H2(b), informational (β = .25, p < .01) and interpersonal justice (β = .20, p < .01) are both positively related to team-member exchange.

Figure 2 also provides results for the direct effects between exchange relationship quality, employee attitudes and job performance. Both leader-member exchange and team-member exchange positively affect job satisfaction (for leader-member exchange: β = .40, p < .01; for team-member exchange: β = .16, p < .01) and knowledge-sharing motivation (for leader-member exchange: β = .11, p < .01; for team-member exchange: β = .53, p < .01). Leader-member exchange has no significant effect on learning motivation (β = -.01, n.s.), while team-member exchange is positively related to learning motivation (β = .33, p < .01). Finally, job satisfaction (β = .24, p < .01), learning motivation (β = .32, p < .01) and knowledge-sharing motivation (β = .17, p < .01) are positively related to job performance.

With regard to the control variables, the SEM analyses indicate significant path coefficients for four paths. Distributive justice is positively related to leader-member exchange (β = .11, p < .05), procedural justice negatively affects team-member exchange (β = -.18, p < .05), age shows a positive relationship with job satisfaction (β = .19, p < .01), and gender is negatively related to job satisfaction (β = -.11, p < .01).

In order to test the hypotheses on indirect effects between workplace relationship quality and job performance, I used bootstrapping techniques (Preacher and Hayes, 2008; Zhao et al., 2010). A procedure with 5000 bootstrap samples yielded 95% confidence intervals excluding 0 for the following four indirect effects: leader-member exchange – job satisfaction – job performance; team-member exchange – job satisfaction – job performance; team-member exchange – learning motivation – job performance; team-member exchange – knowledge-sharing motivation – job performance. Thus, H3(a) and H3(b) are supported, that is, job satisfaction mediates the relationship between leader-member exchange or team-member exchange respectively and job performance. H4(a) and H5(a) must be rejected since the relationship between leader-member exchange and job performance is neither mediated by learning motivation nor by knowledge-sharing motivation. Finally, the bootstrapping analyses provide support for H4(b) and H5(b), indicating that learning motivation and knowledge-sharing motivation mediate the link between team-member exchange and job performance.

Discussion

Contributions and theoretical implications

Acknowledging the relevance of employees’ local, interpersonal workplace relationships (Brandes et al., 2004), the present study examines the linkages among employees’ justice perceptions, quality of social exchange relationships with supervisors and coworkers, and job performance. Investigating both supervisor and coworker versions of social exchange, this study sheds light on the differential roles of vertical and horizontal workplace relationships, with regard to both their antecedents and their impact on key outcome variables.

By simultaneously examining the effects of perceptions of informational and interpersonal justice on leader-member exchange and team-member exchange, this study extends previous empirical research on the link between justice experienced in personal workplace interactions and workplace relationship quality in three ways. First, instead of investigating interactional justice as an umbrella construct for justice experienced in social interactions, the present study differentiates between informational and interpersonal justice, while controlling for the impact of distributive and procedural justice. Second, instead of focusing either on the role of supervisors or the role of coworkers, the present study investigates both simultaneously. Third, while many studies on justice and social exchange collect data on the independent and dependent variables at the same point in time (e.g. Khanzanchi and Masterson, 2011; Rupp and Cropanzano, 2002; Srikanth and Gurunathan, 2013), justice perceptions and the dependent variables are measured at two different points in time in the present study, which reduces the risk of common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003) and allows for investigating long-term effects of informational and interpersonal justice on local, interpersonal workplace relationships.

The results show that informational justice contributes to both leader-member exchange and team-member exchange measured 1 year later, while interpersonal justice is solely linked to the latter. Thus, the present study suggests that in the long term, when assessing the quality of relationships with their supervisors, employees might place higher demands on supervisors’ informational justice than on their interpersonal justice. That is, in the long run it might be more important for employees what supervisors communicate rather than how. In contrast, content and tone of encounters with coworkers both have enduring effects on employees’ perceptions of their exchange relationships with coworkers.

These findings have two important implications. First, they hint at the distinct roles of informational and interpersonal justice, suggesting that more differentiated insights into the emergence of high-quality relationships with supervisors and coworkers can be gained by distinguishing between the perceived fairness of the content and the tone of interpersonal interactions. Second, the present study suggests that employees perceive both supervisors and coworkers as significant sources of fairness, but seem to place a different emphasis on distinct aspects of justice when evaluating encounters with supervisors versus coworkers. Accordingly, in order to fully understand how organizational justice affects employee-level outcomes, future research should include exchange relationships with supervisors and with coworkers as intervening variables.

This research also contributes to a better understanding of the relationship between the quality of employees’ local, interpersonal workplace relationships and employee job performance. First, by simultaneously investigating the employee–supervisor and employee–coworker relationship quality as a potential driver of job performance, the present study adds to our insufficient understanding of the incremental and relative effects of these two forms of social exchange (Banks et al., 2014; Liao et al., 2010). The present results highlight that employees’ exchange relationship with coworkers complements that with supervisors in predicting job performance, with employee–coworker relationships accounting for a significant amount of employee performance once employee–supervisor relationships are accounted for.

Second, the present study contributes to extending our limited knowledge about what mediates the relationship quality–performance link (Martin et al., 2016). Investigating job satisfaction, learning motivation and knowledge-sharing motivation as variables potentially intervening between leader-member and team-member exchange on the one hand and job performance on the other, mediation analyses suggest that leader and coworker versions of social exchange exert their influence on job performance in different ways. Of the two pathways from local social exchange relationships to job performance suggested in the present study, leader-member exchange exerts its influence on job performance solely through the job satisfaction path, while team-member exchange contributes to performance through both pathways, that is, enhanced job satisfaction and increased motivation to engage in the extra-role behaviours of learning and knowledge sharing. A reason for this unexpected finding might be that distinct motives drive employees’ engagement in learning and knowledge-sharing. Assuming that leader-member exchange motivates employees to engage in behaviours instrumental in enhancing their own job performance, while team-member exchange motivates employees to engage in behaviours intended to help coworkers to perform better, the present results suggest that the latter motives have a significantly stronger impact on employees’ motivation to engage in extra-role behaviours. Future research is necessary to validate this line of reasoning.

Taken together, this study’s findings highlight the importance of devoting more research to simultaneously examine both the vertical and the horizontal interpersonal workplace relationships. Our understanding of effects of organizational justice and employees’ exchange relationships is not complete without consideration of exchange relationships with both supervisors and coworkers.

Practical implications

This study illustrates that the justice that employees experience when interacting with supervisors and coworkers at work has an enduring impact on the quality of their workplace relationships; workplace relationship quality, in turn, contributes to job performance. With these results, this study identifies two potential gateways to foster job performance. First, firms could increase perceived informational justice by prompting supervisors to provide subordinates with adequate and accurate information and encouraging supervisors to be sensitive to subordinates’ desire for information. Second, the present study shows that the quality of coworker relationships can have powerful implications for employee attitudes and performance – a finding that is particularly important given the ubiquity of teams in today’s organizations (Kamdar and Van Dyne, 2007). To improve quality of coworker relationships, firms can cultivate and motivate fair treatment among coworkers. Through a corporate culture that encourages employees to be candid, cooperative, polite and respectful to each other, firms can foster the informational and interpersonal justice employees experience when interacting with coworkers (Colquitt, 2001) and, in turn, quality of relationships among coworkers. This is especially relevant given the finding that employees’ motivation to engage in learning and knowledge sharing is first and foremost driven by the quality of employee–coworker relationships, not employee–supervisor relationships.

Limitations and directions for future research

The implications that can be drawn from this study must be considered in light of its limitations. First, although I followed several procedural remedies to reduce common method bias recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003), including temporal separation of measurement of exogenous and endogenous variables, protecting respondent anonymity as well as reducing evaluation apprehension, collecting data from a single source still implies a risk for common rater biases. Due to the nature of justice perceptions, workplace relationship quality and job satisfaction, these constructs can only be assessed by asking individuals their personal perceptions on the matter; that is, self-reports are the theoretically appropriate means for assessing these variables. Although common rater variance is an issue with this research design, it is necessary for providing a picture of how employees feel about the way in which they are treated at work, and their relationships with supervisors and coworkers, and understanding interrelations between these feelings and perceptions (Spector, 1994). However, future research on the chain linking justice perceptions, workplace relationship quality and job performance could use multiple sources of data for the outcome variables. This would help to reduce the effects of common rater variance and would allow researchers to obtain evaluations of employees’ work behaviour and performance that might be less tinged by individuals’ tendency toward impression management or providing socially desirable answers. In particular, instead of measuring motivational variables, coworkers and supervisors could be asked to provide data on the focal employees’ actual engagement in learning and knowledge sharing. Moreover, the focal employees’ job performance could be measured via supervisor ratings or, if available, objective data.

Second, the sample on which the present study is based consists of 571 employees of an IT company. The sample exhibits considerable diversity with regard to the respondents’ educational and vocational backgrounds as well as their socio-environment within the organization. Moreover, I was able to control for potential effects of gender and age on the relationships under study. Yet given that the data originate from one company in the IT sector, it is possible that organization-level factors, such as industry, company size or organizational culture, might affect the constructs under study. To investigate the role organizational-level factors play in the context of justice perceptions, workplace relationship quality and job performance, future research could apply a multilevel design using cross-industry samples. Furthermore, collecting cross-cultural data would allow identification of cultural determinants of the relationships under investigation.

Third, with regard to its framework, this study can only be considered as a first step toward understanding the role of both supervisors and coworkers within the organizational justice–performance link. On the one hand, future studies could explore whether the different facets of organizational justice interact in predicting the quality of employee–supervisor and employee–coworker relationships. On the other hand, further research is needed to explore the role of contextual factors in the relationships within the justice–performance chain. For example, employees’ personalities or their exchange ideology could moderate the effects of justice perceptions on perceived workplace relationship quality (Scott and Colquitt, 2007), while characteristics of an organization’s culture and structures could affect the (relative) relevance of relationships with supervisors and coworkers for subsequent employee attitudes and performance (Cole et al., 2002).

Fourth, it might be fruitful for researchers to move beyond beneficial outcomes, as has been the focus of the present study, and also take into account ‘bad and ugly’ effects of perceived injustice in social workplace encounters and low-quality workplace relationships (Conlon et al., 2005). In particular, in order to fully understand the role of leaders and coworkers in forming employees’ attitudes and performance, future research could investigate detrimental consequences like withdrawal behaviour or workplace deviance (Conlon et al., 2005).

Finally, future research could apply repeated measures designs to study individual trajectories of informational and interpersonal justice. Such an approach would allow for investigating how perceptions of informational and interpersonal justice change over time and how such a change influences perceived quality of employees’ vertical and horizontal workplace relationships (Hausknecht et al., 2011). Investigating individual trajectories of justice perceptions and relationship quality could prove particularly valuable when studying employees new to an organization or work group. In such cases, a longitudinal design with repeated measures would allow researchers to shed light on the role that organizational justice plays in the emergence and maintenance of a new member’s workplace relationships.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 1.

Factor loadings, composite reliability, and average variance extracted.

Items	FL	CR	AVE
Informational justice		.88	.72
In our company procedures and decisions affecting me are explained thoroughly.	.85
In our company explanations regarding procedures and decisions affecting me are reasonable.	.95
In our company people are candid in their communications with me.	.73
Interpersonal justice		.96	.88
In our company I am treated in a polite manner.	.91
In our company I am treated with respect.	.98
In our company I am treated with dignity.	.92
Distributive justice (control variable)		.93	.83
The outcome I receive from my work at our company is appropriate for the work I have completed.	.94
The outcome I receive from my work at our company reflects what I have contributed to the organization.	.87
The outcome I receive from my work at our company is justified, given my performance.	.92
Procedural justice (control variable)		.85	.60
Our company’s procedures in dealing with employees are applied consistently.	.80
Our company’s procedures in dealing with employees are free of bias.	.79
Our company’s procedures in dealing with employees are based on accurate information.	.76
Our company’s procedures in dealing with employees uphold ethical and moral standards.	.73
Leader-member exchange		.93	.76
My working relationship with my supervisor is extremely effective.	.88
I usually know how satisfied my supervisor is with what I do.	.89
My supervisor has enough confidence in me that he would defend and justify my decision if I was not present to do so.	.84
My supervisor understands my problems and needs.	.89
Team-member exchange		.85	.54
I can ask colleagues for help.	.66
I am willing to finish work assigned to one of my colleagues.	.72
My colleagues and I often suggest better work methods to one another.	.75
I often volunteer extra help to my colleagues.	.67
My colleagues are willing to finish work assigned to me.	.85
Job satisfaction		.82	.62
I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do in this job.	.70
*I seldom think of quitting this job.	.56
Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job.	1.03
Learning motivation		.90	.68
I am interested in learning new ways of carrying out my work.	.66
I am ready to make up for weaknesses in my performance with appropriate training.	.86
I am very interested in taking advantage of the learning and development opportunities available to me.	.92
I am ready to do everything required to keep my knowledge and skills up to date.	.84
Knowledge-sharing motivation		.87	.68
I see benefits from exchanging and combining knowledge with colleagues.	.83
I am willing to combine and exchange knowledge to solve problems or create new ideas.	.92
I am very interested in taking part in knowledge-sharing activities and benefiting from these.	.72
Job performance		.88	.60
I perform very well.	.69
I am very successful in my efforts at work.	.74
I am very effective at getting things done.	.74
I mostly achieve my work goals.	.82
Overall I am very successful at work.	.87

Note: n = 571. All factor loadings are significant at p < .01. * = Reversed coded item; FL: Factor Loading; CR: Composite Reliability; AVE: Average Variance Extracted.

References

Adams

(1963) Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67(5): 422–436.

Al-Atwi

(2018) Personalized and depersonalized responses to leaders’ fair treatment: Status judgments and leader-member exchange as mediating mechanisms. Group & Organization Management 43(6): 1037–1067.

Ambrose

Schminke

(2003) Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(2): 295–305.

Armstrong

Overton

(1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 14(3): 396–402.

Aryee

Budhwar

Chen

(2002) Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(3): 267–285.

Banks

Batchelor

Seers

, et al. (2014) What does team-member exchange bring to the party? A meta-analytic review of team and leader social exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior 35(2): 273–295.

Bies

Moag

(1986) Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In: Lewicki

Sheppard

Bazerman

(eds) Research on Negotiation in Organizations. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 43–55.

Blau

(1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life, 1st edn. New York: Wiley.

Bollen

(1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley.

10.

Brandes

Dharwadkar

Wheatley

(2004) Social exchanges within organizations and work outcomes. Group & Organization Management 29(3): 276–301.

11.

Chiaburu

Harrison

(2008) Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 93(5): 1082–1103.

12.

Cohen-Charash

Spector

(2001) The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 86(2): 278–321.

13.

Cole

Schaninger

Jr Harris

(2002) The workplace social exchange network: A mutlilevel, conceptual examination. Group & Organization Management 27(1): 142–167.

14.

Collins

Smith

(2006) Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal 49(3): 544–560.

15.

Colquitt

(2001) On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(3): 386–400.

16.

Colquitt

Rodell

(2011) Justice, trust, and trustworthiness: A longitudinal analysis integrating three theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal 54(6): 1183–1206.

17.

Colquitt

Greenberg

Zapata-Phelan

(2005) What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In: Greenberg

Colquitt

(eds) Handbook of Organizational Justice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 3–56.

18.

Colquitt

Lepine

Piccolo

, et al. (2012) Explaining the justice–performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer? Journal of Applied Psychology 97(1): 1–15.

19.

Colquitt

Rodell

Zapata

, et al. (2013) Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology 98(2): 199–236.

20.

Colquitt

Wesson

Porter

COLH

, et al. (2001) Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(3): 425–445.

21.

Conlon

Meyer

Nowakowski

(2005) How does organizational justice affect performance, withdrawal, and counterproductive behaviour? In: Greenberg

Colquitt

(eds) Handbook of Organizational Justice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 301–327.

22.

Cropanzano

Mitchell

(2005) Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management 31(6): 874–900.

23.

Cropanzano

Anthony

Daniels

Hall

(2017) Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals 11(1): 479–516.

24.

Cropanzano

Byrne

Bobocel

Rupp

(2001a) Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior 58(2): 164–209.

25.

Cropanzano

Benson

III (2011) Peer justice and teamwork process. Group & Organization Management 36(5): 567–596.

26.

Cropanzano

Prehar

Chen

(2002) Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group & Organization Management 27(3): 324–351.

27.

Cropanzano

Rupp

Mohler

Schminke

(2001b) Three roads to organizational justice. In: Ferris

(ed.) Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management 20. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 1–113.

28.

De Jong

De Ruyter

Wetzels

(2005) Antecedents and consequences of group potency: A study of self-managing service teams. Management Science 51(11): 1610–1625.

29.

Dienesch

Liden

(1986) Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review 11(3): 618–634.

30.

Dulebohn

Bommer

Liden

, et al. (2012) A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management 38(6): 1715–1759.

31.

Epitropaki

Martin

(2005) From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 90(4): 659–676.

32.

Fornell

Larcker

(1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1): 39–50.

33.

Frazier

Johnson

Gavin

, et al. (2009) Organizational justice, trustworthiness, and trust: A multifoci examination. Group & Organization Management 35(1): 39–76.

34.

Gerstner

Day

(1997) Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology 82(6): 827–844.

35.

Gouldner

(1960) The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review 25(2): 161–178.

36.

Greenberg

(1987) A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review 12(1): 9–22.

37.

Greenberg

(1990) Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management 16(2): 399–432.

38.

Greenberg

(1993) The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In: Cropanzano

(ed.) Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 79–103.

39.

Greenberg

Folger

(1983) Procedural justice, participation, and the fair process effect in groups and organizations. In: Paulus

(ed.), Basic Group Processes. New York: Springer, pp. 235–256.

40.

Hackman

Oldham

(1975) Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 60(2): 159–170.

41.

Harrison

Johns

Martocchio

(2000) Changes in technology, teamwork, and diversity: New directions for a new century of absenteeism research. In: Ferris

(ed.) Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management 18. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 43–91.

42.

Hausknecht

Sturman

Roberson

(2011) Justice as a dynamic construct: Effects of individual trajectories on distal work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 96(4): 872–880.

43.

Hogg

Martin

Epitropaki

, et al. (2005) Effective leadership in salient groups: Revisiting leader-member exchange theory from the perspective of the social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31(7): 991–1004.

44.

Homans

(1961) Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World.

45.

Randel

(2014) Knowledge sharing in teams. Group & Organization Management 39(2): 213–243.

46.

Kamdar

Van Dyne

(2007) The joint effects of personality and workplace social exchange relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(5): 1286–1298.

47.

Karriker

Williams

(2009) Organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior: A mediated multifoci model. Journal of Management 35(1): 112–135.

48.

Khanzanchi

Masterson

(2011) Who and what is fair matters: A multi-foci social exchange model of creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior 32(1): 86–106.

49.

Kim

Yun

(2015) Knowledge sharing, abusive supervision, and support. Group & Organization Management 40(5): 599–624.

50.

Kline

(1998) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guildford Press.

51.

Lavelle

McMahan

Harris

(2009) Fairness in human resource management, social exchange relationships, and citizenship behavior: Testing linkages of the target similarity model among nurses in the United States. International Journal of Human Resource Management 20(12): 2419–2434.

52.

Lavelle

Rupp

Brockner

(2007) Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of Management 33(6): 841–866.

53.

Leventhal

(1976) The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In: Berkowitz

Walster

(eds) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 9. New York: Academic Press, pp. 91–131.

54.

Liao

Liu

Loi

(2010) Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: A social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Academy of Management Journal 53(5): 1090–1109.

55.

Liden

Wayne

Sparrowe

(2000) An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(3): 407–416.

56.

Loi

Diefendorff

Jixia

(2009) Four-factor justice and daily job satisfaction: A multilevel investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(3): 770–781.

57.

Martin

Guillaume

Thomas

, et al. (2016) Leader-member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology 69(1): 67–121.

58.

Masterson

Lewis

Goldman

Taylor

(2000) Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal 43(4): 738–748.

59.

Maurer

Weiss

Barbeite

(2003) A model of involvement in work-related learning and development activity: The effects of individual, situational, motivational, and age variables. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(4): 707–724.

60.

Mesmer-Magnus

Dechurch

(2009) Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(2): 535–546.

61.

Murphy

Wayne

Liden

Erdogan

(2003) Understanding social loafing: The role of justice perceptions and exchange relationships. Human Relations 56(1): 61–84.

62.

Nonaka

(1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5(1): 14–37.

63.

Nunnally

(1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.

64.

Organ

(1990) The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In: Cummings

Staw

(eds) Research in Organizational Behavior 12. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 43–72.

65.

Organ

Konovsky

(1989) Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 74(1): 157–164.

66.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Jeong-Yeon

Podsakoff

(2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 879–903.

67.

Preacher

Hayes

(2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40(3): 879–891.

68.

Pulakos

Arad

Donovan

Plamondon

(2000) Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(4): 612–624.

69.

Rawls

(1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

70.

Rich

Lepine

Crawford

(2010) Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal 53(3): 617–635.

71.

Roch

Shanock

(2006) Organizational justice in an exchange framework: Clarifying organizational justice distinctions. Journal of Management 32(2): 299–322.

72.

Rupp

Cropanzano

(2002) The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 89(1): 925–946.

73.

Rupp

Shao

Jones

Liao

(2014) The utility of a multifoci approach to the study of organizational justice: A meta-analytic investigation into the consideration of normative rules, moral accountability, bandwith-fidelity, and social exchange. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 123(2): 159–185.

74.

Scandura

(1999) Rethinking leader-member exchange: An organizational justice perspective. The Leadership Quarterly 10(1): 25–40.

75.

Schmidt

Hunter

Outerbridge

(1986) Impact of job experience and ability on job knowledge, work sample performance, and supervisory ratings of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 71(3): 432–439.

76.

Scott

Paddock

Colquitt

(2009) An actor-focused model of justice rule adherence and violation: The role of managerial motives and discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(3): 756–769.

77.

Scott

Colquitt

Zapata-Phelan

(2007) Justice as a dependent variable: Subordinate charisma as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(6): 1597–1609.

78.

Scott

Garza

Conlon

Kim

(2014) Why do managers act fairly in the first place? A daily investigation of ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ motives and discretion. Academy of Management Journal 57(6): 1571–1591.

79.

Seers

(1989) Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 43(1): 118–135.

80.

Spector

(1994) Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior 15(5): 385–392.

81.

Spector

(1997) Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Cause and Consequences. London: SAGE Publications.

82.

Srikanth

Gurunathan

(2013) Interactional justice and job mobility preparedness: Mediating role of leader-member exchange (LMX). Journal of Organizational Behavior 12(3): 7–32.

83.

Stinglhamber

De Cremer

Mercken

(2006) Perceived support as a mediator of the relationship between justice and trust. Group & Organization Management 31(4): 442–468.

84.

Stock

(2006) Interorganizational teams as boundary spanners between supplier and customer companies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34(4): 588–599.

85.

Thibaut

Walker

(1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

86.

Tyler

Bies

(1990) Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In: Carroll

(ed.) Applied Social Psychology and Organizational Settings. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 77–98.

87.

Van Woerkom

Sanders

(2010) The romance of learning from disagreement: The effect of cohesiveness and disagreement on knowledge sharing behavior and individual performance within teams. Journal of Business and Psychology 25(1): 139–149.

88.

Walumbwa

Cropanzano

Hartnell

(2009) Organizational justice, voluntary learning behavior, and job performance: A test of the mediating effects of identification and leader-member exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior 30(8): 1103–1126.

89.

Warr

Bunce

(1995) Trainee characteristics and the outcomes of open learning. Personnel Psychology 48(2): 347–375.

90.

Wayne

Shore

Liden

(1997) Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal 40(1): 82–111.

91.

Zhao

Lynch

JGJ

Chen

(2010) Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 37(2): 197–206.