STRIVING FOR JUSTICE: A POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATION OF SUPERVISOR ADHERENCE TO JUSTICE RULES By Joel Koopman A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Business Administration – Organization Behavior – Human Resource Management – Doctor of Philosophy 2014 ABSTRACT STRIVING FOR JUSTICE: A POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATION OF SUPERVISOR ADHERENCE TO JUSTICE RULES By Joel Koopman Most organizational justice research investigates supervisor adherence to justice rules as an employee perception to which that employee subsequently reacts. While important, this perception-then-reaction emphasis has left a gap in our understanding of the justice phenomenon. Although we know a lot about how employees react given their perceptions of supervisor adherence to justice rules, in contrast we know quite little about the conditions that influence such adherence in the first place. Given the well-recognized importance of organizational justice, such an omission is surprising as this may curtail both the theoretical development of the literature as well as the ability of scholars to provide practical advice to employees and organizations. To address this, I take an employee-centric focus and apply a political lens to the question of whether supervisors will be more likely to adhere to justice rules toward certain employees. Specifically, I propose that politically skilled employees are treated more fairly by their supervisors as a result of purposeful, motivated behaviors enacted by those employees to influence their received treatment. I furthermore investigate several person- and situation-level boundary conditions to this model and test my hypotheses using a matched sample of 341 employees nested in 86 workgroups recruited from across a variety of occupations and organizations. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank my advisor, Brent A. Scott, for the direction and constant encouragement he has provided to me as well as the other members of my committee, John R. Hollenbeck, Donald E. Conlon, and Russell E. Johnson, who were not only mentors to me during my time at Michigan State, but were also my friends. I also wish to thank my parents for their limitless support, and most of all I wish to thank my wife Trish who has never stopped believing in me. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... viii INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................1 LITERATURE REVIEW – ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE ......................................................7 The Structure of Justice .............................................................................................................7 Justice Rules ............................................................................................................................10 Why Justice Is Important .........................................................................................................11 Consequences for employees. ........................................................................................... 11 Consequences for organizations. ...................................................................................... 13 Justice as the Dependent Variable ...........................................................................................15 DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION OF THEORY ...........................................................20 Getting Ahead and Getting Along ...........................................................................................20 LITERATURE REVIEW – POLITICAL SKILL .......................................................................23 Political Skill ...........................................................................................................................24 Political Skill and Social Effectiveness ...................................................................................26 Emotional intelligence. ..................................................................................................... 26 Proactive personality. ........................................................................................................ 26 Self-efficacy. ..................................................................................................................... 27 Self-monitoring. ................................................................................................................ 27 Empirical Review of Political Skill .........................................................................................28 Political skill main effects. ................................................................................................ 28 Political skill enhancement effects.................................................................................... 30 HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT ..............................................................................................33 Political Skill and Striving .......................................................................................................33 Efficacy to perform. .......................................................................................................... 34 Striving for status. ............................................................................................................. 36 Striving for communion. ................................................................................................... 38 Getting Ahead, Getting Along, and Supervisor Justice Rule Adherence ................................40 Getting ahead. ................................................................................................................... 43 Getting along. .................................................................................................................... 47 Non-corresponding relationships. ..................................................................................... 50 Person-Level Enhancements ....................................................................................................54 Situation-Level Enhancements ................................................................................................57 iv METHOD ....................................................................................................................................60 Sample and Procedure .............................................................................................................60 Measures ..................................................................................................................................62 Political skill. .................................................................................................................... 62 Status striving.................................................................................................................... 63 Communion striving. ........................................................................................................ 63 Organizational justice. ...................................................................................................... 63 Extraversion ...................................................................................................................... 65 Agreeableness ................................................................................................................... 65 Perceptions of politics. ...................................................................................................... 66 Analyses ...................................................................................................................................66 Mediation. ......................................................................................................................... 67 Moderation. ....................................................................................................................... 68 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................69 Tests of Hypotheses .................................................................................................................71 Main effect hypotheses. .................................................................................................... 71 Unexpected main effect relationships. .............................................................................. 73 Mediation hypotheses. ...................................................................................................... 73 Moderation hypotheses. .................................................................................................... 75 Supplemental Analyses ............................................................................................................79 Self-monitoring. ................................................................................................................ 79 Task proficiency................................................................................................................ 81 Procedural Justice. ............................................................................................................ 83 Political context. ............................................................................................................... 84 DISCUSSION ..............................................................................................................................88 Motivation for the Dissertation ................................................................................................88 Implications of the Results ......................................................................................................89 Main effects involving political skill. ............................................................................... 90 Person-level moderators.................................................................................................... 91 Situation-level moderators. ............................................................................................... 92 Main effects involving justice. .......................................................................................... 93 Future Research .......................................................................................................................97 Implications for Employees and Managers .............................................................................99 Limitations .............................................................................................................................100 APPENDIX................................................................................................................................103 REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................113 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Percentage of Within-group Variance for Justice Rule Adherence............................... 69 Table 2 - Descriptive Statistics of and Correlations among Focal Variables ............................... 70 Table 3 - HLM Analyses Predicting Status and Communion Striving......................................... 71 Table 4 - HLM Analyses Predicting the "Instrumental" Dimensions of Justice Rule Adherence 72 Table 5 - HLM Analyses Predicting the "Relational" Dimensions of Justice Rule Adherence ... 72 Table 6 - Effect Size and Confidence Intervals for Mediation Hypotheses ................................. 75 Table 7 - HLM Analyses for the Interaction of Political Skill and Extraversion Predicting Status Striving.......................................................................................................................................... 77 Table 8 - HLM Analyses for the Interaction of Political Skill and Agreeableness Predicting Communion Striving..................................................................................................................... 77 Table 9 - HLM Analyses for the Interaction of Political Skill and Perceptions of Politics Predicting Status Striving ............................................................................................................. 78 Table 10 - HLM Analyses for the Interaction of Political Skill and Perceptions of Politics Predicting Communion Striving ................................................................................................... 79 Table 11 - HLM Analyses Predicting Status and Communion Striving with Self-Monitoring.... 80 Table 12 - HLM Analyses Predicting the "Instrumental" Dimensions of Justice Rule Adherence with Self-Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 80 Table 13 - HLM Analyses Predicting the "Relational" Dimensions of Justice Rule Adherence with Self-Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 81 Table 14 - HLM Analyses Predicting the "Instrumental" Dimensions of Justice Rule Adherence with Task Proficiency ................................................................................................................... 82 Table 15 - HLM Analyses Predicting the "Relational" Dimensions of Justice Rule Adherence with Task Proficiency ................................................................................................................... 82 Table 16 - HLM Analyses Predicting the Alternative Measure of Procedural Justice ................. 84 Table 17 - HLM Analyses for the Cross-Level Interaction of Political Climate Predicting the Relationship between Political Skill and Status Striving .............................................................. 86 vi Table 18 - HLM Analyses for the Cross-Level Interaction of Political Climate Predicting the Relationship between Political Skill and Communion Striving ................................................... 86 Table 19 - Employee/Coworker Reported Items ........................................................................ 104 Table 20 - Supervisor Reported Items ........................................................................................ 109 Table 21 - Main Effect Hypotheses ............................................................................................ 111 Table 22 - Mediation and Moderation Hypotheses..................................................................... 112 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Proposed Theoretical Model .......................................................................................... 6 Figure 2 - Proposed Classification of Justice Dimensions............................................................ 42 Figure 3 - Continuum-Based Classification of Justice Dimensions ............................................. 51 Figure 4 - Interaction Plot of Political Skill x Extraversion Predicting Status Striving ............... 76 Figure 5 - Interaction Plot of Political Skill x Political Context Predicting Status Striving ......... 87 viii INTRODUCTION In the concluding chapter of the Handbook of Organizational Justice, Colquitt, Greenberg, and Scott (2005) took note of the burgeoning justice literature and labeled its current stage of development as “a promising young adult” (see also: Colquitt & Greenberg, 2003). As these authors expected, this young adult has continued to grow and mature as evidenced by the voluminous literature recently meta-analyzed by Colquitt et al. (2013). Organizational justice is most often represented by four dimensions constituting different forms of fairness: distributive, procedural, informational and interpersonal. Distributive justice represents outcome fairness and is generally promoted in organizations through adherence to rules regarding equity norms (Adams, 1965). Procedural justice is similarly concerned with outcomes, but emphasizes adherence to rules regarding the fairness of the decision-making procedures that lead to those outcomes (e.g., the extent to which those procedures were conducted in an unbiased, consistent, accurate, correctable, ethical and representative fashion; Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Whereas distributive and procedural justice are primarily relevant to outcome allocations, informational and interpersonal justice are more relevant to communications that occur between a supervisor and employee. Informational justice generally reflects the extent to which these communications follow rules regarding necessary justifications or explanations whereas interpersonal justice reflects the extent to which the employee is treated in accordance with rules of dignity and respect during these communications (Bies & Moag, 1986; Greenberg, 1993a). The maturation of this “promising young adult” has largely progressed along two paths, one more prominent than the other. The dominant path focuses on organizational justice as an employee perception and examines the reactions of these employees to fair or unfair treatment (Colquitt, 2012; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2013). The other 1 (far smaller) path focuses on organizational justice as the extent to which supervisors adhere to justice rules and examines the organizational and managerial factors that influence this adherence (Folger & Skarlicki, 1998, 2001; Patient & Skarlicki, 2005, 2010). Despite the differences between these two paths they share a similar assumption. Whether the research question focuses on employee reactions to fair treatment, or the organizational and managerial factors influencing fair treatment, both perspectives assume that the employees are merely justice takers who may be treated fairly (or unfairly) due to factors outside their control and subsequently react positively (or negatively). This “stimulus-organism-response” perspective of the recipients of organizational justice (Greenberg & Wiethoff, 2001) neglects the possibility that the organism (i.e., the employee) may be capable of actively influencing the source of the stimulus (i.e., the supervisor) to change the stimulus. Recently, some justice scholars have begun to more fully account for the role of the employee in investigations of supervisor adherence to justice rules. To date, three published studies have taken initial steps along these lines. Korsgaard, Roberson, and Rymph (1998) demonstrated in a lab study (but failed to replicate in a quasi-experimental field study) that assertive employees received more extensive justifications during a performance appraisal. Scott, Colquitt, and Zapata-Phelan (2007) found an association between employee charisma and perceptions of adherence to interpersonal justice rules that was mediated by supervisor sentiments toward the employee. More recently, Zapata, Olsen, and Martins (2013) found that employee trustworthiness was associated with supervisor adherence to informational and interpersonal justice rules stemming from supervisor perceptions of trust and felt obligation toward the employee. 2 Although these authors demonstrated that supervisor adherence to justice rules is susceptible to influence by employees, these studies generally confined their investigations to the effects of relatively stable, trait-like individual differences (e.g., Costa & Mccrae, 1995; R. C. Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996; Weber, 1947). The question then left unanswered is whether certain employees can actively use specific behaviors that influence supervisor adherence to justice rules. To date, we know very little regarding whether employee behaviors can influence supervisor adherence to justice rules at a general (i.e., entity; Bies, 2005; Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001) level, although work by Dulebohn and Ferris (1999) has shown that influence tactics can influence procedural justice perceptions at an event level (e.g., during a peformance appraisal; Bies, 2005; Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001). Thus, instead of adopting a perspective that views employees as justice takers reacting to the treatment they receive, I take a more active perspective that conceives of employees as justice makers capable of influencing supervisor adherence to justice rules through their behavior. This approach represents a departure from the typical view of the employee taken by organizational justice theorists and extends the small amount of work that has examined the influence of stable employee characteristics on supervisor justice rule adherence. To advance research on this alternative perspective of organizational justice, I adopt a self-interest view of employees (Gillespie & Greenberg, 2005). Given the interactional nature of typical supervisor-employee relationships and accompanying opportunities for influence (Ferris, Hochwarter, Douglas, Blass, Kolodinsky, & Treadway, 2002; Ferris, Treadway, Brouer, & Munyon, 2012) as well as the ubiquity of politics in organizations (Ferris & Hochwarter, 2011), I apply a political lens (Mintzberg, 1985; Pfeffer, 1981) to my model and argue that politically skilled employees will be treated more fairly by their supervisors. I further extend this research 3 by looking to theory on motivation to understand the process by which politically skilled employees influence supervisor adherence to justice rules. Specifically, I investigate theory that describes individuals as possessing two basic motives – to get ahead and to get along, operationalized as striving for status and striving for communion respectively (Bakan, 1966; Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002). In so doing I address not only who receives fairer treatment, but also why as I argue that politically skilled employees are more likely to engage in status and communion striving (Whetten, 1989). I further address boundary conditions to my model by considering the enhancement effects of combining political skill with extraversion and agreeableness as personality traits representative of the getting ahead and getting along motives respectively (Barrick et al., 2002; R. Hogan & Shelton, 1998). I also examine where (Whetten, 1989) as a boundary condition by considering the extent to which the workgroup is characterized by high levels of organizational politics (e.g., perceptions of politics; Chang, Rosen, & Levy, 2009; Ferris & Kacmar, 1992) as a facilitator of status and communion striving behavior by politically skilled employees. Overall, this dissertation has implications for both theory and practice. From a theoretical perspective, I reverse the implicit assumption in the justice literature – that employees are mere justice takers in the fairness process – and instead propose that employees may be justice makers capable of influencing justice rule adherence by their supervisors through their behaviors. I offer this perspective by creating a new bridge between the organizational justice and organizational politics literatures, and further by using a prominent perspective on motivation to support this linkage. In so doing, I address calls to bolster links between organizational justice and other prominent literatures in the organizational sciences (Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005; Taylor, 2001). 4 This new perspective should open new avenues of organizational justice research by taking a more political and employee-centric standpoint than has previously been considered. As it pertains to practice, this research may be good news for employees experiencing injustice or who feel helpless in the workplace as it suggests that they are not powerless to affect how fairly they are treated by their supervisors. For managers and the organization, this research offers considerable value as it pertains to efforts to ensure fair treatment. As scholars, we can clearly communicate to managers and organizations that fair treatment is important, however we have far less to discuss regarding why (and toward whom) managers may act fairly or unfairly. This research may help us to better understand this process. In the sections that follow I will review the two major research literatures (organizational justice and organizational politics) that constitute the major content domains informing this dissertation. I also address the theoretical perspectives that tie my model together and develop formal hypotheses. Figure 1 below represents the theoretical model that I propose and test in this research. As shown in that figure, I argue that politically skilled individuals will be more likely to engage in both status and communion striving behavior and that these behaviors should influence supervisor adherence to justice rules. As I discuss in more detail below, I argue that status striving is primarily associated with supervisor adherence to distributive and procedural justice rules and that communion striving is primarily associated with supervisor adherence to informational and interpersonal justice rules. However, I include dashed lines between status striving and informational justice as well as communion striving and procedural justice because, as I elaborate later, there are theoretical reasons to expect these non-corresponding relationships. Finally, I propose several boundary conditions to this model. Drawing from the getting ahead and getting along motivational perspective, I examine the enhancement effects of extraversion on 5 the relationship between political skill and status striving and agreeableness on the relationship between political skill and communion striving. Drawing further on the political perspective of organizations, I propose that perceptions of politics should enhance both relationships. Figure 1 - Proposed Theoretical Model 6 LITERATURE REVIEW – ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE The academic literature on justice or fairness (such terms are often used interchangeably – a practice that will be maintained in this manuscript) is generally traced to research on the relative deprivation phenomenon by Stouffer, Suchman, Devinney, Star, and Williams Jr. (1949), however awareness of the importance of fairness is prevalent in the writings of Thomas Locke, Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill, and as far back as Aristotle and Plato (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005). Beginning with Stouffer et al. (1949), the justice literature has expanded in both breadth (moving from one justice construct to four) and depth (a recent meta-analysis reportedly located 1155 potentially relevant justice articles for the time period from 1999-2010; Colquitt et al., 2013). In the following sections, I will briefly explore the aspects of the organizational justice literature that are relevant for this manuscript. For a more detailed treatment, please see one of the many reviews on this topic (e.g., Colquitt, 2008, 2012; Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005; Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001). The Structure of Justice The first justice dimension identified was distributive justice (Homans, 1961). Distributive justice stems from the basic notion that not all workers receive the same outcomes in an organization (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005). Rather, valued outcomes (e.g., pay, fringe benefits, job status; Adams, 1965) must be allocated based on some distribution norm. The initial allocation norm that was studied, and still the most frequently examined (although upwards of 17 different allocation norms have been identified; Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005) is a norm of equity. Homans (1961) identified the equity norm in his argument that outcomes should be distributed to employees on a proportional basis with their 7 costs, or inputs (e.g., education, training or skills; Adams, 1965). Distributive justice then represents the fairness of the outcome allocations afforded to an employee. The organizational justice family expanded a decade later with the advent of the procedural justice construct by Thibaut and Walker (1975). To this point, justice research was concerned with the prediction of outcomes associated with the (un)fairness of allocations; these authors instead proposed that the procedures leading to outcomes were also important. Thibaut and Walker (1975) found that the extent to which individuals are able to exert control over the process was predictive of satisfaction with the outcome regardless of whether the outcome was favorable or not. The implication of these findings was that participants believed that fair procedures guarantee favorable outcomes in the long-run even if the outcomes weren’t favorable immediately (Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001). Therefore, as long as procedures are fair, individuals tend to be satisfied. Leventhal (1980) bolstered these findings by arguing that they applied to organizational research on outcome allocations, positioning procedural justice as a second justice construct and thus beginning a substantial amount of research devoted to empirically confirming this dual conceptualization of justice. Ultimately procedural justice was confirmed as distinctive from distributive justice through factor analytic tests (e.g., Greenberg, 1986), the demonstration of independent effects on outcomes (e.g., Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Sweeney & Mcfarlin, 1993), analysis of interactions whereby procedural justice mitigates the effects of outcome fairness (e.g., Brockner & Wisenfeld, 1996) and even through a neuroimaging analysis (Dulebohn, Conlon, Sarinopoulos, Davison, & Mcnamara, 2009). The organizational justice universe continued to expand as Bies and Moag (1986) suggested another justice dimension – interactional justice. The interactional justice construct 8 originated from the recognition that the quality of interpersonal treatment during interactions with an authority was rooted in issues of fairness, but that such treatment was not adequately assessed by either distributive or procedural justice (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005). Bies and Moag (1986) therefore argued that a cohesive set of rules existed governing how people should be treated during interactions, and that this set of rules existed independently of both currently identified justice dimensions. Despite this assertion of independence the interactional justice construct faltered early as it was often described, and operationalized, as a component of procedural justice (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005). While scholars tended to agree on the existence of a set of rules governing interactions, it was less clear that they existed independently of procedural justice. Greenberg (1993a) helped to clarify the conceptual status of the interactional justice construct, and in so doing split the construct into informational and interpersonal dimensions of organizational justice. He argued that interactional justice clearly represented a social aspect of justice that existed outside the fairness of outcomes or the procedures that led to those outcomes. Greenberg (1993a) argued that interactional justice – or more specifically informational and interpersonal justice – originated from completely different sets of rules and he demonstrated that these dimensions of justice had both had unique effects on employee theft. Masterson, Byrne, and Mao (2005) further promoted the distinctions between informational and interpersonal justice in a conceptual chapter that proposed interpersonal justice to be more at the discretion of managers and influenced by characteristics such as personality and empathy whereas informational justice was more subject to characteristics of the organization and situation (see also: Scott, Colquitt, & Paddock, 2009). 9 In an important contribution to the empirical distinctions of informational and interpersonal justice, Colquitt (2001) developed new measures drawing on the original justice rules theorized by Bies and Moag (1986) and provided factor analyses that supported a fourfactor conceptualization of organizational justice as well as data demonstrating that each dimension has unique effects on a variety of relevant outcomes. Empirically, the interpersonal and informational dimensions tend to be strongly correlated (Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001) and are sometimes evaluated as a single interactional justice construct (e.g., George & Zhou, 2007; Krings & Facchin, 2009), however studies adopting this theorizing may be somewhat limited as it can be unclear which component of interactional justice is driving the effects, thus the recent trend has been to evaluate these dimensions separately as their distinctiveness from each other becomes better understood (e.g., Holtz & Harold, 2013; Scott et al., 2009; Takeuchi, Chen, & Cheung, 2012). More importantly, their separation from procedural and distributive justice is now beyond doubt. Justice Rules Each of the four dimensions of justice represents the extent or degree to which specific fairness rules are followed by some entity either during a contextualized event (e.g., layoffs, performance appraisal) or as a general set of behaviors or intentions that cross through situations and events (Colquitt, 2012; Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001). Each organizational justice dimension then represents a specific set of these fairness rules; distributive justice for outcome allocations, procedural justice for the process by which allocations are determined, informational justice for the honesty of communications and the provision of justifications or explanations and interpersonal justice for the manner in which interactions are conducted. 10 An entity’s adherence to these rules requires following a predetermined set of criteria specific to each dimension. The criteria for distributive justice requires adhering to an appropriate allocation norm – typically equity, although alternatives (e.g., equality and need) have been studied (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005). The procedural justice criteria require provision of process and outcome control to individuals (Thibaut & Walker, 1975) and further decisions must be made in a manner that suppresses bias and is consistent, accurate, correctable, representative and ethical (Leventhal, 1980). Informational justice criteria require that information be communicated in a truthful manner and that decisions should be justified. Interpersonal justice criteria require that information must be communicated with respect and propriety (Bies & Moag, 1986). The majority of organizational justice research assesses fairness indirectly by measuring justice rule adherence (either a supervisor report of adherence to justice rules or an employee’s perception of adherence to those rules) instead of directly assessing whether something was actually “fair.” Assessments of the rules promoting justice represent a more granular analysis of behaviors or perceptions leading to overall judgments (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Scott, 2005). In keeping with the dominant justice paradigm, I will focus on supervisor adherence to specific justice rules constituting the four previously described dimensions, rather than global assessments of justice itself, with the understanding these global assessments derive from adherence to these rules (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Colquitt, 2012). Why Justice Is Important Consequences for employees. Employees care about justice because fair treatment satisfies needs (Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001). Colquitt (2008) notes that people desire control, even if only over certain processes and not over the actual outcomes they receive. Fair 11 treatment is instrumental in allowing employees to experience that control and to feel as if they are able to maximize the long-term favorability of the outcomes they receive (Tyler, 1987). Furthermore, fair treatment influences how individuals perceive their social-standing within a group, promotes self-worth and positively affects a person’s identity as it conveys information about their relationships with others (Tyler & Lind, 1992). In workplace hierarchical relationships, supervisors tend to hold substantial power over their employees (Emerson, 1962). These power-dependency relationships often result in the employee being forced to cede their autonomy to the authority figure, creating opportunities for exploitation. Such experience is quite uncomfortable for the employee, however when these authority figures act in a fair manner toward the employee it can set them at ease. Essentially, fair treatment may be used by employees as a heuristic to assess whether or not they are likely to be exploited in this relationship (Lind, 2001). Beyond even just judging the likelihood of exploitation by an authority, justice judgments can be used more broadly to reduce anxiety over environmental uncertainty (Colquitt, 2008; Lind & Van Den Bos, 2002). For as much as justice feels good and engenders positive behaviors, the experience of injustice is extremely negative (Bies & Tripp, 2001). Colquitt, Greenberg, and Zapata-Phelan (2005) note that injustice results in feelings that a person is not in control, or perceptions that some authority has been rude or misleading. Bies and Tripp (2001, p. 202) go further, describing the feeling of injustice as “hot and passionate” and as a painful feeling stemming from a “violated psyche and sense of self.” According to Barclay and Skarlicki (2009, p. 511), “individuals who have experienced unfairness in the workplace often report significant, painful, and enduring consequences” and may be “consumed by the thought of revenge” (Bies & Tripp, 2001, p. 202). 12 The experience of injustice is a demanding and time-consuming experience, and because of its relevance to organizations, it has received much scholarly attention. Individuals experience the injustice cognitively as they make sense of the situation (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001; OlsonBuchanan & Boswell, 2008), emotionally as rage, anger, shame or guilt (Barclay & Skarlicki, 2009) and behaviorally as they seek revenge against the organization (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), seek revenge against customers (Skarlicki, Van Jaarsveld, & Walker, 2008), regulate their emotions (Rupp, Mccance, Spencer, & Sonntag, 2008) or act out in other ways (e.g., sexual harassment; Krings & Facchin, 2009). Alternatively, the behavioral outcome may be to forgive and reconcile (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2006), however these behaviors as coping strategies are still taxing and time consuming. Injustice is ultimately a depleting experience that at best may distract employees and at worst might promote destructive retaliatory actions (e.g., theft; Greenberg, 1993b). Although it may not always result in employees engaging in actual revenge behaviors, clearly the optimal situation would be for the injustice to not occur in the first place. Consequences for organizations. Not only is fair treatment in the workplace important for employees, but this is a topic of substantial relevance for organizations and managers as well. For organizations, the fair treatment of employees supports organizational legitimacy, discourages disruptive behaviors, and promotes acceptance of organizational change (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005). For managers, fair treatment can help to blunt negative employee reactions to bad news (Patient & Skarlicki, 2005) and acting fairly may also have implications for subsequent emotional reactions and subsequent justice rule adherence (Greenberg & Wiethoff, 2001; Scott et al., 2009). A large body of evidence exists demonstrating the fair treatment of employees is associated with a number of exceedingly important organizational outcomes. Early meta13 analyses on the justice literature by Colquitt et al. (2001) and Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) validated the importance of justice to management research as they found significant relationships between the various justice dimensions and employee attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction, commitment, trust, LMX and turnover intention) and behaviors (e.g., OCB, withdrawal, CWB and task performance). A recent meta-analysis (Colquitt et al., 2013) updated these values and further demonstrated significant associations with OCB (positive) and CWB (negative) directed at the supervisor as well as perceived organizational support. Another recent meta-analysis by Robbins, Ford, and Tetrick (2012) took an injustice perspective and found that unfair treatment was associated with a host of negative health and well-being outcomes. Specifically, these authors found significant relationships between injustice and burnout, stress, state negativity and employee absence. Overall, the literature on organizational justice has clearly demonstrated that when employees are treated fairly they respond in ways that are exceedingly valuable to organizations. Beyond the direct relationship between justice and performance, justice may be indirectly related to performance as well given that a number of the relevant outcomes of fair treatment have themselves been meta-analytically linked to job and organization performance (e.g., Colquitt, Scott, & Lepine, 2007; Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). Indeed, Colquitt et al. (2013) recently demonstrated this meta-analytically, showing that justice is indirectly related to performance through both social exchange quality as well as affective state. 14 Justice as the Dependent Variable The overwhelmingly majority of research on organizational justice investigates questions regarding employee reactions to justice rule adherence or justice rule violations by some authority. Greenberg (1987, p. 10) described this type of research on justice as falling into a “reactive” category, whereby the primary research focus was on “people’s attempts either to escape from, or to avoid perceived unfair states. Such theories examine reactions to injustices.” When taking a reactive approach to organizational justice, researchers are investigating how employees respond to fair and unfair conditions (Greenberg & Wiethoff, 2001); this research necessarily models justice as an independent (i.e., exogenous) variable and typically considers justice as a perception to which employees react in some way. A reactive approach to studying organizational justice is clearly beneficial as this perspective allows fair treatment to be used as a predictor of a host of organizationally relevant outcomes (e.g., Colquitt et al., 2001). Indeed, Colquitt (2012, p. 32) suggests that without this lens, “it is difficult to conceive of how the literature could have grown as fast as it did.” However, the justice literature’s predominant focus on employee reactions has come at a cost. We know a great deal about both the outcomes predicted by justice (e.g., Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001) as well as the mechanisms for those effects (e.g., Colquitt et al., 2013). What we do not know, at least not very well, is why authorities adhere to justice rules in the first place (Colquitt, 2012) – however, for a recent exception see Scott, Garza, Conlon, and Kim (in press). In addition to describing the reactive dimension of organizational justice research, Greenberg (1987, p. 10) also described a proactive dimension. In contrast to research investigating employee reactions to fair and unfair treatment, proactive justice research focuses 15 on “behaviors designed to promote justice. [Such theories] examine behaviors attempting to create just states.” Thus when researchers consider justice from a proactive perspective, they are investigating how and why authorities are motivated to be fair (Greenberg & Wiethoff, 2001); such research models justice as a dependent (i.e., endogenous) variable and investigates the antecedents of fair treatment. Although research adopting a proactive (i.e., dependent or endogenous) perspective of organizational justice is dwarfed by the voluminous reactive-focused justice research, there have been several recent attempts to direct such research efforts to better understand the reasons for justice rule adherence or violation. Several authors have discussed conceptually what a dependent variable perspective of organizational justice would look like; typically such essays focus on a particular event (e.g., the delivery of bad news) and conclude with entreaties for empirical research on this phenomenon (e.g., Folger & Skarlicki, 2001; Masterson et al., 2005; Patient & Skarlicki, 2005). Perhaps the strongest of these calls comes from Colquitt (2012) in his explicit urging of justice researchers to take an endogenous approach to justice research. Just as the reactive approach to organizational justice generally viewed employees as passive justice takers, so too did the initial research efforts of those authors taking a proactive approach. Schminke, Ambrose, and Cropanzano (2000) investigated several dimensions of organizational structure (centralization, formalization and size) that might influence the extent to which employees perceive how well the organization adheres to rules of procedural and interactional justice. Gilliland and Schepers (2003) and Masterson et al. (2005) expanded this theorizing by considering not only organizational factors as determinants of justice rule adherence but also characteristics of the manager as well. Following this focus on the manager, Folger and Skarlicki (1998) found that managers experienced more discomfort and engaged in 16 behaviors akin to violations of interactional justice during layoffs when mismanagement was the cause of the layoffs. In a subsequent essay, Folger and Skarlicki (2001) further theorized about managerial behaviors (e.g., distancing and stonewalling) that violate interactional justice rules during layoffs. Patient and Skarlicki (2005) later proposed a more general model of manager adherence to interactional justice rules based on manager empathy, moral development and selfesteem which they subsequently partially tested (Patient & Skarlicki, 2010). Finally, D. Mayer, Nishii, Schneider, and Goldstein (2007) and Heslin and Vandewalle (2011) both investigated how manager personality influenced their adherence to justice rules as perceived by employees; these investigations have shown that traits such as agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism, as well as a manager’s implicit person theory (a belief that people can change) were associated with adherence to justice rules. Further capturing the assumption of employee passivity, Greenberg and Wiethoff (2001) provided a model incorporating both “reaction” and “proaction” processes to explain how supervisors become aware of injustice concerns among employees and how they might use this information to behave more fairly in the future. This model, however, incorporated employees only as a diagnostic mechanism for managers understanding the effects of their actions – the employee wasn’t viewed as a primary driver of managerial behavior. Recently, Li, Masterson, and Sprinkle (2012) invoked image theory as an explanation for why supervisors act in fair or unfair ways, however these authors focused more on the interface between supervisor actions and employee perceptions instead of examining why supervisor’s acted fairly or unfairly in the first place. Finally, in even the most comprehensive model of manager fair and unfair behavior to date (Scott et al., 2009), the role of the employee is largely relegated to the background. Scott et 17 al. (2009) proposed, and recently largely confirmed (Scott et al., in press), that supervisor adherence to justice rules is driven at least in part by the supervisor’s cognitive and affective motives (e.g., effecting compliance or affective state). The role of employees in this model is generally to serve a diagnostic function similar to Greenberg and Wiethoff (2001) in that supervisors use employee reactions to make sense of their own behavior. Thus, while the aforementioned models all invoke the employee to some extent, their focus is largely on supervisor-related factors as the impetus for adherence to justice rules. There are, however, three studies that have endeavored to shift the focus of investigations for supervisor justice rule adherence toward the employee. These studies represent the initial steps toward an employee-centric perspective; however their focus was generally on stable, traitlike individual differences and not on discrete sets of behavior. Therefore, despite the focus on employees, these studies still have a semblance of the justice taker perspective, such that supervisor justice rule adherence can be influenced, but only by those lucky enough to be endowed with certain traits. Korsgaard et al. (1998) investigated whether assertive employees would receive more extensive justifications from their supervisor during a performance appraisal exercise. Assertiveness in this study represented confederates maintaining eye contact or forcefully stating their own opinions – actions consistent with assertiveness as a facet of the broader extraversion construct (Costa & Mccrae, 1995). Furthermore, while these authors found a link between assertiveness and justifications in their lab study involving university undergraduate students, they failed to replicate this finding in a field quasi-experiment. Scott et al. (2007) investigated a different individual difference, employee charisma (Weber, 1947), in their field study of employees at a national insurance company. These authors found that employees who were more charismatic positively influenced their supervisor’s 18 affective evaluations and further reported increased adherence to interpersonal justice rules by their supervisor. Finally, Zapata et al. (2013) investigated a different individual difference, employee trustworthiness (R. C. Mayer et al., 1995) and found that supervisors trusted these employees more and felt an obligation to them, resulting in increased adherence to informational and interpersonal justice rules toward them. Only one published study has provided evidence that actual employee behaviors may influence supervisor adherence to justice rules. Dulebohn and Ferris (1999) found that employee voice during a performance appraisal (operationalized as supervisor reports of ingratiation) influenced employee perceptions of procedural justice. This paper provides suggestive evidence for the possibility of employee behaviors to influence supervisor justice rule adherence; however, unlike the papers by Scott, Zapata, and their colleagues, the Dulebohn and Ferris (1999) article only examines influence over justice rule adherence in a specific context (e.g., a performance appraisal) as opposed to altering how a supervisor acts at a general (e.g., entity; Bies, 2005; Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001) level. In this dissertation I take a proactive perspective on organizational justice and conceptualize employees not as justice takers, but as justice makers. I model supervisor adherence to the rules governing the four dimensions of justice as dependent variables and take an employee-centric look at the behaviors that influence adherence to these rules. By taking this approach, I address a call by Colquitt (2012) to more fully address employee variables that influence adherence to justice rules. In the section that follows, I draw on a prominent motivation perspective to explain how employees can influence justice rule adherence by their supervisor. 19 DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION OF THEORY One important contribution to the organizational justice literature was the insight that justice is a motivating phenomenon in that fair treatment can satisfy basic psychological needs (e.g., Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001). However, consideration of justice from this orientation preserves the justice taker view of employees. By instead considering employees as justice makers, supervisor adherence to justice rules becomes an outcome toward which employees strive instead of a condition to which employees react. This begs the question: what can employees do to influence or sway supervisor adherence to justice rules? Getting Ahead and Getting Along This question can be answered by looking to theory on motives. Many motivation theorists broadly conceptualize individual behavior as seeking either to get ahead or to get along (Bakan, 1966; Barrick et al., 2002; Wiggins, 1991). Bakan (1966) described the getting ahead motive as one of self-assertion and self-expansion through which an individual strives to master and control the environment as well as achieve sufficient power to protect that control. In contrast, he described the getting along motive as striving to maintain contact, openness and union with others through which an individual exerts their desire to create relationships with others. Bakan (1966) argued that at the broadest level of abstraction all individual motives fall into these two categories and that efforts to achieve these motives were responsible for guiding individual behavior (see also: Horowitz, Wilson, Turan, Zolotsev, Constantino, & Henderson, 2006; Wiggins & Trobst, 1999). Wiggins (1991) further noted that this dual perspective is broadly reflected in a variety of early philosophical (e.g., Confucius) and psychological (e.g.,Freud and Erikson) and argued that consideration of these motives are essential for understanding interpersonal behaviors. 20 Recently, this perspective on the duality of motives has been integrated into management research (e.g., R. Hogan & Shelton, 1998; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996). In the workplace, the getting ahead motive manifests as attempts to obtain and exert power, influence and control whereas the getting along motive manifests as attempts to feel accepted, liked and supported (Barrick, Mount, & Li, 2013; R. Hogan & Shelton, 1998). Barrick et al. (2002) took the important step of defining and operationalizing constructs based on these motives. These authors defined the constructs specifically as a set of striving behaviors representing efforts to get ahead or get along. Strivings represent a less abstract conceptualization of getting ahead and getting along and are a common method for conceptualizing motivation constructs (Horowitz et al., 2006). To represent the motive to get ahead, Barrick et al. (2002, p. 44) defined status striving as “actions directed toward obtaining power and dominance within a status hierarchy.” Similarly, to represent the motive to get along, these authors defined communion striving as “actions directed toward obtaining acceptance in personal relationships and getting along with others.” According to Barrick and colleagues (Barrick et al., 2013; Barrick et al., 2002) these constructs represent the manifestation of an individual’s agenda to achieve power, influence and control (getting ahead) or to create and maintain meaningful cooperative relationships with others (getting along). Barrick et al. (2002) described the motives of getting ahead and getting along as broad, basic goals driving purposeful employee behaviors in pursuit of personal agendas that represent achievement of those goals (see also: Barrick et al., 2013). The purposeful nature of these behaviors is an important point similarly echoed by Horowitz et al. (2006). Employees engage in attempts to get ahead and get along through purposeful, goal-directed social interactions in the 21 workplace (J. Hogan, Rybicki, Motowidlo, & Borman, 1998; R. Hogan & Shelton, 1998; Horowitz et al., 2006). Although all people have been theorized as possessing these two basic motives it is not the case that everyone will strive for them with the same intensity and persistence, in the same manner, or even strive for them at all (R. Hogan & Shelton, 1998). This begs the question: which employees are more likely to engage in such striving behavior? R. Hogan and Shelton (1998) asserted that individuals must possess the necessary social skills to translate their motivation to get ahead and get along into behavioral actions. I draw on recent theorizing vis-à-vis social skills and social effectiveness (e.g., Blickle, Frohlich, et al., 2011; Ferris, Perrewe, & Douglas, 2002) and conceptualize political skill (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005) as one potential driving force behind employee efforts to get ahead and get along (i.e., to strive for status and to strive for communion), ultimately influencing the fairness of the treatment they receive. Political skill represents an important individual difference that is likely to differentiate employees who are more or less likely to engage in striving behaviors. Such individuals are more likely to recognize that much decision making in organizations may be inherently politicized (Mintzberg, 1985) and thus will leverage their unique skill set to sway the extent to which their supervisor adheres to justice rules. In the section that follows, I will discuss the political perspective on organizations in general and discuss the political skill construct in detail. 22 LITERATURE REVIEW – POLITICAL SKILL The existence of politics in organizations is well-known to both scholars (Ferris & Hochwarter, 2011) and practitioners (Madison, Allen, Porter, Renwick, & Mayes, 1980). Moreover, organizational politics is a topic of frequent discussion in popular culture as well, as indicated through both news columns (“Don’t Dismiss Office Politics – Teach It”, 2011; “Trying to Stop Office Politics in its Tracks”, 2013) and even entire websites (http://www.officepolitics.com). In a survey conducted by Madison et al. (1980), practicing managers indicated that politics were commonplace experiences in the workplace. Ferris, Russ, and Fandt (1989, p. 143) discussed organizational politics as “simply a fact of life…behavior in and of organizations is often political in nature” while Ferris, Treadway, et al. (2005) argued that the existence and importance of politics in organizations has been acknowledged for years. Mintzberg (1985) even went so far as to label the workplace as a “political arena” whereby politics may capture the organization, either in whole or in part. The Oxford dictionary defines politics as “activities aimed at improving someone’s status or increasing power within an organization” whereby the Macmillan dictionary defines it as “the use by someone of particular ideas to try to get what they want.” In management research, organizational politics is generally a broad and encompassing term used to capture employee enactment of some set of opportunistic behaviors or perceptions that the work climate is characterized by such behaviors (Ferris et al., 1989). Indeed, one of the most distinguishing features of this literature is that the application of a political lens assumes that “individuals are self-interested and that their behaviors and actions are driven solely by the need to satisfy their own desires and objectives” (Treadway, 2012, p. 538). 23 Political Skill Adopting this perspective of self-interest, I focus on political skill as a key antecedent of status and communion striving behaviors. Political skill is defined as “effectively understanding others at work, and using such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal and/or organizational objectives” (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005, p. 127). The political skill construct has only recently been operationalized by Ferris and colleagues, however recognition that some individuals may possess certain characteristics that allow them to be successful in political environments, and that such a characteristic could be called political skill, was suggested by both Pfeffer (1981) and Mintzberg (1983). According to Ferris, Treadway, et al. (2005, pp. 127-128), politically skilled individuals “combine social astuteness with the capacity to adjust their behavior to different and changing situational demands in a manner that appears to be sincere, inspires support and trust, and effectively influences and controls the responses of others.” According to these authors, politically skilled individuals are able to adapt their behavior in different social situations, and do so in a manner that hides any self-serving intent from the attributions of others. The following description from Ferris, Treadway, et al. (2005, p. 128) paints a picture of how political skill manifests in the workplace. Politically skilled individuals convey a sense of personal security and calm self-confidence that attracts others and gives them a feeling of comfort. This self-confidence never goes too far so as to be perceived as arrogance but is always properly measured to be a positive attribute. Therefore, although self-confident, those high in political skill are not selfabsorbed (although they are self-aware) because their focus is outward toward others, not inward and self-centered. 24 To cover the content domain for political skill, Ferris, Treadway, et al. (2005) proposed that this construct consisted of four dimensions: social astuteness, interpersonal influence, networking ability and apparent sincerity. As experts in the politics literature, Ferris, Treadway, et al. (2005) examined this literature to determine the various skills needed to satisfy the given construct definition. In arriving at these four dimensions, the authors argue that they have broadly sampled the relevant content domain to describe a construct that is in some ways dispositional, but also “can be developed or shaped through a combination of formal and informal developmental experiences” (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005, p. 128). According to Ferris, Treadway, et al. (2005), socially astute individuals are attuned to diverse social situations. These individuals easily interpret both their own behavior, and that of others, and as such display cleverness during social interactions. Politically skilled individuals also have a “subtle and convincing personal style” that they use to exert influence on others. These individuals modify their behaviors according to the situation with the goal of eliciting particular responses from others. Ferris, Treadway, et al. (2005) propose that politically skilled individuals also possess networking ability, or an adeptness at developing alliances and coalitions of important others. Such networks allow politically skilled individuals to marshal support when necessary to take advantage of opportunities. Finally, Ferris, Treadway, et al. (2005) propose that all the while, politically skilled individuals appear sincere, authentic and genuine during social interactions. The combination of these dimensions allows politically skilled employees to marshal the support of others with whom they have developed strong relationships and astutely read others and the environment while regulating their own cognitions, emotions and behaviors in the enactment of goal-directed behaviors (Ferris, Treadway, Perrewe, Brouer, Douglas, & Lux, 2007). 25 Political Skill and Social Effectiveness Political skill is not the first construct to call attention to the importance of social effectiveness in the workplace (for a review, see: Ferris, Perrewe, et al., 2002). Social effectiveness generally reflects an ability to “effectively read, understand, and control social interactions” (Ferris, Perrewe, et al., 2002, p. 49). The construct of political skill resides in the broad content domain of social effectiveness along with a number of other constructs. Although political skill has both conceptual and empirical overlap with several other social effectiveness constructs, it is distinct from these constructs and is the most closely aligned with the political perspective adopted in this manuscript. Below I will briefly describe the conceptual and empirical differences between political skill and four commonly discussed social effectiveness constructs; importantly political skill has been shown to have significant, but generally moderately sized, relationships with these constructs (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005; Liu, Ferris, Zinko, Perrewe, Weitz, & Xu, 2007; Zellars, Perrewe, Rossi, Tepper, & Ferris, 2008). Emotional intelligence. Political skill was conceptually differentiated from emotional intelligence by Ferris, Treadway, et al. (2005). J. D. Mayer, Roberts, and Barsade (2008, p. 511) define emotional intelligence as the “ability to carry out accurate reasoning about emotions and the ability to use emotions and emotional knowledge to enhance thought.” Emotional intelligence should therefore be related to, but narrower than, political skill as that construct is generally focused only on the emotional aspects of effectiveness, influence and control (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005). Proactive personality. Ferris et al. (2007) proposed that proactive personality is a likely antecedent of political skill. Proactive personality reflects a dispositional tendency toward taking action and attempting to influence the environment (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Crant (1995) 26 further described proactive personality as a tendency toward taking action, showing initiative and persevering. Ferris et al. (2007) noted that proactive personality likely impels the influence and networking abilities of politically skilled individuals. Self-efficacy. Ferris et al. (2007) propose that in order to have and exercise political skill, individuals must perceive control over themselves and their environment. These authors suggest that self-efficacy, representing a personal judgment of an individual’s ability to execute action to deal with prospective situations (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998), reflects this belief. Individuals high in self-efficacy feel a sense of mastery and control over their environment and believe they possess the capability to organize and execute courses of action to attain desired outcomes (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Jawahar, Meurs, Ferris, and Hochwarter (2008) provide evidence of the independence of these constructs; these authors demonstrated that they are only moderately correlated and have differential predictive validity with task and contextual performance. Self-monitoring. Political skill is further differentiated from self-monitoring by Ferris, Treadway, et al. (2005). Self-monitoring reflects a tendency for an individual to monitor, observe, regulate and control their own self-presentation and as such it represents goal-oriented behavior enacted for the sake of achieving a desirable public appearance (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). Thus, self-monitoring individuals are sensitive to social and interpersonal cues and are skilled at choosing appropriate behaviors in specific situations (Ferris et al., 2007; Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). Ferris et al. (2007) suggest that self-monitoring may be an antecedent of political skill as both constructs reflect social astuteness and an orientation toward monitoring and regulating one’s behavior. 27 Despite the similarities however, political skill is differentiated from, and represents a unique contribution over, self-monitoring. Ferris, Treadway, et al. (2005) showed that, while self-monitoring was significantly associated with political skill, this relationship was only moderate (bivariate correlation of .39/.33 in study 1/study 2). Furthermore, in both studies selfmonitoring was significantly related only to three of the four dimensions of political skill (this relationship was not significant with the apparent sincerity dimension). Further evidence of this independence is provided by Semadar, Robins, and Ferris (2006) as these authors found a bivariate correlation of .27 between political skill and self-monitoring. Furthermore, they found that political skill predicted significant incremental variance in managerial performance over self-monitoring. Empirical Review of Political Skill Despite the relative infancy of the political skill construct, a number of research teams have conducted empirical research to both test some of the initial theorizing by Ferris and colleagues (e.g., Ferris, Perrewe, Anthony, & Gilmore, 2000; Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005) as well as to break new theoretical ground. I have organized much of the empirical research conducted to date on political skill into two coherent streams of research that I will discuss below. The first stream focuses on what political skill helps employees do (e.g., main effects of political skill). The second stream focuses on what political skill helps employees do better (e.g., enhancement effects of political skill). Both streams of research are important for understanding the workplace advantages conferred on politically skilled employees. Political skill main effects. One of the fundamental propositions regarding political skill is that possession of this skillset will contribute to one’s performance at work (or at least, perceptions of this performance). Several research teams have supported this proposition. 28 Blickle, Kramer, et al. (2011) found that political skill was a significant predictor of a broad operationalization of job performance beyond GMA and the big five personality traits. Using a more focused measure of task performance, Kapoutsis, Papalexandris, Nikolopoulos, Hochwarter, and Ferris (2011) demonstrated a positive relationship with political skill in two studies. Liu et al. (2007) add to this robust finding as they found similar relationships across three studies using several different operationalizations of performance. Several research teams have conducted simultaneous investigations of political skill’s relationship with both task and contextual performance. Jawahar et al. (2008) found significant relationships between political skill and task performance in two studies, and further demonstrated a significant relationship with contextual performance (study 1) and OCB-O and OCB-I in study 2. Andrews, Kacmar, and Harris (2009) further support the relationship between political skill and contextual performance; these authors used a multilevel design in which supervisors rated multiple subordinates on task-focused citizenship behaviors and demonstrated a significant relationship between these constructs. Finally, in a recent meta-analysis, Bing, Davison, Minor, Novicevic, and Frink (2011) reported an unreliability-corrected relationship between political skill and job performance of .19 and political skill and contextual performance relationship of .26. Looking beyond the short term, Blickle and colleagues have found that political skill is also related to an individual’s longer-term career outcomes. Blickle, Schneider, Liu, and Ferris (2011) found that political skill was significantly related to assessments of attained hierarchical position, income and career satisfaction measured one year later. Blickle, Oerder, and Summers (2010) further report a significant relationship between political skill and career success among works councilors in Germany. 29 One mechanism that has been proposed to explain the relationship between political skill and career outcomes is that political skill aids employees in developing a favorable reputation. The aforementioned article by Blickle, Schneider, et al. (2011) investigated reputation as a mediator of the career success measures and found that self-reported reputation mediated the effects of political skill on hierarchical position, income and career satisfaction. This finding was augmented by Zinko, Ferris, Humphrey, Meyer, and Aime (2012). Instead of using a self-report of reputation, these authors located another employee who did not commonly interact with the focal employee to complete the reputation measure. As hypothesized, political skill was positively associated with reputation, and reputation was further significantly related to career success, power and autonomy. Moreover, the political skill relationship was significant beyond the contributions of both tenure and expertise. Finally, several research teams have investigated how political skill impacts other assessments of the individual beyond reputation. Cullen, Fan, and Liu (in press) found that politically skilled employees were seen as more popular based on coworker reports and Gentry, Gilmore, Shuffler, and Leslie (2012) found that political skill was significantly related to assessments of promotability completed by bosses, direct reports, and peers. Political skill enhancement effects. A second stream of research has investigated the benefits of political skill and how such employees can wield this skill to augment or enhance their workplace outcomes. Drawing on socioanalytic theory (J. Hogan & Holland, 2003; R. Hogan & Shelton, 1998), several research teams have examined political skill’s enhancement effects on the relationship between personality and performance. Blickle et al. (2008) found that agreeableness was related to a broad measure of job performance, but only for politically skilled 30 employees. In a sample of German car salespersons, Blickle, Wendel, and Ferris (2010) found that extraversion was related to sales performance only for politically skilled employees. Similarly drawing on socioanalytic theory, Blickle, Frohlich, et al. (2011) investigated the enhancement effects of political skill on the relationship between employee work values and performance. Specifically, these authors measured values that conform to general individual motives to get ahead and get along in the workplace (e.g., R. Hogan & Shelton, 1998) and found that political skill enhanced the effects of both of these motives on a broad measure of job performance. Finally, Meurs, Perrewe, and Ferris (2011) investigated a narrower facet of personality – sincerity – and found that it significantly interacted with political skill in a prediction of task performance. Political skill is also effective at facilitating the use of upward influence tactics. Harris, Kacmar, Zivnuska, and Shaw (2007) tested the moderating effects of political skill on the relationship between several different types of influence tactics (self-promotion, ingratiation, intimidation, supplication and exemplification) and supervisor-rated performance. As hypothesized, the use of each influence tactic was significantly related to performance appraisals for politically skilled individuals. In a similar study, Treadway, Ferris, Duke, Adams, and Thatcher (2007) found that political skill diminished the effect to which subordinate ratings of ingratiation were related to supervisor ratings of ingratiation. Put another way, employees high in political skill reported being able to engage in ingratiation toward their supervisors without their supervisor noticing. Another study by Shaughnessy, Treadway, Breland, Williams, and Brouer (2011) found that women who engaged in ingratiation toward their supervisor were liked more when they were politically skilled. Kolodinsky, Treadway, and Ferris (2007) found that politically skilled employees who used the upward influence tactic rationality were rated as more 31 liked and more similar by their supervisors. Finally, Brouer, Duke, Treadway, and Ferris (2009) found that politically skilled employees in demographically dissimilar dyadic relationships with their supervisor reported having stronger LMX relationships than their low politically skilled counterparts. Beyond fostering positive supervisory assessments, two research teams have found that political skill aids in the accumulation of power in the workplace. Liu, Liu, and Wu (2010) investigated the interaction of political skill with a broad measure of political behavior enactment as a predictor of self-reported personal power (e.g., perceptions of control over several aspects of their job). As predicted, politically skilled individuals engaging in political behaviors reported higher perceived personal power in the workplace. Treadway, Breland, Williams, Cho, Yang, and Ferris (in press) further investigated the role of political skill in the accumulation of power in the workplace. In two network studies, these authors demonstrated that politically skilled individuals are able to translate their high job performance into powerful positions within their workplace influence networks. 32 HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT Politically skilled individuals have an advantage in the workplace that stems from a blend of astuteness and sincerity during interpersonal interactions as well as their capability to harness these skills to build networks and influence others (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005). The central thesis of this manuscript is that one manifestation of the advantages cultivated by politically skilled individuals is that they will tend to be treated more fairly by their supervisors compared to their less politically skilled counterparts, and these advantages in fair treatment will be the result of greater status and communion striving. Unlike more manager-centric models of justice as a dependent variable (Folger & Skarlicki, 2001; Scott et al., 2009) I instead take an employeecentric focus by conceptualizing politically skilled employees as justice makers in that these employees engage in behaviors directed at the source of justice rule adherence – the supervisor – that may sway the supervisor’s actions toward increased adherence to justice rules (distributive, procedural, informational and interpersonal) concerning that employee. Political Skill and Striving Striving as conceptualized in this manuscript represents a set of behaviors motivated by a desire to get ahead or to get along. I focus specifically on striving that is supervisor focused because supervisors represent an important conduit for the attainment of important social and economic outcomes (Andrews & Kacmar, 2001). The goal of these behaviors is to foster a stronger relationship with the supervisor (through communion striving) as well as to be differentiated from, and elevated above, other coworkers through status striving. Such actions are linked to political skill by Ferris et al. (2007, p. 301); these authors noted that political skill may be helpful for employees to guide and channel behaviors related to their “goals, objectives, motivations, and strivings.” 33 I focus on two specific forms of striving behavior in this manuscript; status striving and communion striving. Barrick et al. (2002) describe status striving as undertaking actions to obtain power and dominance and operationalize this construct by examining an individual’s efforts to elevate their contributions and stature beyond their coworkers. Communion striving is described as efforts to develop and maintain a relationship and is operationalized as individual efforts to be liked by the supervisor and look like a team player. There are a number of reasons why politically skilled individuals may be more likely to engage in higher levels of both behaviors compared to their less skilled counterparts. As it pertains to both forms of striving, politically skilled individuals are more likely to feel efficacious regarding their ability to successfully engage in these behaviors. Regarding status striving specifically, politically skilled individuals are likely to engage in these behaviors as their enactment should lead to increases in performance (or at least perceptions of performance), reputation, as well as status and power. As for communion striving, politically skilled individuals may be more likely to engage in these behaviors to influence how much they are liked by their supervisor, as well as increase the frequency and quality of interpersonal interactions with their supervisor. Efficacy to perform. Individuals low in political skill may not even attempt these striving behaviors. These individuals may lack the necessary efficacy to believe they could be successful at these behaviors, may be unable to build the necessary alliances and resource bases required to seek an elevated position in the workplace hierarchy and may lack the astute and easy going nature necessary to foster a communal relationship with the supervisor (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005). Instead, it is more likely that politically skilled individuals will be opportunistic and astutely recognize that these behaviors may sway the extent to which their supervisor provides 34 some desirable outcome. Furthermore, such individuals are skilled at reading the environment and may feel more efficacious about properly enacting these behaviors. Additionally, politically skilled employees should be confident in their ability to successfully strive for status and communion given their skills at interpersonal influence and their ability to do so in a manner that appears sincere (Kolodinsky et al., 2007). These feelings of efficacy are essential because both striving for status and communion require that the employee engage in actions that propel them above their coworkers and foster a close relationship with the supervisor. Such actions may entail personal risk to the employee; a politically unskilled individual may not possess the astuteness necessary to manage their workplace relationships while enacting these behaviors. However, the efficacy felt by politically skilled individuals should provide employees with a sense of reduced risk for these behaviors and as such these employees may feel fewer inhibitions regarding these behaviors (Ferris, Fedor, & King, 1994). Specifically, status and communion striving behaviors may foster negative attributions; for example such individuals may be seen ambitious and threatening (Pfeffer, 2010). However, politically skilled individuals may feel confident that they can engage in these behaviors and avoid potential sanctions. Drawing from the literature on career success, a contest-mobility perspective would suggest that competition is necessary for getting ahead and adding value (Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005). Thus, as long as such actions are undertaken properly – something for which politically skilled individuals are qualified given their skills at astute, sincere influence (e.g., Harris et al., 2007) – such behaviors may not be viewed poorly by the supervisor. Furthermore, politically skilled individuals are unlikely to be concerned that such behaviors would be viewed as ingratiation specifically, or as any sort of influence attempt in general. Political skill allows individuals to mask any semblance of these behaviors through 35 appearing sincere and tailoring their behavior to the situation (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005; Harris et al., 2007; Treadway et al., 2007). Striving for status. In addition to the efficacy that politically skilled individuals may feel for status and communion striving, reflected in their belief that they can manage important workplace relationships, these individuals may have other reasons for enacting these behaviors. Focusing specifically on status striving, these actions represent a set of behaviors conducted with a goal to obtain prestige, as well as dominate and excel relative to others (Barrick et al., 2013). Politically skilled individuals may be likely to engage in this behavior as it should help achieve certain goals. As I discuss more below, status striving should ultimately influence supervisor adherence to distributive and procedural justice. However, status striving is likely to be beneficial for politically skilled employees for other reasons as well. Engaging in these behaviors involves taking actions toward being appraised as superior to coworkers and rising to the top of the social hierarchy (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Politically skilled employees may be likely to do this as these actions should facilitate several other goals as well – being a high performer (or at least appearing that way) as well as developing a favorable reputation and increasing their status and power in the workplace (Ferris & Judge, 1991; Ferris et al., 2007). Politically skilled individuals are likely to recognize that performance is often appraised subjectively and that assessments of performance are subject to influence (Wayne & Liden, 1995). Ferris, Treadway, et al. (2005) argued that politically skilled individuals may excel at influencing performance ratings as their astuteness and apparent sincerity allows them to present their work in a favorable way. The actions involved in status striving may be one way to drive performance assessments as they represent a consistent set of behaviors that demonstrate a focus 36 on performance; indeed both Barrick et al. (2002) and Halbesleben and Bowler (2007) found significant relationships between status striving and subjective ratings of performance. Status striving behaviors are, however, useful for more than performance. Quite often for managers, decisions must be made on the basis of behaviors instead of actual results (Ferris et al., 1994; Pfeffer, 1981). Social information such as behavior is often utilized to make sense of an individual’s actions, and to the extent that these behaviors are enacted consistently and in successive behavioral episodes an employee can develop a favorable reputation for exerting effort and striving to perform (Ferris, Blass, Douglas, Kolodinsky, & Treadway, 2003); indeed previous research has shown that politically skilled employees do tend to have favorable reputations (e.g., Blickle, Schneider, et al., 2011; Zinko et al., 2012). Reputations are generally formed through persistent and purposeful behaviors and are valuable because they generally result in increased rewards (D. E. Johnson, Erez, Kiker, & Motowidlo, 2002). Politically skilled individuals typically behave in ways that signal effectiveness and, by doing so consistently, may be viewed as more legitimate and competent (Liu et al., 2007). Status striving may be one way of providing such a signal; Zinko, Ferris, Blass, and Laird (2007) noted that reputations are developed by self-regulating behavior towards a desired goal. Additionally, politically skilled individuals are generally attuned to the environment and aware of their relative position vis-à-vis their coworkers (Zinko et al., 2007). Politically skilled individuals may then view status striving as a means of advancing their relative position and crafting a reputation that one is a valuable organizational asset (Ferris et al., 2003). Finally, the activities involved in status striving should foster the achievement of power and status among their coworkers. To the extent that the individual is able to convert their efforts at status striving into actual achieved status, such behaviors should foster and reinforce this 37 person’s power either explicitly as through the provision of additional resources or control (Magee & Galinsky, 2008) or implicitly as by an influential position in workplace networks (Brass & Burkhardt, 1993). Politically skilled individuals excel at networking and positioning in important workplace networks and status striving may represent one mechanism providing employees with the necessary cachet to attain desirable positions in these structures. Overall, on the basis of this theorizing, I hypothesize: Hypothesis 1: Employee political skill is positively associated with status striving behavior. Striving for communion. According to Barrick et al. (2013) striving for communion represents a set of behaviors conducted with a goal to obtain acceptance and develop meaningful, cooperative relationships with others (for the purposes of this manuscript, develop a relationship with one’s supervisor). The development and maintenance of relationships is a key component of all human interaction (Bakan, 1966) and is important to the maintenance of well-being (Myers, 1999). Engagement in communion striving behaviors thus represents attempts by an employee to develop and maintain a friendly and social relationship with the supervisor characterized by support (Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007), meaningful contact, and cooperation (Barrick et al., 2013). Although a lay perception of politically skilled individuals may be somewhat negative (e.g., status-seeking individuals as in hypothesis 1), such a perception may be misguided. Even if such individuals may be somewhat conniving, this is in stark opposition to the image they tend to convey (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005). Thus, although they may be enacting behaviors to strive for status this does not preclude their ability to simultaneously enact behaviors to strive for communion. 38 As with status striving, politically skilled individuals can be expected to engage in communion striving not only because they excel at these types of behaviors, but also because such actions satisfy motives to develop relationships and get along. I will discuss further below how these behaviors may ultimately influence supervisor adherence to informational and interpersonal justice rules, however communion striving has other benefits as well. Communion striving involves actions oriented toward making oneself more attractive to the supervisor and to be seen as an easy person to get along with. Politically skilled employees may use these behaviors to help achieve other goals; these individuals recognize that connections and friendships with important and influential people are necessary for navigating the political landscape and therefore politically skilled employees want to be liked by, as well as engage in interpersonal interactions with, their supervisor (Ferris & Judge, 1991; Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005; Shi, Johnson, Liu, & Wang, 2013). Politically skilled individuals are generally seen as likeable by others; they are at ease in developing and maintaining relationships and connections with others such as their supervisor because these employees project a sense of calm self-confidence that is attractive to others (Ferris et al., 2007). Indeed, research has both suggested (Ferris & Judge, 1991) and demonstrated (Kolodinsky et al., 2007) that politically skilled individuals are apt to be liked by their supervisors. These individuals’ general nature facilitates this goal of being liked; politically skilled individuals seek to build important networks and coalitions by developing friendships with powerful others (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005). Communion striving behaviors may then be seen as one way of fostering liking as engagement in these behaviors involves efforts toward obtaining acceptance and developing these relationships – efforts likely to be reciprocated as a 39 means of maintaining balance in the relationship (Heider, 1958; Wayne, Liden, Graf, & Ferris, 1997). In a similar vein as their desire to be liked, politically skilled individuals may strive for communion as a way of improving the interactions they have with their supervisor. Politically skilled employees are motivated to build connections and given that political skill is activated and used during interpersonal interactions, such instances are necessary for these individuals to exercise their skills (Ferris et al., 2007). Politically skilled individuals are likely to desire frequent interactions as it is here that valuable resources can be obtained from the supervisor (Shi et al., 2013). Beyond interaction frequency, communion striving efforts may enhance the quality of those interactions as well. Because politically skilled individuals appear sincere and are seen as trustworthy (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005), supervisors should see such interactions as pleasant and be more likely to act positively during these interactions. Such positive interactions are important: Dimotakis, Scott, and Koopman (2011) showed that daily positive interactions were associated with both more daily positive affect as well as increased well-being at work. Overall, on the basis of this theorizing, I hypothesize: Hypothesis 2: Employee political skill is positively associated with communion striving behavior. Getting Ahead, Getting Along, and Supervisor Justice Rule Adherence In an earlier section I indicated that the behaviors driven by the getting ahead or getting along motive should subsequently sway supervisor adherence to justice rules. In this section I will develop that position further as I propose differential hypotheses regarding how status and communion striving influence supervisor adherence to different sets of justice rules. Cropanzano and Ambrose (2001) viewed justice as helping to satisfy either economic or socioemotional 40 concerns; Cropanzano, Byrne, et al. (2001) argued similarly but instead described justice as satisfying instrumental, relational or moral concerns. In keeping with the analogue to Cropanzano and Ambrose’s (2001) economic and socioemotional classification, and further following guidance from Zhu, Martens, and Aquino (2012) that views the moral aspect of justice as subsuming the other two instead of existing alongside of them, I focus only on the instrumental and relational aspects of justice in my model. To this end, an instrumental view focuses on justice as reflecting control needs and a desire to ensure the predictability of rewards and punishments through the management of interactions involving desired outcomes whereas a relational view focuses on justice as reflecting self-worth issues and conveying information about relationships with an authority as well as a desire to develop and maintain these relationships (Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001; Williams & Sommer, 1997). The distributive and procedural justice dimensions focus primarily on the allocation of material possessions and other rewards as well as the procedures surrounding these allocations. In contrast, the informational and interpersonal dimensions focus primarily on respectful and socially-sensitive treatment by a supervisor during interactions with employees. Drawing on these distinctions, I propose that supervisor adherence to distributive and procedural justice rules will be for primarily economic or instrumental reasons. In contrast, supervisor adherence to informational and interpersonal justice rules will be for primarily socioemotional or relational reasons (see Figure 2). 41 Figure 2 - Proposed Classification of Justice Dimensions Following this classification scheme, I further argue that supervisors are likely to categorize employee behaviors as generally reflecting either instrumental concerns or reflecting relational concerns (e.g., Allen & Rush, 1998; Eastman, 1994) and to use these categorizations as the basis for making subsequent decisions (Lord & Maher, 1991). A fundamental tenet of social interaction is that people use information from their social environment to make sense of situations and establish attributions for behavior (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978; Weick, 1979). Research has shown that the categorizations created through the processing of social information are useful for supervisors in situations where processing capabilities are limited (Maher, 1995) or in familiar relationships (Smith, 1994), thus supervisors may interpret employee getting ahead and getting along behaviors as a form of signaling that identifies an individual’s motives. Just as supervisors are likely to classify employee behaviors as motivated by instrumental or relational concerns, I similarly argue that supervisor responses to these behaviors will correspond, indeed such social judgments generally display a path dependency, such that prior categorizations may influence subsequent actions (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). That is, supervisors will respond in an instrumental fashion to behaviors that are categorized as instrumental, and 42 likewise with relationally categorized behaviors. In making this argument, I adapt the logic of Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1977) compatibility principle. These authors proposed this principle as a way of achieving better predictive validity between attitudes and behaviors, suggesting that “it is usually considered to be logical or consistent for a person who holds a favorable attitude toward some object to perform favorable behaviors” (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977, p. 889). Underlying this assertion is that similarity between constructs should be helpful for prediction. This principle has been adapted to address similarity between perceptions and attitudes (Rosen, Chang, Johnson, & Levy, 2009) as well as justification for a stronger relationship between work-related regulatory focus and work outcomes compared to a more general measure of regulatory focus (Lanaj, Chang, & Johnson, 2012). Thus, I draw on this principle and assert that supervisors will respond to instrumentally motivated behaviors with adherence to justice rules that reflect instrumental concerns. Similarly, I assert that supervisors will respond to relationally motivated behaviors with adherence to justice rules that reflect relational concerns. Getting ahead. Status striving behaviors are conducive to beneficial treatment in the workplace for a number of reasons. Such efforts reflect an effort to climb to the top of the workplace hierarchy and should result in higher performance for employees engaged in these behaviors (e.g., Barrick et al., 2002). Given this, more favorable treatment in the form of adherence to justice rules toward these individuals could be seen by the supervisor as necessary actions toward high performing employees. High performing employees tend to be motivated by financial incentives and often expect to receive outcomes that are consistent with their level of performance (Rynes, Gerhart, & Parks, 2005) and failure to adhere to justice rules reflecting this level of performance may result in withdrawal or turnover (Colquitt et al., 2001; Leventhal, 1979; Shaw & Gupta, 2007). Similarly, such employees may perceive that their level of 43 performance entitles them in the workplace – for example, high performing employees expect more opportunity to exert voice (Detert & Burris, 2007). However, there are reasons to believe that status striving behaviors may promote adherence to instrumental sets of justice rules (i.e., distributive and procedural justice) outside of the effects of performance. Behavior serves as a signaling function designed to convey information to the intended observer (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011; Spence, 1973). Status striving behaviors may then create expectations regarding such behaviors in the future (Lange, Lee, & Dai, 2011; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). These expectations are akin to the development of a reputation that may suggest that the employee is highly motivated or likely to continue performing their job competently (Zinko et al., 2012). Thus, in addition to capturing an individual’s capabilities, or what a person can do, reputation may also serve as a character signal representing potential future actions (e.g., Mishina, Block, & Mannor, 2012). The development of a reputation involves enacting behaviors to set oneself apart (Zinko et al., 2007); to the extent that status striving is successful the individual will have achieved a clear distinction between themselves and their coworkers. Reputations then are important as they generally confer economic value in the present based partly on their use as a proxy for predicting future behavior (Blickle, Schneider, et al., 2011; Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). Applied to the issue of increased instrumentally fair treatment, not only are those high performers likely to be treated more fairly in the short term, but the development of a favorable reputation may have the added benefit of reducing uncertainty or ambiguity for the supervisor regarding expected behavior in the long-term (Zinko et al., 2007). Such reduction is valuable and therefore supervisors may be more likely to reward such instrumental behaviors in kind. 44 Status striving behavior may further foster more favorable treatment for reasons beyond both current levels of performance as well as the future uncertainty reducing effects of a favorable reputation. It is also possible that supervisors may treat status striving employees more fairly because of the status and power this individual may have among his or her coworkers. As was previously discussed, these actions should confer status, as well as a measure of power, among their coworkers in the workgroup. Given this position, supervisors may be hesitant to treat such employees unfairly – recent research has shown that not only can justice attitudes be transmitted among coworkers, but that certain employees may be more influential in transmitting these attitudes (Degoey, 2000; Roberson & Colquitt, 2005). Supervisors may feel – and rightly so (e.g., Christian, Christian, Garza, & Ellis, 2012) – that unfair treatment perpetrated toward a more influential employee may be detrimental to the justice attitudes within the overall workgroup. Overall, the combination of increased short-term performance, expectations of effort and performance in the long term in the form of reputation, and possible deference toward a high status employee suggests that status striving should then be categorized in an instrumental fashion and similarly responded to by the supervisor through adherence to instrumental justice rules. As it pertains specifically to distributive justice, status striving employees are likely to have value to the organization. Higher performance represents short term benefits and a favorable reputation alleviates longer term ambiguities that a supervisor may have about where to invest resources. Supervisors may then endeavor to ensure reward fairness regarding such employees to influence job satisfaction (Janssen, 2001). For example, Mitchell and Mickel (1999) argued that for those who care about money (as status striving individuals do, or at least 45 how they are likely to be categorized by their supervisor), having money is positively related to overall satisfaction. As it pertains specifically to procedural justice, supervisors may be more likely to provide voice to status striving employees. Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson (2003) suggest that high power employees may be more likely to take an approach orientation and may expect more opportunity to speak up. Magee and Galinsky (2008) echo this point as they review research suggesting that high status and power individuals are more likely to demand more speaking time and are more likely to speak out of turn. Further, status striving – at least to the extent it is successful – should provide employees with a general sense of safety and security in the workplace given their reputation and network position; such feelings of safety were found by Liang, Farh, and Farh (2012) to be positively related to engagement in voice. Beyond adherence to voice rules, status striving may influence other procedural justice rules as well. Cortina (2008) discusses how categorizations and stereotypes of individuals may influence bias expression or suppression; advancing her position it seems likely that a favorable categorization may reduce biased or discriminatory behaviors by a supervisor, for example while following procedures for an important decision. Carton and Rosette (2011) similarly describe how favorable informationprocessing based on attributions for behavior can result in suppressed biases toward individuals. Supervisors may similarly have a desire to maintain consistency toward a status striving individual (Fiske & Taylor, 1991); to the extent that this employee’s behaviors are categorized as instrumentally focused, the supervisor may desire to maintain balance (Heider, 1958) and is then likely to similarly respond in an instrumental fashion. Overall, I argue that status striving behaviors should promote performance, reputation development and attainment of status and power for the employee. Status striving behaviors are 46 likely to be categorized as instrumentally motivated and favorably responded to in an instrumental fashion (i.e., as in adherence to the more instrumental sets of justice rules). On the basis of this I hypothesize: Hypothesis 3a: Employee status striving is positively associated with supervisor adherence to distributive justice rules. Hypothesis 3b: Employee status striving is positively associated with supervisor adherence to procedural justice rules. Getting along. Communion striving behaviors should also contribute to beneficial treatment by one’s supervisor. Communion striving represents employee endeavors to develop and maintain a social relationship with their supervisor that conveys a sense of acceptance and closeness (Barrick et al., 2013). Similarly with status striving, engagement in communion striving behaviors could potentially relate to assessments of performance that might subsequently drive adherence to justice rules. As described above, communion striving behaviors, to the extent that they are successful, should foster liking between the employee and supervisor and indeed, a long history of research has linked supervisor liking to performance assessments (Wayne & Ferris, 1990; Wayne & Liden, 1995). Given this, increased supervisor adherence to justice rules may seem natural for a perceived high performance employee. However, as with status striving, there are reasons beyond simply the relationship between liking and performance to expect that communion striving employees may receive more fair treatment from the supervisor – specifically adherence to informational and interpersonal justice rules. Unlike the paucity of research predicting supervisor adherence to distributive and procedural justice, some recent research has examined the antecedents of adherence to informational and interpersonal justice rules. Scott et al. (2007) showed that manager affect in 47 the form of sentiments toward the employee was related to adherence to interpersonal justice rules and Zapata et al. (2013) showed that manager cognitions in the form of trust and feelings of obligation to the employee were related to adherence to both informational and interpersonal justice rules. Drawing from this research, it follows that the extent to which an employee can induce favorable affective or cognitive perceptions from the supervisor should go a long way to influencing adherence to informational and interpersonal justice rules. As has been discussed, in their efforts to be liked, politically skilled employees may engage in communion striving behaviors. These behaviors are geared toward fostering liking, trying to develop a friendship, and generally achieving meaningful contact with a specific target (Barrick et al., 2013). To the extent that these behaviors are effective, the supervisor may indeed like that employee more. Liking generally reflects a positive affective feeling toward another (e.g., Wayne & Liden, 1995) and such interpersonal feelings may make the employee more attractive to interact with more frequently and more positively. The affect or liking that communion striving should induce dovetails with Scott et al.’s (2007) finding that the more positive sentiments a manager held toward a subordinate was positively associated with adherence to interpersonal justice rules. Furthermore, although Scott et al. (2007) did not find a relationship between managerial sentiments and employee perceptions of informational justice, there are reasons to expect that positive affective sentiments such as liking may be associated with giving information. Collins and Miller (1994) conducted a meta-analysis on the relationship between liking and information disclosure and provide strong support for this notion as not only do people tend to disclose more information to those they like, but this pattern appears to be mutually reinforcing as disclosure also further perpetuated liking. 48 Moreover, recent research has shown that politically skilled employees are likely to have more frequent interactions with their supervisor (Shi et al., 2013) and, given the social and friendly nature of communion striving behaviors, these actions may be one way of fostering these interactions. More frequent interactions can be expected to influence supervisor adherence to justice rules for several reasons. First, these repeated interactions may be likely to drive assessments of liking (i.e., mere exposure; Zajonc, 1968). Second, given the encounter based nature of informational and interpersonal justice (Bies, 2005), more frequent interactions may result in adherence to these rules given more opportunity to do so. Finally, (Shi et al., 2013) linked the increased frequency of interactions with politically skilled employees to supervisor dependence on that employee, a finding that dovetails with Zapata et al.’s (2013) finding that when supervisors felt more obligation to an employee they were more likely to adhere to informational and interpersonal justice rules. Not only did Zapata et al. (2013) find a relationship between felt obligation and justice rule adherence, but they found a similar relationship when supervisors trusted the employee more as well; trust that may be promoted by communion striving efforts from the employee. Trust is an outcome of the perceived trustworthiness of an individual (R. C. Mayer et al., 1995) and there are reasons to think that communion striving could influence aspects of trustworthiness. Benevolence, for example, generally reflects a specific attachment between trustee and trustor whereas integrity is a perception that the trustee generally follows an acceptable set of principles (R. C. Mayer et al., 1995). Supervisors can be expected to hold these perceptions toward employees engaging in communion striving as those actions signal a desire to be accepted into a strong relationship. 49 Overall, an employee’s sincerely perceived efforts to develop a relationship with their supervisor should further contribute to the supervisor’s self-esteem and general level of affinity or empathy for that employee – Patient and Skarlicki (2005) suggest that both should have an effect on adherence to informational and interpersonal justice rules (see also: Masterson et al., 2005; Patient & Skarlicki, 2010). Furthermore, whereas adherence to distributive or procedural justice rules generally require some contextual event whereby a decision is being made, adherence to informational or interpersonal justice rules are more likely to be enacted during everyday encounters (Bies, 2005). Therefore, as a supervisor likes and trusts an employee more, and interacts with an employee more, the supervisor may have both more motivation and opportunity to adhere in these rules (Scott et al., 2009). Overall, I argue that communion striving behaviors should promote liking and trust as well as interaction frequency and quality between a supervisor and employee. Communion striving behaviors are likely to be categorized as relationally motivated and favorably responded to in a relational fashion (i.e., as in adherence to more relational sets of justice rules). On the basis of this, I hypothesize: Hypothesis 4a: Employee communion striving is positively associated with supervisor adherence to informational justice rules. Hypothesis 4b: Employee communion striving is positively associated with supervisor adherence to interpersonal justice rules. Non-corresponding relationships. Although I argued above, and depicted in Figure 2, that distributive and procedural justice were instrumentally focused and that informational and 50 interpersonal justice were relationally focused, the issue is likely more complicated than that. As I will describe below, procedural justice may have some relational aspects that link adherence with communion striving and similarly informational justice may have some instrumental aspects that link adherence with status striving. As such, I offer Figure 3 that depicts the justice dimensions situated along a continuum where distributive justice is primarily instrumental and interpersonal justice is primarily relational. However, procedural and informational both sit closer to the middle, indicating that while procedural is mostly instrumental, and informational mostly relational, both dimensions may cross that dividing line somewhat. Of note is that this classification corresponds to that proposed by Scott et al. (2009), but is based on different theorizing. Figure 3 - Continuum-Based Classification of Justice Dimensions Communion striving – a primarily relationally focused motive – should be most closely related with supervisor adherence to the rules governing the more socially oriented informational and interpersonal justice dimensions. However, there are reasons to believe that this behavior could influence supervisor adherence to procedural justice rules as well. Although procedural and distributive justice are both largely economically oriented (Cropanzano & Ambrose, 2001), distributive justice may be separable as adherence to equity rules generally requires the allocation of something tangible. Procedural justice, though similarly concerned with such 51 allocations, generally requires only an investment of time and effort to ensure adherence to the various rules. Communion striving behavior may then influence adherence to these justice rules in a similar fashion as adherence to informational and interpersonal justice rules. That is, just as informational and interpersonal rules may be influenced because the supervisor likes an employee, similarly such favorable perceptions may cause the supervisor to be more willing to take the time to ensure adherence to procedural justice rules. Further, given more frequent and positive interactions, an employee may simply have more opportunity to exercise voice regarding procedures and the manager may be more likely to ensure consistency or suppress bias as a means of maintaining the communal relationship. Overall, such behaviors ensure then that the favored employee, in addition to being treated more interactionally fairly, may also be favored through increased adherence to procedural justice rules. On the basis of this, I further hypothesize: Hypothesis 5: Employee communion striving is positively associated with supervisor adherence to procedural justice rules. Similarly, there are reasons to believe that status striving – a primarily instrumentally focused motive – may also be related to supervisor adherence to informational justice rules. Drawing from research on interpersonal communication (Penley & Hawkins, 1985), interactions between people can generally be broken down into two levels: the actual content (i.e., what is being said) and the delivery of the content (i.e., how it is said). Masterson et al. (2005) utilize this distinction to classify informational justice as reflecting the content and interpersonal justice as reflecting the delivery. Thus while an affiliative relationship fostered through communion striving may influence adherence to both sets of justice rules, there may be other, less affiliative, influences for informational justice rule adherence as well. 52 Resource theorists have noted that information, beyond its intrinsic benefits such as social support, may also have extrinsic benefits that are economically valuable (Blau, 1964; Foa & Foa, 1974). Bies (2005) discusses how informational justice may extend beyond justifications and explanations for events that have already occurred to also encompass information about impending layoffs or other organizational events. In that sense, information has a diagnostic function as it reduces environmental uncertainty (Sullivan, 1988) and may help to acquire necessary job-related knowledge and skills (Morrison, 1993). Furthermore, information is a key source of power (Pfeffer, 2010), which status striving individuals crave. Importantly, supervisors represent a key source of information regarding both an employee’s job and the organization as a whole (e.g., Nifadkar, Tsui, & Ashforth, 2012). Given the instrumental benefits that information may provide, it is possible that a supervisor may classify adherence to these rules in both a relational and instrumental fashion and include adherence to informational justice rules as a response to employee status striving. On the basis of this, I further hypothesize: Hypothesis 6: Employee status striving is positively associated with supervisor adherence to informational justice rules. Overall, the theory developed above provides conceptual grounding for my earlier assertion that politically skilled individuals will tend to be treated more fairly by their supervisors. Specifically, politically skilled individuals are benefitted in the workplace because, in general, their supervisors will more likely adhere to distributive, procedural, informational and interpersonal justice rules. This adherence occurs because politically skilled individuals will be more likely to, and more successful at, engaging in status and communion striving behaviors that 53 favorably influence their supervisor’s behavior. Taking the above hypotheses together, this implies a series of mediated relationships which I state formally below. Hypothesis 7a: The relationship between employee political skill and supervisor adherence to distributive justice rules is mediated by employee status striving behavior. Hypothesis 7b: The relationship between employee political skill and supervisor adherence to procedural justice rules is mediated by both employee status and communion striving behavior. Hypothesis 7c: The relationship between employee political skill and supervisor adherence to informational justice rules is mediated by both employee status and communion striving behavior. Hypothesis 7d: The relationship between employee political skill and supervisor adherence to interpersonal justice rules is mediated by employee communion striving behavior. Person-Level Enhancements To enhance the motivational perspective that I have put forth, I propose two individual differences that, when combined with political skill, may augment the extent to which employees engage in status or communion striving behavior. To maintain a close correspondence with the getting ahead and getting along perspective I argue that political skilled employees, when simultaneously high on extraversion or agreeableness, will be even more likely to engage in status or communion striving behaviors respectively. A focus on personality as an enhancer of these relationships is an ideal and logical boundary because personality and motivation – and 54 specifically the motivation to get ahead or get along – are intimately related (R. Hogan & Shelton, 1998). Personality theorists have specifically identified extraversion and agreeableness as fundamentally related, respectively, to the getting ahead and getting along motives (Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996). Wiggins (1991, p. 109) argues that extraversion and agreeableness are the traits most related to the getting ahead and getting along motives whereas the remaining Big Five factors “tap something different” than these motives, or may function as facilitators or interferers with those motives (Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996). In previous research Barrick et al. (2002) positioned extraversion as an antecedent of status striving and agreeableness as an antecedent of communion striving because of the relationship between these personality factors and the getting ahead and getting along motives. Indeed, in the present manuscript I expect similar relationships. However, the focus of this model is on the actions undertaken by politically skilled individuals to sway supervisor adherence to justice rules. These personality traits, given their intimate relationship with the motives at hand, should enhance the previously discussed relationships between political skill and striving. Pertaining specifically to the getting ahead motive, Wiggins (1991) explicitly linked extraversion with an orientation toward dominance and status and Barrick et al. (2002) noted that extraverts are typically bold, assertive and desire to excel and obtain rewards (see also: Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). In contrast, Wiggins (1991) regarded agreeableness as aligned with an orientation toward social and emotional connections with others, a point furthered by Barrick et al. (2002) and Judge et al. (2002) in their characterization of agreeable individuals as striving for affiliation and cooperation with others. 55 Given the relationship of these personality constructs with the motivational orientations toward getting ahead and getting along, individuals who possess such personality traits should be more likely to enact behaviors consistent with such motivational orientations. Specifically, more extraverted individuals should be expected to engage in status striving behaviors and, similarly, more agreeable individuals should be expected to engage in communion striving behaviors. To this end, such relationships have been previously shown by Barrick and colleagues and I similarly expect to reproduce these relationships. Hypothesis 8a: Employee extraversion is positively associated with status striving behavior. Hypothesis 8b: Employee agreeableness is positively associated with communion striving behavior. Furthermore, those certain individuals who are both politically skilled and highly extraverted should experience an even larger motivational orientation toward the accumulation of status and dominance. Extraversion provides these individuals with an increased penchant toward seeking rewards and social domination (Barrick et al., 2013) and as a result the propensity for politically skilled individuals to engage in status striving should be enhanced. Similarly, when politically skilled individuals are also highly agreeable, this should also augment their general desire to foster relationships and create connections. Agreeableness provides these individuals with increased motivation to strive for communal relationships based on acceptance and kindness (Barrick et al., 2013). Ultimately, the intersection of political skill with increased levels of extraversion or agreeableness should, respectively, enhance the likelihood of engaging in status or communion striving behaviors. The combination of political skill with these 56 personality traits results in an individual with the necessary skills for enacting those behaviors combined with an augmented motivational drive to either get ahead or get along. On the basis of this, I hypothesize: Hypothesis 9a: Extraversion moderates the relationship between political skill and status striving, such that the relationship is stronger (i.e., more positive) for more extraverted employees. Hypothesis 9b: Agreeableness moderates the relationship between political skill and communion striving, such that the relationship is stronger (i.e., more positive) for more agreeable employees. Situation-Level Enhancements Finally, I propose one additional boundary condition to my model reflecting the importance of investigating the organizational context in which this model is situated (Johns, 2006). Drawing on the notion that human behavior is a function of both the person and the environment (Lewin, 1936) and further incorporating a political lens to this model, I propose that politically skilled individuals will be more likely to engage in both status and communion striving behaviors in environments perceived as highly politicized – that is, environments characterized by behaviors that are self-serving, illegitimate, and often harmful to the organization or its members (Kacmar & Baron, 1999). Given the generally negative connotation of politics, such an environment characterized by self-serving, illegitimate and harmful behavior may sound on its face to be a disabling and demoralizing state of affairs. Indeed, such a characterization certainly has some truth to it; perceptions of politics have been found to be demoralizing, to foster perceptions of psychological contract breach, and are generally detrimental for performance (Chang et al., 57 2009; Rosen et al., 2009; Rosen, Levy, & Hall, 2006). However, it is equally important to note that Chang et al. (2009) found significant variance in the relationships between perceptions of politics and a variety of outcomes (e.g., strain, job satisfaction, etc.). Such variation may potentially be explained by Kacmar and Carlson (1997) as these authors noted that some employees – those who can use politics to their advantage – may find value in such an environment. Indeed, politically skilled individuals have been shown to be resilient in the face of stressors in general (Perrewe, Zellars, Ferris, Rossi, Kacmar, & Ralston, 2004) and perceptions of politics in specific (Brouer, Harris, & Kacmar, 2011). Perceptions of politics may be further relevant specifically as it pertains to issues of organizational justice; both Andrews and Kacmar (2001) and Aryee, Chen, and Budhwar (2004) found significant, negative relationships between employee perceptions of politics and supervisor adherence to justice rules. Extrapolating from this, in politicized environments employees may rightly be concerned about whether or not they will be treated fairly. Instead of viewing such a situation as a threat, I argue instead that politically skilled individuals may view this as an opportunity and feel emboldened to engage in behaviors that increase supervisor adherence to justice rules. This situation clearly illustrates the paradox of organizational politics – that an environment typically associated with reduced fairness can be manipulated to increase fairness. However, as Mintzberg (1985) noted when commenting on this paradox, “[O]rganizational politics may irritate us, but it also serves us.” In contrast, in a non-politicized environment, a politically skilled individual may recognize that status and communion striving behaviors may appear somewhat out of place. In this case, their perceived efficacy for engaging in these behaviors may be reduced because they may recognize that their enactment would seem out of place and create difficulties in their relationships with their coworkers and supervisor. 58 Though the relationship between political skill and both status and communion striving is unlikely to become negative in such an environment, enactment of these behaviors is likely to be substantially diminished. On the basis of this, I hypothesize: Hypothesis 10a: Perceptions of politics moderates the relationship between political skill and status striving, such that the relationship is stronger (i.e., more positive) for more politicized environments. Hypothesis 10b: Perceptions of politics moderates the relationship between political skill and communion striving, such that the relationship is stronger (i.e., more positive) for more politicized environments. 59 METHOD Sample and Procedure The data for this study was collected through a snowball sampling procedure whereby focal employees were contacted and recruited to participate in a study by completing an online survey. In this survey, employees were also asked to provide contact information for their direct supervisor as well as between two and four additional coworkers in their workgroup who also share the same supervisor. The supervisor and coworkers were contacted and recruited to participate in the study by completing an online survey. All participants were informed that their responses would remain completely confidential and were offered a token honorarium of $10 for their participation and were further informed that they would be eligible for a drawing for an additional $100 prize. I identified focal employees in two ways. For one, students enrolled in introductory management courses at a large mid-western university were offered extra credit in their course for providing the contact information for a person they knew that works full time. This person then represented the focal employee that was contacted and recruited to the study. The other process for identifying a focal employee relied on a panel of individuals who have previously participated in a similar research study. These individuals were contacted and recruited to participate in this study in the fashion described above. One hundred forty-seven focal employees completed the signup survey and provided contact information for their immediate supervisor as well as between 2 to 4 coworkers (457 total) who report to that same supervisor. I obtained complete surveys from 122 of the 147 supervisors (83%) and I obtained complete surveys from 349 of the 457 coworkers (76%). After matching these responses, I removed work units in which supervisors did not complete their 60 survey or in which the total number of subordinates (employees plus coworkers) was less than 3 (i.e., those instances where 1 or fewer coworkers completed their survey). This resulted in a final sample of 341 employees nested under 86 supervisors. The nature of the snowball technique for identifying study respondents results in a widely targeted and diverse set of occupations and organizations in the sample. The average age of the focal employees and coworkers in the workgroup was 41 years (SD=12.9) and 60% were female. The average age of the supervisors was 47 years and 38% were female. Participants were employed in a variety of industries (e.g., education, automotive, financial services, pharmaceuticals and aerospace) and held a diverse array of job titles (e.g., air traffic specialist, roofing logistics analyst, farm worker and senior product engineer). The surveys completed by the focal employee and recruited coworkers contained the measures of political skill, communion and status striving, as well as the moderator scales of extraversion, agreeableness and perceptions of politics. In addition, as discussed further in supplemental analysis section below, the employee and coworkers completed a measure of their own tendency toward self-monitoring as well a measure of task proficiency for each of the other participating employees (e.g., the focal employee completed this task proficiency measure for each coworker recruited and each coworker completed this measure for the focal employee and the other participating coworkers). The supervisor survey contained the dependent variable measures of distributive, procedural, informational and interpersonal justice rule adherence. This measure was completed by the supervisor for each participating employee. I measured organizational justice from the supervisor’s perspective because my proposed model reflects a process by which employee behaviors can elicit certain behaviors from the supervisor. Although supervisor reports of adherence and employee perceptions have been shown to be related (e.g., 61 Zapata et al., 2013), these relationships were generally moderately sized. Such imperfect correspondence between supervisor reports and employee perceptions is not unreasonable; for example, meta-analysis has shown that employee perceptions of justice can be colored by trait negative affect (Barsky & Kaplan, 2007). However, because of this imperfect correspondence I feel that supervisors are the more appropriate source of justice rule adherence in this study. Furthermore, similarly discussed further in the supplemental analysis section below, the supervisor also completed a measure of task proficiency for each participating employee. Measures Political skill. Political skill was assessed using the 18-item Political Skill Inventory from Ferris, Treadway, et al. (2005). A 5-point Likert scale was used ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Prior research suggests that this scale consistently demonstrates acceptable internal consistency (Andrews et al., 2009; Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005; Treadway et al., 2007). Sample items include “I spend a lot of time and effort at work networking with others” and “I am good at getting people to like me.” The coefficient alpha for this scale was .89. Because this scale consists of four inter-related dimensions, I evaluated the factor structure through a confirmatory factor analysis. First, I created the four lower-level factors as reflected by their items and I then specified that these four factors all loaded on a single second-order political skill factor. This model has acceptable fit to the data (χ2 = 266, df = 131, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .06). I then evaluated this model against the less constrained model in which the four factors freely covary with each other. Chi-square difference test suggests that the more constrained model does not introduce significant misfit (Δχ2 = 3, df = 2, p > .05). Moreover, there was no change in the other fit indices (CFI = .90, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .06). 62 Therefore, following the political skill literature I tested my hypotheses using the overall construct. Status striving. Status striving was assessed using the 11 items developed by Barrick et al. (2002). A 5-point Likert scale was used ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). These items were originally written specifically to assess salespersons; to better reflect the wide variety of occupations that I surveyed I modified the items slightly (see also: Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007). Prior research suggests that this scale demonstrates acceptable internal consistency (e.g., Barrick et al., 2002; Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007). Sample items include “I set personal goals for performing better than anyone else” and “I frequently think about ways to get ahead and obtain better pay or working conditions.” The coefficient alpha for this scale was .92. Communion striving. Communion striving was assessed using the 9 items developed by Barrick et al. (2002). A 5-point Likert scale was used ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Unlike status striving, these items did not reference a specific occupation (e.g., salesperson) however they were written to reflect communion striving indiscriminately toward a supervisor or coworkers. To reflect the theory I developed in this manuscript, I modified the items slightly to reflect communion striving toward a supervisor only. Prior research suggests that this scale demonstrates acceptable internal consistency (e.g., Barrick et al., 2002; Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007). Sample items include “I never give up trying to be liked by my supervisor” and “I focus my attention on getting along with my supervisor at work.” The coefficient alpha for this scale was .84. Organizational justice. The organizational justice dimensions were assessed using a modified version of the scales created by Colquitt (2001). These scales have been well validated 63 since their inception and consistently demonstrate acceptable internal consistency. Sample items include “do this employee’s outcomes reflect the effort he/she has into his/her work” (distributive justice), “has he/she been able to express his/her views and feelings during those procedures” (procedural justice), “have details been communicated to him/her in a timely manner” (informational justice), and “has he/she been treated in a polite manner” (interpersonal justice). The items were originally written to reflect employee perceptions of the extent to which their supervisor adheres to various justice rules. I modified these items slightly to reflect the extent to which a supervisor believes that he/she generally adheres to these justice rules specifically toward each participating employee (see also: Zapata et al., 2013). A 5-point Likert scale was used ranging from 1 (rarely or occasionally) to 5 (always). Because supervisor discretion to adhere to justice rules varies (Scott et al., in press) a sixth choice of ‘not applicable’ was added to capture those instances where a supervisor did not have discretion to adhere to justice rules toward a specific employee. If ‘not applicable’ was selected then those observations were recoded as missing and the entire case was not included in the analysis (the overall numbers reported earlier already reflect these exclusions). Three supervisors responded ‘not applicable’ for adherence to distributive justice rules toward all participating employees. Of these, one supervisor also reported ‘not applicable’ for adherence to procedural justice items for all participating employees. Five additional supervisors reported ‘not applicable’ to adherence to distributive justice rules for at least one participating employee. In all five instances, the supervisor similarly reported ‘not applicable’ for adherence to procedural justice rules towards those same employees and of these, four reported ‘not applicable’ to adherence to all four justice dimensions (this may capture instances where a 64 supervisor does not have direct supervisory authority over a particular employee). Three additional supervisors that seemingly have discretion over distributive justice rules reported ‘not applicable’ for adherence to procedural justice rules for at least one employee. Two supervisors that reported ‘not applicable’ only to adherence to procedural justice also reported ‘not applicable’ for the informational justice items for at least one employee (in addition, two other supervisors also reported ‘not applicable’ to only the informational justice items for at least one employee). The only supervisors who reported ‘not applicable’ to interpersonal justice items for a particular employee were those who reported ‘not applicable’ for all justice items. The coefficient alpha for these scales, in order, was .92, .80, .67 and .82. While the coefficients alpha for distributive, procedural, and interpersonal justice rule adherence exceeded the commonly accepted threshold of .70, the coefficient alpha for informational justice rule adherence did not. Further inspection of this scale revealed that the item “are you candid when communicating with this employee” had a low correlation with the other four items and so I dropped it for subsequent analyses resulting in a four-item informational justice scale with coefficient alpha equal to .71. Extraversion. Extraversion was assessed using the scale developed by Saucier (1994). A 5-point Likert scale was used ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Participants responded to this scale by indicating their agreement as to how well they feel each of 8 adjectives describes themselves. This scale has been well validated and consistently demonstrates acceptable internal consistency. Sample adjectives include “bold” and “bashful.” The coefficient alpha for this scale was .87. Agreeableness. Agreeableness was assessed similarly as extraversion. Sample adjectives include “cooperative” and “rude.” The coefficient alpha for this scale was .86. 65 Perceptions of politics. To assess the political context of the workgroup, I used the 15item perceptions of politics scale developed by Kacmar and Carlson (1997). A 5-point Likert scale was used ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Prior research suggests that this scale demonstrates acceptable internal consistency (e.g., Rosen et al., 2009; Rosen et al., 2006). Sample items include “people in this workgroup attempt to build themselves up by tearing others down” and “it is best not to rock the boat in this workgroup.” The coefficient alpha for this scale was .89. Analyses The study design includes an employee and multiple coworkers all working within the same workgroup and reporting to the same supervisor. As such, these workgroups can be conceptualized as nested within the supervisor. This creates a multilevel study design (i.e., employee predictors and outcomes are modeled at level 1 of the analysis and level 2 represents each unique work unit) that must be analyzed in a fashion so as to account for the nonindependence of the participants within each cluster. I therefore utilized hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Bryk & Raudenbush, 2002) for the analyses. Random effects were estimated in all regressions for primary study variables (i.e., political skill, status striving and communion striving). However, in analyses where control variables were included, these controls were modeled as fixed effects because otherwise the models failed to converge. All main effect and mediation hypotheses were modeled at level 1 of the analysis; although employees were nested within a supervisor, that supervisor provided a unique assessment of adherence to justice rules for each employee, thus constituting a level 1 dependent variable. For all main effect analyses I followed the commonly recommended procedure to group-mean center the level 1 variables (Hofmann, Griffin, & Gavin, 2000). 66 Mediation. To test the mediation hypotheses, I followed a procedure recommended by Preacher, Zyphur, and Zhang (2010) and recently utilized by Wang, Liu, Liao, Gong, Kammeyer-Mueller, and Shi (2013) and Lanaj, Johnson, and Barnes (in press). The magnitude of the indirect effect was calculated according to Equation 5 in Bauer, Preacher, and Gil (2006, p. 147) and repeated 20,000 times using a Monte Carlo simulation procedure to model the indirect effect sampling distribution. The magnitude of the indirect effect was calculated as the average value of the 20,000 replications and the endpoints for the confidence interval were selected by sorting the distribution and selecting the values corresponding to the 500th and 19,500th observation (e.g., 2.5% of the distribution lies below the 500th observation and 2.5% of the distribution lies above the 19,500th observation). Each indirect effect linking political skill to justice rule adherence through status and communion striving was tested in this manner. Each of the four dimensions of justice rule adherence was linked to political skill through two indirect effects (political skill through status striving and political skill through communion striving). I tested the significance of all eight possible indirect effects in my model as well as whether the total effect between political skill and each dimension of justice was jointly mediated by both status and communion striving using the difference-of-coefficients approach. This approach involves an evaluation of whether the total effect of political skill on justice rule adherence is significantly different than the direct effect (i.e., the main effect of political skill on justice rule adherence controlling for the effects of status and communion striving). To test this, I computed the difference between the total and direct effect of political skill on each dimension of justice and tested the significance of this effect using the standard error provided by Preacher and Hayes (2008). 67 Moderation. Hypotheses 8a, 8b, 9a and 9b involved main and moderated effects that occur at level 1 in the analysis. To test these hypotheses, I first manually group-mean centered political skill, extraversion and agreeableness before creating the level 1 interaction term. Centering variables represents common practice in organizational research (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003) and group-mean centering is the recommended centering decision given that all variables are modeled at level 1 (Hofmann et al., 2000). Hypotheses 10a and 10b regarding the effects of political context were tested in two ways. First, I tested the effects of individual perceptions of that context by following the same procedure described above to investigate the interaction of political skill and individual perceptions of politics at level 1. However, to lessen potential concerns over common method variance with that interaction, I also investigated the effects of the political context as a level 2 aggregate measure of individual perceptions of politics. To create the level 2 measure of political climate, I create a group-level measure by aggregating individual responses of perceptions of politics (i.e., direct consensus aggregation; Chan, 1998). Support for aggregation was assessed by computing ICC(1), ICC(2), and rwg(J) values (James, 1982; James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1993). The average rwg(J) was equal to .93, the ICC(1) value was .27 and the ICC(2) value was .59. Although the rwg(J) and ICC(1) numbers provide support for aggregation (Bliese, 2000; James, 1982), the ICC(2) value could be considered low. However, ICC(2) has been argued to be less relevant than the other indices as support for aggregation because it is heavily dependent on sample size (James, 1982). Therefore, given the support provided by the ICC(1) and rwg(J), I proceeded to use this aggregated measure as a cross-level moderator. 68 RESULTS Before testing my hypotheses, I first examined the proportion of variance in supervisor reports of justice rule adherence that was within-group. Using HLM, I partitioned the total variance in supervisor reports of justice rule adherence into between-group variance (i.e., variance that exists because different supervisors generally adhere to justice rules differently) and within-group variance (i.e., variance that exists because supervisors adhere to justice rules differently between employees). The theory developed in this manuscript is predicated on the notion that supervisors do indeed adhere to these rules differently toward different employees. As shown in Table 1, a considerable amount of the total variance in reports of justice rule adherence was within-group. The within-group variance for distributive justice rule adherence was 17%, for informational justice rule adherence was 21% and for interpersonal justice rule adherence was 16%. Only procedural justice deviated from this pattern with only 7% of the variance occurring within-group. Table 1 - Percentage of Within-group Variance for Justice Rule Adherence Within-group Between-group % of WithinConstruct Variance (e2) Variance (r2) group Variance Distributive Justice .20 1.00 17% Procedural Justice .04 .52 7% Informational Justice .12 .48 21% Interpersonal Justice .05 .27 16% 2 2 2 Notes. The percentage of variance within-persons was calculated as e /(e + r ). Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations and correlations among the group-mean centered focal variables in this dissertation. Somewhat unexpected was the relatively small bivariate relationships between supervisor reports of justice rule adherence. This is an intriguing result that lends further importance to consideration of the supervisor report of adherence instead of relying on employee perceptions as has long been tradition in the justice literature. I will return to this issue in the discussion when I describe opportunities for future research. 69 Table 2 - Descriptive Statistics of and Correlations among Focal Variables Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Employee Reports 1. Political Skill 3.95 .41 2. Status Striving 3.15 .73 .27* 3. Communion 3.05 .60 .17* .44* Striving Employee Moderators 4. Extraversion 3.72 .64 .46* .20* -.03 5. Agreeableness 4.24 .49 .39* -.01 .10 .14* 6. Perceptions of 2.49 .56 -.14* .11* .06 -.10 -.22* Politics Supervisor Reports 7. Distributive 3.38 .44 .14* .04 .11 .01 .05 -.08 Justice 8. Procedural Justice 4.02 .19 .07 -.02 .08 -.04 -.03 -.04 .27* 9. Informational 3.80 .34 -.10 -.11 -.02 .04 -.11* .00 .08 .16* Justice 10. Interpersonal 4.63 .22 -.02 -.09 .07 -.21* .13* -.07 .10 -.03 .01 Justice Supplemental Analyses 11. Self-Monitoring 2.22 .67 .16* .20* .12* .16* -.23* .13* .02 -.14* -.04 -.08 12. Task Proficiency 4.18 .50 .08 .00 -.07 -.13* -.11 -.10 .33* .25* -.11* .08 -.09 13. Leventhal (PJ) 4.19 .18 .08 -.01 .11* .00 -.02 -.09 .23* .91* .15* .02 -.13* .20* 14. Political Behavior 2.65 .67 .35* .36* .31* .26* -.12* .03 .03 -.07 -.04 -.06 .34* -.02 -.05 Notes. All variables were group-mean centered thus correlations reflect relationships at the within-group level (i.e., Level 1). N = 341. Leventhal criteria represents the alternative measure of procedural justice focusing exclusively on Leventhal’s (1980) rules. For the supplemental analyses, political behavior was aggregated to the group level. * p < .05 70 Tests of Hypotheses Main effect hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 predicted that employee political skill is positively associated with engagement in status striving behaviors and hypothesis 2 predicted that employee political skill is positively associated with engagement in communion striving behaviors. The results of the HLM analyses testing these hypotheses are presented in Table 3. In support of both hypotheses, political skill was positively associated with both forms of striving behavior (γ10 = .46, p < .05 for status striving and γ10 = .26, p < .05 for communion striving). Table 3 - HLM Analyses Predicting Status and Communion Striving Outcome: Outcome: Status Striving Communion Striving Predictor γ s.e. t γ s.e. t Intercept (γ00) 3.15* .05 69.57 3.05* .04 83.77 Political Skill (γ10) .46* .09 4.77 .26* .08 3.31 Notes. Variance explained, calculated as the percentage reduction in variance for the outcome after entering all predictors, was 8% for status striving and 6% for communion striving * p < .05 Hypotheses 3a and 3b focused on what I argued were the more “instrumental” forms of justice; distributive and procedural justice. I expected that status striving behaviors are positively associated with supervisor adherence to these forms of justice. The results of the HLM analyses testing these hypotheses are presented in Table 4. Neither hypothesis was supported (γ20 = -.07, p > .05 for distributive justice rule adherence and γ20 = -.03, p > .05 for procedural justice rule adherence). 71 Table 4 - HLM Analyses Predicting the "Instrumental" Dimensions of Justice Rule Adherence Outcome: Outcome: Distributive Justice Procedural Justice Predictor γ s.e. t γ s.e. t Intercept (γ00) 3.38* .11 30.72 4.02* .08 51.51 Political Skill (γ10) .18* .08 2.04 .06 .04 1.49 Status Striving (γ20) -.07 .04 -1.62 -.03 .02 -1.61 Communion Striving (γ30) .11† .06 1.93 .03 .02 1.32 Notes. Variance explained, calculated as the percentage reduction in variance for the outcome after entering all predictors, was 21% for distributive justice and 49% for procedural justice † p < .10 * p < .05 Hypotheses 4a and 4b focused on what I argued were the more “relational” forms of justice; informational and interpersonal justice. I expected that communion striving behaviors are positively associated with supervisor adherence to these forms of justice. The results of HLM analyses testing these hypotheses are presented in Table 5. Hypothesis 4a was not supported (γ30 = .02, p > .05 for informational justice), however hypothesis 4b was supported (γ30 = .06, p < .05 for interpersonal justice). Table 5 - HLM Analyses Predicting the "Relational" Dimensions of Justice Rule Adherence Outcome: Outcome: Informational Justice Interpersonal Justice Predictor γ s.e. t γ s.e. t Intercept (γ00) 3.80 .08 49.50 4.63* .06 80.56 Political Skill (γ10) -.07 .04 -1.46 -.01 .03 -.17 Status Striving (γ20) -.05* .03 -2.02 -.05* .02 -2.44 Communion Striving (γ30) .02 .03 .67 .06* .02 2.82 Notes. Variance explained, calculated as the percentage reduction in variance for the outcome after entering all predictors, was 8% for informational justice and 10% for interpersonal justice * p < .05 Hypotheses 5 and 6 focused on what I considered to be “non-corresponding relationships” involving the procedural and informational justice dimensions. First, although I argued that procedural justice was primarily instrumental, there were also reasons to believe that 72 adherence to these rules could have relational aspects as well. Similarly, although I argued that informational justice was primarily relational, there were reasons to believe that adherence to these rules could have instrumental aspects. Therefore, hypothesis 5 predicted that communion striving behaviors are positively associated with adherence to procedural justice rules and hypothesis 6 predicted that status striving behaviors are positively associated with adherence to informational justice rules (see Table 4 and Table 5 respectively). Hypothesis 5 was not supported (γ30 = .03, p > .05 for procedural justice). Hypothesis 6 was also not supported; although this relationship was significant, it was in the opposite direction as expected (γ20 = -.05, p < .05 for informational justice). Unexpected main effect relationships. Finally, there were two main effect relationships that I did not expect, and therefore did not hypothesize, but tested nonetheless. First, I did not expect a relationship between adherence to distributive justice rules and communion striving behavior. However, this relationship was marginally significant and positive (γ30 = .11, p < .10 for distributive justice; see Table 4). Second, I also did not expect a relationship between adherence to interpersonal justice rules and status striving. However, this relationship was significant and negative (γ20 = -.05, p < .05 for interpersonal justice; see Table 5). Mediation hypotheses. The mediation hypotheses were each tested in two different ways. First, because I modeled two different mediator variables, I first tested for whether the direct effect of political skill on each justice dimension differed from the total effect (i.e., difference-of-coefficients; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Although I only hypothesized simultaneous effects of both mediators for procedural and informational justice (i.e., hypotheses 7b and 7c), because of the unexpected findings described above, I tested all four dimensions of justice in this manner. This test was not significant for any dimension. 73 Although the difference-of-coefficients test above was not significant, Preacher and Hayes (2008) note that it is still important to test the various indirect effects. I calculated the magnitude of the indirect effect following Bauer et al. (2006) and created a confidence interval for this effect as described in the ‘Analysis’ section above. Confidence intervals for each indirect effect are reported in Table 6. Hypothesis 7a predicted that status striving mediates the effect of political skill on adherence to distributive justice rules. This hypothesis was not supported as the confidence interval did not exclude zero (effect size = .002, confidence interval [-.033, .044]). Although not hypothesized, I also tested the indirect effect between political skill and adherence to distributive justice rules through communion striving, however this indirect effect was not significant either as the confidence interval did not exclude zero (effect size = .029, confidence interval [-.002, .071]). Hypothesis 7b predicted that both status and communion striving mediate the effect of political skill on adherence to procedural justice rules. This hypothesis was not supported for either status striving (effect size = -.014, confidence interval [-.035, .004]) or communion striving (effect size = .008, confidence interval [-.002, .021]) as neither confidence interval excluded zero. Hypothesis 7c predicted that both status and communion striving mediate the effect of political skill on adherence to informational justice rules. This hypothesis was not supported. Pertaining to status striving, although the confidence interval did exclude zero, the effect size was in the opposite direction (effect size = -.023, confidence interval [-.045, -.005]). Pertaining to communion striving, the confidence interval did not exclude zero (effect size = .003, confidence interval [-.012, .021]). Finally, hypothesis 7d predicted that communion striving mediates the effect of political skill on adherence to interpersonal justice rules. This hypothesis was supported as the confidence 74 interval did exclude zero (effect size = .016, confidence interval [.006, .032]). Although not hypothesized, I also tested the indirect effect between political skill and adherence to interpersonal justice rules through status striving. This relationship was also significant as the confidence interval did exclude zero (effect size = -.022, confidence interval [-.045, -.003]). Table 6 - Effect Size and Confidence Intervals for Mediation Hypotheses Status Striving Communion Striving Indirect Lower Upper Indirect Lower Upper Outcome Effect Bound Bound Effect Bound Bound Distributive Justice .002 -.033 .044 .029 -.002 .071 Procedural Justice -.014 -.035 .004 .008 -.002 .021 Informational Justice .003 -.012 .021 -.023 -.045 -.005 Interpersonal Justice -.022 -.045 -.003 .016 .006 .032 Notes. Bolded values represent significant effects (i.e., the confidence interval excludes zero). Moderation hypotheses. I expected to find enhancements of the relationships between political skill and both status striving and communion striving based on both person-level and situation-level constructs. At the person-level, first I hypothesized a positive relationship between extraversion and status striving behavior (hypothesis 8a) and moreover that individuals high in both political skill and extraversion would be even more likely to engage in status striving behavior (hypothesis 8b). The results of the HLM analyses testing these hypotheses are presented in Table 7. In the first step, political skill and extraversion were simultaneously entered as predictors of status striving. Interestingly, in spite of the significant bivariate correlation between extraversion and status striving, this relationship was no longer significant when taking political skill into account (γ20 = .11, p > .05), thus hypothesis 8a was not supported. However, the interaction between these constructs was significant (γ30 = .29, p = .05), supporting hypothesis 8b. Figure 4 displays the pattern of this interaction. 75 Figure 4 - Interaction Plot of Political Skill x Extraversion Predicting Status Striving 76 Table 7 - HLM Analyses for the Interaction of Political Skill and Extraversion Predicting Status Striving Status Striving Model 1 Model 2 Predictor γ s.e. t γ s.e. t Intercept (γ00) 3.15* .05 60.55 3.13* .05 62.85 Political Skill (γ10) .37* .11 3.28 .40* .11 3.64 Extraversion (γ20) .11 .07 1.52 .12 .08 1.62 Interaction (γ30) .29* .15 1.96 Notes. Variance explained, calculated as the percentage reduction in variance for the outcome after entering the interaction term, was 2%. * p < .05 I also hypothesized a positive relationship between agreeableness and communion striving behavior (hypothesis 9a) and also that individuals high in both political skill and agreeableness would be even more likely to engage in communion striving (hypothesis 8b). The results of the HLM analyses testing these hypotheses are presented in Table 8. In the first step, political skill and agreeableness were simultaneously entered as predictors of communion striving, and their interaction was entered in the second step. Neither hypothesis 9a (γ20 = .08, p > .05) nor hypothesis 8b (γ30 = .13, p > .05) was supported. Table 8 - HLM Analyses for the Interaction of Political Skill and Agreeableness Predicting Communion Striving Communion Striving Model 1 Model 2 Predictor γ s.e. t γ s.e. t Intercept (γ00) 3.05* .04 83.37 3.05* .04 82.72 Political Skill (γ10) .24* .09 2.77 .26* .09 2.97 Agreeableness (γ20) .08 .10 .81 .08 .10 .78 Interaction (γ30) .13 .19 .67 * p < .05 At the situation-level, I expected that the political context would enhance the effects of political skill on both status striving and communion striving. As discussed in the ‘Analysis’ section, I tested hypotheses 10a and 10b in two different ways. First, I tested these hypotheses by examining whether individual perceptions of politics enhance the relationship between political 77 skill and status and communion striving. This is a level 1 interaction. The results of the HLM analyses testing these hypotheses are presented in the top half of Table 9 and Table 10. Neither hypothesis 10a (γ30 = .21, p > .05 for status striving) nor hypothesis 10b (γ30 = -.06, p > .05 for communion striving) was supported. Next, I aggregated each employee’s report of perceptions of politics to create a group-level measure of political climate as discussed in the ‘Analysis’ section. I then retested hypothesis 10a and 10b as cross-level interactions. The results of the HLM analyses testing these hypotheses are presented in the bottom half of Table 9 and Table 10. Again, however, neither hypothesis 10a (γ11 = .08, p > .05 for status striving) nor hypothesis 10b (γ11 = -.10, p > .05 for communion striving) was supported. Table 9 - HLM Analyses for the Interaction of Political Skill and Perceptions of Politics Predicting Status Striving Status Striving Model 1 Model 2 Predictor γ s.e. t γ s.e. t Level 1 Politics Intercept (γ00) 3.15* .05 69.09 3.16* .05 68.91 Political Skill (γ10) .52* .10 5.36 .50* .10 5.22 POP (γ20) .19* .09 2.08 .20* .10 2.15 Interaction (γ30) .21 .19 1.08 Level 2 Politics Intercept (γ00) 3.15* .05 69.62 3.15* .05 69.60 POP (γ01) .16 .11 1.47 .17 .11 1.47 Political Skill (γ10) .46* .10 4.77 .45* .10 4.76 Interaction (γ11) .08 .22 .38 Notes. Perceptions of politics (POP) at level 1 reflects group-mean centered main effect and interaction of individual report of POP and political skill. At level 2, POP reflects grand-mean centered aggregate of level 1 reports and cross-level interaction predicting the slope of the relationship between political skill and status striving. * p < .05 78 Table 10 - HLM Analyses for the Interaction of Political Skill and Perceptions of Politics Predicting Communion Striving Status Striving Model 1 Model 2 Predictor γ s.e. t γ s.e. t Level 1 Politics Intercept (γ00) 3.05* .04 83.65 3.05* .04 81.62 Political Skill (γ10) .28* .08 3.56 .32* .08 3.83 POP (γ20) .07 .08 .96 .09 .08 1.19 Interaction (γ30) -.06 .23 -.25 Level 2 Politics Intercept (γ00) 3.05* .04 83.51 3.05* .04 83.50 POP (γ01) .05 .09 .62 .05 .09 .55 Political Skill (γ10) .26 .08 3.31 .27* .08 3.37 Interaction (γ11) -.10 .15 -.64 Notes. Perceptions of politics (POP) at level 1 reflects group-mean centered main effect and interaction of individual report of POP and political skill. At level 2, POP reflects grand-mean centered aggregate of level 1 reports and cross-level interaction predicting the slope of the relationship between political skill and communion striving. * p < .05 Supplemental Analyses I conducted supplemental analyses to investigate the role of several constructs that could potentially contaminate or confound the relationships I hypothesized above, as well as to further probe several unsupported hypotheses. Self-monitoring. Although self-monitoring has been distinguished both conceptually (Ferris et al., 2007) and empirically (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005; Semadar et al., 2006) from political skill, there are reasons to believe that it may potentially confound the hypothesized relationships with political skill. For example, in their discussion section, (Scott et al., 2007) theorized that high self-monitors may be more likely to receive favorable interpersonal treatment from their supervisor. Therefore, to provide a more stringent test of my hypotheses regarding political skill, I conducted an analysis whereby I controlled for an employee’s level of selfmonitoring in the regressions involving political skill. Employees reported their level of self79 monitoring using a shortened version of the measure developed by Snyder and Gangestad (1986). This shortened measure consists of the eight positively worded items and has been previously used and shown to be comparable to the full-length measure (Scott, Barnes, & Wagner, 2012) – example items include “I am not always the person I appear to be” and “I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain others.” The coefficient alpha for this scale was .85. Controlling for self-monitoring, I retested all of the main effect relationships in my model. The results of HLM analyses retesting these hypotheses are presented in Table 11, Table 12 and Table 13. The inclusion of self-monitoring did not change the results in any substantive way (the relationship between status striving and informational justice was slightly weakened to being only marginally significant, p < .06). Table 11 - HLM Analyses Predicting Status and Communion Striving with Self-Monitoring Outcome: Outcome: Status Striving Communion Striving Predictor γ s.e. t γ s.e. t Intercept (γ00) 3.15* .05 66.35 3.06* .04 83.98 Political Skill (γ10) .38* .10 3.90 .24* .09 2.70 Self-Monitoring (γ20) .17* .07 2.33 .08 .07 1.22 * p < .05 Table 12 - HLM Analyses Predicting the "Instrumental" Dimensions of Justice Rule Adherence with Self-Monitoring Outcome: Outcome: Distributive Justice Procedural Justice Predictor γ s.e. t γ s.e. t Intercept (γ00) 3.38* .11 30.73 4.02* .08 51.46 Political Skill (γ10) .18* .09 2.01 .06 .04 1.41 Status Striving (γ20) -.07 .05 -1.55 -.02 .02 -1.33 Communion Striving (γ30) .11 .06 1.88 .03 .02 1.39 Self-Monitoring (γ40) .01 .04 .18 -.03 .02 -1.58 * p < .05 80 Table 13 - HLM Analyses Predicting the "Relational" Dimensions of Justice Rule Adherence with Self-Monitoring Outcome: Outcome: Informational Justice Interpersonal Justice Predictor γ s.e. t γ s.e. t Intercept (γ00) 3.80* .08 49.42 4.63* .06 80.46 Political Skill (γ10) -.06 .04 -1.49 -.01 .03 -.14 † Status Striving (γ20) -.06 .03 -1.94 -.04* .02 -2.31 Communion Striving (γ30) .03 .03 .81 .06* .02 2.87 Self-Monitoring (γ40) -.01 .03 -.13 -.02 .02 -.82 † p < .10 * p < .05 Task proficiency. In another analysis, I examined whether supervisor adherence to justice rules might be due in part to an individual’s level of task skill or proficiency as opposed to through the mechanisms I hypothesized above. Indeed, status striving in particular has been previously linked to performance (Barrick et al., 2002; Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007) and it is reasonable to expect that supervisors may show preference to those employees that make more performance related contributions to the workgroup (c.f., Liden & Maslyn, 1998). Therefore, I re-analyzed the hypotheses predicting justice rule adherence by controlling for each employee’s task proficiency using a three-item measure developed by Griffin, Neal, and Parker (2007) – example items include “how often does this employee carry out the core parts of his/her job well” and “how often does this employee ensure that his/her tasks are completed properly.” Each employee was rated by all participating coworkers as well as by their supervisor and I aggregated these scores to create an index of each employee’s task proficiency. The coefficient alpha for the aggregated scale was .96. Support for aggregation was assessed by computing ICC(1), ICC(2), and rwg(J) values (James, 1982; James et al., 1993). The average rwg(J) was equal to .79, the ICC(1) value was .31 and the ICC(2) value was .64. Given the support provided by the ICC(1) and rwg(J), I proceeded to aggregate these reports for use as a control in the analyses predicting justice rule adherence. 81 Controlling for this index of task proficiency, I then retested the main effect relationships in my model that involved adherence to justice rules. The results of HLM analyses retesting these hypotheses are presented in Table 14 and Table 15. As opposed to presenting an alternative explanation to my hypotheses, controlling for task proficiency served to increase the strength of several hypothesized relationships. Specifically, the relationship between status striving and both distributive and procedural justice, both of which were previously not significant, increased slightly (i.e., became more negative) and are now marginally significant (γ20 = -.08, p < .10 for distributive justice and γ20 = -.03, p < .10 for procedural justice). In addition, the unhypothesized relationship between communion striving and distributive justice is now significant (γ30 = .14, p < .05). Table 14 - HLM Analyses Predicting the "Instrumental" Dimensions of Justice Rule Adherence with Task Proficiency Outcome: Outcome: Distributive Justice Procedural Justice Predictor γ s.e. t γ s.e. t Intercept (γ00) 3.38* .11 30.72 4.02* .08 51.50 Political Skill (γ10) .13* .07 2.00 .05 .04 1.33 † † Status Striving (γ20) -.08 -1.70 .04 -.03 .02 -1.67 Communion Striving (γ30) .14* .06 2.51 .03 .02 1.62 Task Proficiency (γ40) .30* .08 3.90 .08 .02 3.85 † p < .10 * p < .05 Table 15 - HLM Analyses Predicting the "Relational" Dimensions of Justice Rule Adherence with Task Proficiency Outcome: Outcome: Informational Justice Interpersonal Justice Predictor γ s.e. t γ s.e. t Intercept (γ00) 3.80 .08 49.49 4.63* .06 80.56 Political Skill (γ10) -.06 .05 -1.24 -.01 .03 -.32 Status Striving (γ20) -.06* .03 -1.98 -.05* .02 -2.45 Communion Striving (γ30) .02 .04 .48 .06* .02 2.86 Task Proficiency (γ40) -.08 .05 -1.39 .04 .03 1.51 † p < .10 * p < .05 82 Procedural Justice. Following recommendations from Colquitt (2012), I performed a follow-up analysis with supervisor adherence to procedural justice rules. Procedural justice is reflective of a number of different rules (Colquitt, 2001; Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975) over which generally supervisors have relatively low discretion (Scott et al., 2009). Because of this, in his recommendations for future research, Colquitt (2012) suggested trying to predict a narrower subset of these rules. One potential subset of the procedural justice measure involves only the rules recommended by Leventhal (1980). When Colquitt (2001) created the commonly used measure of procedural justice, he combined Thibaut & Walker’s (1975) criteria for providing process and outcome control with Leventhal’s (1980) criteria for ensuring accuracy, bias suppression, consistency, correctability, ethicality and representativeness when following procedures. Conceptually, there is justification for separating these items. The Thibaut and Walker (1975) criteria require the supervisor to cede some of their own authority or control to the subordinate in question by providing this person with process or outcome control. Adhering to these two rules may represent a level of delegation or empowerment that many supervisors do not possess sufficient discretion to enact. In contrast, the Leventhal (1980) rules may be easier for employees to influence as supervisors should have more discretion. Unlike ceding control over process or outcome to the employee, the Leventhal criteria reflect more idiosyncratic rules that supervisors can choose to follow or not. However, the data provide mixed support for this split. The bivariate correlation between the full procedural justice measure and the measure corresponding to Leventhal’s (1980) criteria is .91 (see Table 2). However, a chi-square difference test lends support to considering these Leventhal items separately. Specifically, I compared the chi-square values of a single procedural justice construct composed of all seven items compared to two different 83 procedural justice constructs, one representing the Thibaut and Walker (1975) derived items and the other representing the Leventhal (1980) derived items. This test supports separating the Leventhal (1980) criteria into their own procedural justice construct (Δχ2 = 412, df = 1, p < .05). As this analysis was exploratory, I proceeded to retest my hypotheses involving procedural justice using this alternate measure. This five-item scale had a coefficient alpha of .75. Withingroup variance was 6% for this alternative measure, compared with 7% for the original measure of procedural justice. The results of HLM analyses retesting these hypotheses are presented in Table 16. Specifically, hypothesis 3b that predicted a significant relationship between status striving and procedural justice is still not supported, although the relationship is significant (γ20 = -.03, p < .05) but in the opposite direction as expected. The relationship between communion striving and procedural justice predicted in hypothesis 5 is now also significant (γ30 = .04, p < .05) in support of this hypothesis. I also retested the mediation hypotheses with this new measure. Hypothesis 7b is now fully supported as the confidence intervals for the relationships between political skill and procedural justice exclude zero for both status striving (effect size = -.017, confidence interval [.028, -.007]) and communion striving (effect size = .010, confidence interval [.003, .020]). Table 16 - HLM Analyses Predicting the Alternative Measure of Procedural Justice Outcome: Procedural Justice Predictor γ s.e. t Intercept (γ00) 4.19* .08 53.87 Political Skill (γ10) .04 .04 .99 Status Striving (γ20) -.03* .01 -2.14 Communion Striving (γ30) .04* .02 2.22 * p < .05 Political context. Within the politics literature, the prevailing method for assessing the political context has been to utilize an employee self-report of perceptions of politics (Chang et 84 al., 2009), as was done in this dissertation as well. This approach has much to recommend it; politics scholars argue that individual perceptions of reality are largely responsible for their subsequent behaviors (see also: Lewin, 1936) and as such, the political context largely exists in the eye of the beholder (Ferris & Hochwarter, 2011). However, relying on individual perceptions to assess the political context may also have limitations; indeed in their seminal work on the topic Ferris et al. (1989) acknowledged that the correspondence between actual ongoing politics in the workplace and individual perceptions of those politics may be weak. An alternative approach recently advocated by Ganster, Rosen, Mayes, and Sime (2014) is to focus on the political context as representing the level of political behavior ongoing in the workplace (as opposed to perceptions of those behaviors in the workplace). Conceptualized in this way, political context is best considered a group-level construct that arises from the political behaviors of members of that workgroup. Accordingly, I obtained a self-report of engagement in political behaviors from each participating employee using the six-item measure from Treadway, Hochwarter, Kacmar, and Ferris (2005) – example items include “active politicking is an important part of my job” and “I work behind the scenes to see that my work group is taken care of.” At the individual level, the coefficient alpha for this scale was .84. I then proceeded to aggregate these reports across employees within each workgroup to create a measure of political context. This aggregation represents a direct consensus approach (Chan, 1998). Support for aggregation was confirmed in a similar manner as described previously. The average rwg(J) was equal to .84, the ICC(1) value was .18 and the ICC(2) value was .47. The coefficient alpha for the aggregated scale was .89. Using this new measure, I retested my interaction hypotheses involving workgroup politics using this measure of political climate. The results of HLM analyses retesting these hypotheses are presented in Table 17 and Table 18. Using this new 85 measure as a cross-level moderator, hypothesis 10a is now supported (γ11 = .37, p < .05 for status striving) but hypothesis 10b is still not supported (γ11 = .17, p > .05 for communion striving). Figure 5 displays the pattern of this interaction. The addition of political context explained 67% of the variance in the slopes of the political skill-status striving relationship. Table 17 - HLM Analyses for the Cross-Level Interaction of Political Climate Predicting the Relationship between Political Skill and Status Striving Status Striving Model 1 Model 2 Predictor γ s.e. t γ s.e. t Intercept (γ00) 3.14* .04 75.73 3.15* .04 75.73 Political Context (γ01) .35* .09 4.04 .36* .09 4.12 Political Skill (γ10) .47* .10 4.87 .44* .10 4.47 Interaction (γ11) .37* .19 2.00 Notes. Political context reflects the grand-mean centered aggregate of level 1 reports of political behavior predicting the slope of the relationship between political skill and status striving. The addition of political context explained 67% of the variance in the slopes of the political skillstatus striving relationship. * p < .05 Table 18 - HLM Analyses for the Cross-Level Interaction of Political Climate Predicting the Relationship between Political Skill and Communion Striving Communion Striving Model 1 Model 2 Predictor γ s.e. t γ s.e. t Intercept (γ00) 3.05* .03 91.30 3.05* .03 91.28 Political Context (γ01) .27* .06 4.31 .28* .06 4.29 Political Skill (γ10) .26* .08 3.34 .25* .08 3.14 Interaction (γ11) .17 .19 .91 Notes. Political context reflects the grand-mean centered aggregate of level 1 reports of political behavior predicting the slope of the relationship between political skill and communion striving. * p < .05 86 Figure 5 - Interaction Plot of Political Skill x Political Context Predicting Status Striving 87 DISCUSSION Motivation for the Dissertation In spite of the maturity of the organizational justice literature, ongoing research continues to push and develop our understanding of the fairness phenomenon. Although it is well-known that justice is important to employees (Colquitt et al., 2013), scholars have only recently begun to ask why supervisors act fairly in the first place (c.f., Colquitt, 2012; Li et al., 2012). Though relatively nascent, research investigating this “proactive” approach to justice (Greenberg, 1987) has already demonstrated that supervisors adhere to justice rules for different reasons (Scott et al., in press) and that one of these reasons may actually be characteristics of the target of that justice rule adherence (i.e., the employee; Korsgaard et al., 1998; Scott et al., 2007; Zapata et al., 2013). Despite the insights that this research has demonstrated to date, there remains much still unanswered. First, these investigations still largely conceptualize employees as “justice takers” by focusing on relatively static predictors of adherence to justice rules (i.e., assertiveness, charisma, and trustworthiness). Second, the link between supervisor adherence to justice rules and the employee remains tenuous. Neither Scott et al. (2007) nor Korsgaard et al. (1998) measured adherence from the supervisor’s perspective. Zapata et al. (2013) did measure adherence from the supervisor, however these authors also relied on supervisor reports of employee trustworthiness collected at the same time as antecedents in their model. Similarly, Scott et al. (in press) conducted a sophisticated, within-individual investigation of adherence to justice rules by supervisors, however these authors omitted the target of that adherence from their model entirely. Finally, even those studies that did incorporate the target into their model (i.e, Korsgaard et al., 1998; Scott et al., 2007; Zapata et al., 2013) relied on between-subjects 88 research designs that answer a piece of an important over-arching research question, but not the entire question. That is, the question these studies have answered is whether employees with certain characteristics are treated more fairly than employees who lack those characteristics. However, these studies are unable to address whether such differentials in fair treatment exist between employees who report to the same supervisor. Put another way, what we know is that different supervisors adhere to justice rules for different reasons. What we do not know is whether the same supervisor will adhere to justice rules differently for employees in the same workgroup. Such within-workgroup differentiation in adherence to justice rules by the supervisor remains an open question in the justice literature. Implications of the Results With the above in mind, this dissertation sought to address these important and unanswered questions. First, I set out to reverse the common view of employees as “justice takers” by instead viewing them as “justice makers,” capable of influencing justice rule adherence through their workplace behaviors. Viewing employees as justice makers seeks to shift the predominant consensus within the justice literature by allowing for employees to behave in ways that alter the extent to which their supervisor adheres to justice rules toward them. By measuring behavior from the employee and justice rule adherence from the supervisor, I sought to strengthen the somewhat tenuous link that currently exists between the employee and supervisor adherence to justice rules. Finally, I couched all of this within a research design that investigates the extent to which supervisors differentiate with regards to adherence to justice rules between different employees within the same work-group. Such a within-workgroup perspective eliminates between-supervisor differences in adherence to justice rules and focuses 89 explicitly on whether employees within a workgroup, engaging in differing levels of behavior, are subsequently treated with differing levels of fairness. To derive this model of employees as justice makers, I applied a political lens to the question of whether employee behaviors might influence justice rule adherence, and if so, which employees might be more likely to engage in those behaviors. I hypothesized that behaviors representing basic human motives to get ahead and to get along in the workplace (i.e., status striving and communion striving) would serve a signaling function to indicate when employees were instrumentally driven or relationally driven, and that supervisors would respond in kind with adherence to justice rules. Drawing on the political skill literature, I further argued that politically skilled employees would be likely to recognize the correspondence between status striving, communion striving, and receipt of fair treatment and thus would be more likely to engage in those behaviors. Main effects involving political skill. As I expected, politically skilled employees were indeed more likely to engage in both status and communion striving behaviors in the workplace. Politically skilled individuals are motivated to obtain rewards and achieve status and power in the workplace (Ferris et al., 2007) and status striving behaviors should be useful in achieving those ends. Similarly, politically skilled individuals recognize that connections and friendships with important individuals can have beneficial long-run implications (Blickle, Schneider, et al., 2011) and so communion striving behavior with the supervisor should be supportive of those goals. These findings are relevant to the burgeoning literature on motivated striving behaviors (c.f., Barrick et al., 2013). Whereas such behaviors are often conceptualized as nearly axiomatic translations of personality to performance (i.e., Barrick et al., 2002), more recent research has argued that such behaviors may be more calculated (Chiaburu, Stoverink, Li, & Zhang, in press; 90 Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007) and the finding that politically skilled employees are more likely to engage in these behaviors lends further weight to this proposition. Person-level moderators. I further hypothesized several boundary conditions to this model that I expected to enhance the proposed main effects. First, I hypothesized that certain personality traits (i.e., extraversion and agreeableness) should augment the relationship between political skill and both status and communion striving. Both Wiggins (1991) and Barrick et al. (2002) argue that extraversion is primarily related to efforts to get ahead while agreeableness is related to efforts to get along. Accordingly, I hypothesized that individuals high in political skill as well as either extraversion or agreeableness would be even more likely to engage in status and communion striving respectively. These hypotheses, however, had mixed support. Extraversion was significantly correlated with status striving, however this main effect was not significant when accounting for political skill. However, personality is generally considered a more distal predictor of work behavior compared to more proximal work-specific constructs (Barrick & Mount, 2005; Lanaj et al., 2012) and so political skill can be expected to be more proximally related to status striving behavior at work than extraversion (Ferris et al., 2007). Furthermore, as expected extraversion did significantly enhance the relationship between political skill and status striving. Unfortunately, none of the hypotheses involving agreeableness were significant. Although agreeableness was marginally related to communion striving at the 90% confidence level, it was not significantly related to communion striving when accounting for political skill. Similarly as with extraversion, agreeableness was also proposed to be associated with political skill (Ferris et al., 2007) and political skill is more proximal to the communion striving behaviors at work. However, agreeableness did not enhance this relationship as expected. It is possible that 91 the operationalization of communion striving could be potentially at fault for this result. As previously examined (Barrick et al., 2002; Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007), communion striving has focused on efforts to develop a relationship with other members of the workgroup broadly (i.e., coworkers and the supervisor). However, I operationalized it with only the supervisor as a focus. It is possible that such efforts to develop this upward relationship may be somewhat more calculated and politically motivated than simply trying to develop workplace relationships. It is important to note that this operationalization was intentional; however the consequence may have been that the construct was less representative of agreeableness and more representative of the actions of a politically skilled individual. Situation-level moderators. Further drawing on the notion that behavior is often a function of the situation (Lewin, 1936), I also proposed that the political context of the workplace would influence the relationships between political skill and both status and communion striving. Unfortunately, in spite of testing two different operationalizations for the political context with the commonly utilized perceptions of politics measure (Kacmar & Carlson, 1997), these hypotheses were not supported. However, in a supplemental analysis, I drew on more recent research (Ganster et al., 2014) and operationalized the political context in a different manner and did support one of these hypotheses. Specifically, I created a group-level measure of political context by aggregating reports of engagement in political behavior by members of the workgroup. This more direct assessment of the political context appears to have merit. In support of my hypothesis that politically skilled individuals might be even more likely to engage in status striving in more political contexts, this cross-level interaction was significant. Although I failed to support the similar hypothesis for communion striving behavior, the main effect of political context on communion striving was significant, suggesting that these behaviors are, in general, 92 more prevalent in a political environments. Overall, it appears that workplace politics create uncertainty (Rosen, Harris, & Kacmar, 2011), however politically skilled employees may display resilience in such an environment (Perrewe et al., 2004) and use them to their advantage to climb the status hierarchy (Shi et al., 2013; Walker, Bauer, Cole, Bernerth, Feild, & Short, 2013). The politics literature may benefit going forward from using this more direct assessment of the level of political behavior in the workplace (Ganster et al., 2014) rather than relying on individual perceptions of that behavior. Main effects involving justice. As it pertains to the hypotheses involving adherence to justice rules, in spite of interesting and compelling results, I failed to support some of the theory that I developed in the manuscript. I argued that supervisor adherence to justice rules could be classified as primarily instrumental and relational, and that adherence would correspond with the concerns of employees as demonstrated by their engagement in status striving (instrumental) and communion striving (relational) behavior. Accordingly, I expected positive relationships between these behaviors and adherence to the justice rules that I classified as being instrumental or relational, such that instrumental behavior would lead positively to supervisor adherence to instrumental forms justice and relational behavior would lead positively to supervisor adherence to relational forms of justice. Following this scheme, then distributive justice adherence should not have been associated with communion striving, and similarly interpersonal justice adherence should not have been associated with status striving. However, not only were some relationships present that I expected to be absent, but also status striving was not positively related to justice rule adherence at all. Instead, in those instances where there was a significant relationship between status striving and justice rule adherence the sign was unexpectedly negative. Moreover, the 93 correlations between supervisor reports of adherence to different dimensions were not large (and in many cases, not significant at all). This suggests that supervisors differentiate between adhering to various rules, even though the direction of that adherence is generally consistent. This line of reasoning is similar with that of Scott et al. (in press); these authors distinguished different motives that drive adherence to justice rules. Moreover, my results show that supervisors do differentiate between employees with respect to adherence to justice rules. This was an implicit assumption in my model, and it is borne out by demonstrating important within-group variance in adherence to justice rules by the supervisor. Demonstrating that supervisors adhere to justice rules differentially for different employees represents an important contribution. For example, while employees can be expected to receive different levels of outcomes (i.e., under a rule of equity; Meindl, 1989), adherence to equity rules themselves should be invariant across employees (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001). Similarly, adherence to procedures should also be invariant – indeed, “consistency” is itself a rule of procedural justice (Leventhal, 1980). Finally, neither information nor respectful interpersonal treatment is a fixed-pie resource and so there would seem to be no reason for supervisors to ration their adherence. Regardless, my results show that indeed adherence is differentiated across all four dimensions. As expected, communion striving promoted adherence to at least some justice rules (marginally with distributive justice, significantly with interpersonal justice and with the alternative measure of procedural justice). This pattern of results suggests that the instrumental/relational classification for the justice dimensions is untenable. Moreover, given that communion striving was at least marginally significant when predicting distributive justice suggests that liking may play a role in adherence to all four dimensions (as opposed to only 94 procedural, informational, and interpersonal as I argued). Importantly, however, this pattern of results does support my assertion that employees can indeed be “justice makers” in the workplace. Thus, while previous research has shown that certain beneficial characteristics do lead to more fair treatment across supervisors, these results suggest that even within a workgroup, those employees engaging in more supervisor-directed communion striving will be advantaged in terms of fair treatment compared to other employees. As it pertains to status striving, these results were unexpected, but interesting. First, they are somewhat counter-intuitive because status striving is generally argued to be positive. Barrick et al. (2002) showed that status striving is positively related to sales performance and Magee and Galinsky (2008) extoll the benefits of status for individuals. However, more recent research may shed some light on this finding. Bendersky and Shah (2013) discuss how extraversion (a personality trait associated with dominance and striving for status) can, in the long run, be detrimental as such individuals may ignore others’ input and harm performance on interdependent tasks (see also: Grant, Gino, & Hofmann, 2011). Of note is that extraversion had a significant and negative correlation with supervisor adherence to interpersonal justice rules (see Table 2). It is possible that this result could be a function of the sample employed in this dissertation, and if so this suggests a potential unmeasured boundary condition. Although the snowball sample has the advantage of being highly generalizable, upon further reflection this method of collecting data (i.e., requiring employees with several coworkers as well as a supervisor to complete a survey) could have resulted in workgroups with at least a moderate level of interdependence as well as a moderate to high degree of authority differentiation due to the requirement that a supervisor with discretion over these forms of justice provide a self-report 95 of adherence. As a result, status striving in such workgroups could potentially be detrimental for norms of cooperation (Beersma, Hollenbeck, Conlon, Humphrey, Moon, & Ilgen, 2009) and lead to competition within the group as status striving employees adopt a “bottom-line mentality” (Greenbaum, Mawritz, & Eissa, 2012) that may harm overall performance (M. D. Johnson, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Ilgen, Jundt, & Meyer, 2006; Tost, Gino, & Larrick, 2013). Thus, while politically skilled employees are indeed more likely to strive for status given the potential for rewards that may accrue (Ferris & Hochwarter, 2011; Pfeffer, 2010), supervisors appeared to use adherence to justice (or lack of adherence) as a way of sanctioning these behaviors (Trevino, 1992). Perhaps then in more performance-driven contexts with less interdependence, status striving may potentially be seen as a positive instead of as a negative by supervisors. This potential boundary condition to the results is intriguing and future research should investigate it further. Moreover, these results potentially identify a “dark-side” to political skill in that the status striving behaviors of these employees, enhanced in political contexts, have potential negative outcomes in terms of fair treatment. Ferris et al. (2012) called for more research on the linkages between political skill and outcomes; by investigating status and communion striving as two such linkages this dissertation has the potential to shift the current consensus about the universal favorability of political skill. While political skill generally had no bivariate relationship with supervisor adherence to justice rules, this is because status striving and communion striving represent approximately equal (but opposite sign) indirect pathways. That politically skilled employees might engage in behavior that has negative outcomes has yet to be considered within this literature. 96 Future Research One important area for future research is to further explicate the mechanism between employee behaviors and supervisor adherence to justice rules. Status striving and communion striving each displayed a consistent pattern of effects across the dimensions of justice; this finding is intriguing because recent research by Scott et al. (in press) suggests that adherence to justice rules have different motivational antecedents (i.e., cognitive motives for distributive and procedural vs. affective motives for informational and interpersonal). It remains an open question as to whether status striving and communion striving activate those motives in similar ways – thus leading to the consistent pattern of effects across justice dimensions – or whether there exists some common antecedent of all four justice dimensions that is influenced by these behaviors. Another important area for future research pertains to the intentionality or foresight that employees possess regarding their ability to act in ways that influence adherence to justice rules. One key assumption of this model is that employees can be “justice makers” in that they are not treated fairly (or not) based solely on the whims of their supervisor, but rather that their workplace behaviors can influence adherence as well. However, this dissertation cannot answer the question of whether employees engage in communion striving because they realize that this will lead to fairer treatment. An argument against such awareness could potentially be that politically skilled employees are more likely to engage in status striving which was negatively related to justice rule adherence. Perhaps the politically skilled employees have not “connected the dots” that their status striving behaviors are potentially harmful. However, an equally plausible argument is that politically skilled employees know exactly what the consequences of status striving are, however they also recognize the other potential benefits of this behavior 97 (performance, enhanced status, etc.), and as a result they are also more likely to engage in communion striving as a way of “balancing the scales.” Indeed, such an assertion is potentially supported by the data as status striving and communion striving were correlated at .44. Overall, future research should seek to further understand whether employees truly recognize that they are “justice makers.” Finally, the very nature of adherence to justice rules by the supervisor warrants further investigation. The justice literature largely developed based on individual perceptions of whether events were fair or not. Justice rules, then, represent prescriptions for what should happen in order for an event to be deemed fair. This focus on events has, over time, gradually shifted into an assessment of whether some entity (i.e., an organization or supervisor) is fair in general. Cropanzano, Byrne, et al. (2001) discuss this issue at length, noting that such entity perceptions are generally summations of an entity’s behavior across a number of different events. However, at the entity level, it is possible that judgments are based upon more than simply the original justice rules. Indeed, powerful evidence to this effect was provided by Hollensbe, Khazanchi, and Masterson (2008). These authors noted that, in addition to the justice rules, individuals also used information about attributes of the entity, affective state, and social information to form these perceptions. Adherence to justice rules by the supervisor then represents the other side of the coin. Although adherence in this dissertation was measured according to the justice rules as was similarly done in Zapata et al. (2013) and Scott et al. (in press), it remains an open question as to whether the rules adequately capture how fairly a supervisor acts toward his/her subordinates. Instead, a qualitative study similar to Hollensbe et al. (2008) is needed to provide an in-depth examination of the rules that supervisors follow when acting fairly. 98 Implications for Employees and Managers This dissertation has implications for employees, supervisors, and workgroups in general. First, while it is well known that fairness is a primary concern for employees in the workplace (c.f., Cropanzano, Rupp, Mohler, & Schminke, 2001), what is less well understood is the extent to which employees can play a role in how fairly they are treated. This dissertation suggests that employees indeed have an important role in shaping their fair treatment, but that this may be a double-edged sword. While it appears possible to increase fair treatment through communion striving, it may be equally possible to decrease fair treatment through status striving. Justice is important to employees because it permits them to predict their environment and reduce uncertainty, however employees should be careful to not try and control it too much lest their actions lead to them being treated less fairly as a result. Pertaining to supervisors, organizational justice research frequently concludes with exhortations for supervisors to ensure that they act fairly with subordinates. Bobocel (2013, p. 729) suggests that fairness should be “who they are” when it comes to organizational authorities. Ambrose, Schminke, and Mayer (2013, p. 686) note that supervisors should be cognizant that they treat group members with “dignity and provide them with relevant information in a truthful manner.” This supervisor focus has been further pronounced in recent “actor-focused” work (Scott et al., 2009; Scott et al., in press) and Greenberg (2006) described the benefits of training supervisors to act fairly. Although this dissertation supports these assertions, it also adds nuance to them by emphasizing the influential role of the “target” of that justice rule adherence. Thus, recommendations for how to influence or train supervisors to act fairly should take into account that justice rule adherence may be in part a reaction to the actions of that supervisor’s direct reports. 99 Finally, this dissertation has implications for workgroups and politically skilled employees. Political skill is largely seen as beneficial for employees (Pfeffer, 2010) and Ferris, Davidson, and Perrewe (2005) recommend training for this skill as a way of enhancing one’s own outcomes at work. However, the results of this dissertation indirectly suggest that politically skilled employees may experience some negative outcomes, and that the group may suffer as well. Political skill, through status striving, was negatively associated with supervisor adherence to justice rules and in a posteriori theorizing, I proposed this could be because such behaviors were detrimental to overall group performance and cohesion. While there are a number of positive outcomes associated with political skill (c.f., Ferris et al., 2012), the blanket advocacy for the benefits of political skill may be premature, although such conclusions are tentative at this point. Limitations There are a number of potential limitations associated with this dissertation that I wish to acknowledge. First, one potential limitation could be that the relationships between the mediating variables (status striving and communion striving) and supervisor reports of adherence to justice rules were generally small. While I recognize this as a potential limitation, there are a number of reasons that this may not be a huge concern. First, such small effect sizes are to be expected as the overall within-group variance in justice rule adherence itself was small (potentially another effect of the presumed level of interdependence within these groups that I discussed above). While this too could be seen as a limitation, it can also be seen as a strength. Because this variance stems from supervisor reports of justice rule adherence across several subordinates, this variance is clearly relevant to the supervisor because the supervisor self-reported these differences in how various employees are treated. Thus, while effect sizes may be small, they 100 seem to reflect meaningful variance in supervisor reports of adherence to justice rules. Moreover, it could further be argued that the effects might be stronger using employee reports of justice perceptions as these are likely to exhibit more variance. There are important caveats to this, however. Research has argued (Li et al., 2012) and shown (Zapata et al., 2013) that there is likely only moderate correspondence between supervisor reports of justice rule adherence and employee perceptions of that adherence. Overall, while this dissertation has shown that employee behaviors may be associated with supervisor actions in terms of adherence to justice rules, there remain important gaps in our understanding of the extent to which employees perceive changes in justice as a result of those behaviors. Another potential limitation involves the somewhat high within-group means of justice rule adherence. Such high means could be a potential result of response bias from the supervisor and this indeed is a limitation. However, in spite of the resulting range restriction from those high means (combined with the relatively small within-group variance discussed above), it is important to note that I still found a number of significant relationships predicting adherence to justice rules. Therefore, while potentially a limitation, this also suggests that these results could be considered conservative. Moreover, because employees could choose whether or not to participate, it is possible that employees with poor relationships with the supervisor did not participate and thus would not have been rated by the supervisor in this study. However, it is noteworthy that the means for justice rule adherence in this study are generally lower than those reported by Scott et al. (in press), suggesting that when supervisors consider their adherence to specific employees (as opposed to adherence in general) that their ratings are less inflated. Finally, because the initially contacted employee identified the coworkers that would participate in this study, it is possible that biases involved in the selection of these employees 101 influenced the results. Employees may be likely to choose those with similar workplace experiences, thus leading to less variance in how fairly each participating employee is treated. It is also possible that employees who are not treated fairly by the supervisor would choose to not participate. Again, however, both processes suggest that the results are overly conservative as both potential situations would likely restrict the within-group variance in justice rule adherence from the supervisor. 102 APPENDIX 103 APPENDIX Table 19 - Employee/Coworker Reported Items Political skill Please indicate your agreement with the following statements using the scale provided 1. I understand people very well 2. I am particularly good at sensing the motivations and hidden agendas of others 3. I have good intuition or savvy about how to present myself to others 4. I always seem to instinctively know the right things to say or do to influence others 5. I pay close attention to people’s facial expressions 6. I spend a lot of time and effort at work networking with others 7. I am good at building relationships with influential people at work 8. I have developed a large network of colleagues and associates at work whom I can call on for support when I really need to get things done 9. At work, I know a lot of important people and am well connected 10. I spend a lot of time at work developing connections with others 11. I am good at using my connections and network to make things happen at work 12. I am able to make most people feel comfortable and at ease around me 13. I am able to communicate easily and effectively with others 14. It is easy for me to develop good rapport with most people 15. I am good at getting people to like me 16. When communicating with others, I try to be genuine in what I say and do 17. It is important that people believe I am sincere in what I say and do 18. I try to show a genuine interest in other people 104 Ferris et al., (2005) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree 4 dimensions Social Astuteness (items 1-5) Networking Ability (items 6-11) Interpersonal Influence (items 12-15) Apparent Sincerity (items 16-18) Table 19 (cont’d) Status Striving Please indicate your agreement with the following statements about your actions at work 1. I frequently think about ways to get ahead and obtain better pay or working conditions 2. I focus my attention on being the best employee in my workgroup 3. I set personal goals for performing better than anyone else 4. I spend a lot of time contemplating ways to perform better than my coworkers 5. I often compare my work accomplishments against my coworkers’ accomplishments 6. I never give up trying to perform at a level higher than others 7. I always try to be the highest performer 8. I get excited about the prospect of being the most successful employee 9. I feel a thrill when I think about getting a higher status position at work 10. I am challenged by a desire to perform my job better than my coworkers 11. I get worked up thinking about ways to become the highest performing employee Communion Striving Please indicate your agreement with the following statements about your actions at work 1. I focus my attention on getting along with my supervisor at work 2. I spend a lot of time contemplating whether my supervisor likes me 3. I never give up trying to be liked by my supervisor 4. I expend a lot of effort developing a reputation as someone who is easy to get along with 5. I get excited about the prospect of having a supervisor who is a good friend 6. I enjoy thinking about cooperating with my supervisor 7. I care a lot about having a supervisor who is like me 8. I get worked up thinking about ways to make sure my supervisor likes me 9. I am challenged by a desire to be a team player 105 Barrick et al., (2002) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree Barrick et al., (2002) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree Table 19 (cont’d) Perceptions of politics Please indicate your agreement with the following statements using the scale provided 1. People in this workgroup attempt to build themselves up by tearing others down 2. There has always been an influential group in this workgroup that no one ever crosses 3. Employees are encouraged to speak out frankly even when they are critical of well-established ideas (R) 4. There is no place for yes-men around here; good ideas are desired even if it means disagreeing with superiors (R) 5. Agreeing with powerful others is the best alternative in this workgroup 6. It is best not to rock the boat in this workgroup 7. Sometimes it is easier to remain quiet than to fight the system in this workgroup 8. Telling others what they want to hear is sometimes better than telling the truth in this workgroup 9. It is safer to think what you are told than to make up your own mind in this workgroup 10. Since I have worked in this workgroup, I have never seen the pay and promotion policies applied politically (R) 11. I can’t remember when a person received a pay increase or promotion that was inconsistent with the published policies (R) 12. None of the raises I have received are consistent with the policies on how raises should be determined 13. The stated pay and promotion policies have nothing to do with how pay raises and promotions are determined 14. When it comes to pay raise and promotion decisions, policies are irrelevant 15. Promotions around here are not valued much because how they are determined is so political 106 Kacmar & Carlson (1997) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree Table 19 (cont’d) Extraversion Please indicate your agreement to how well this list of common traits describes yourself at the present time, not as you wish to be in the future 1. Energetic 2. Talkative 3. Bold 4. Extraverted 5. Bashful 6. Quiet 7. Shy 8. Withdrawn Agreeableness Please indicate your agreement to how well this list of common traits describes yourself at the present time, not as you wish to be in the future 1. Cooperative 2. Warm 3. Kind 4. Sympathetic 5. Harsh 6. Rude 7. Unsympathetic 8. Cold Individual Task Proficiency – Supplemental Analysis Please rate how often these statements apply for yourself. 1. Carry out the core parts of the job well 2. Complete core tasks well using the standard procedures 3. Ensure that tasks are completed properly Individual Task Proficiency – Supplemental Analysis Please indicate the extent to which the following statements regarding [EMPLOYEE NAME] are accurate 1. Carry out the core parts of the job well 2. Complete core tasks well using the standard procedures 3. Ensure that tasks are completed properly 107 Saucier (1994) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree Saucier (1994) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree Griffin et al. (2007) SELF RATING 1 = rarely or occasionally 2 = sometimes 3 = often 4 = very often 5 = always Griffin et al. (2007) COWORKER RATING 1 = rarely or occasionally 2 = sometimes 3 = often 4 = very often 5 = always Table 19 (cont’d) Self-Monitoring – Supplemental Analysis 1. I can make impromptu speeches even on topics about which I have almost no information 2. I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain others 3. I would probably make a good actor 4. In different situations and with different people, I often act like very different persons 5. I'm not always the person I appear to be 6. I have considered being an entertainer 7. I may deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike them 8. I can look anyone in the eye and tell a lie with a straight face (if for a right end) Political Behavior – Supplemental Analysis 1. I spend time at work politicking 2. I use my interpersonal skills to influence people at work 3. I let others at work know of my accomplishments 4. I work behind the scenes to see that my work group is taken care of 5. Active politicking is an important part of my job 6. I use politicking at work as a way to ensure that things get done 108 Scott et al. (2012) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree Treadway et al. (2005) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree Table 20 - Supervisor Reported Items Organizational Justice Colquitt (2001) Please indicate the extent to which the following statements are 0 = not applicable accurate using the scale provided 1 = rarely or occasionally 2 = sometimes Distributive Justice: 3 = often Please take a moment to reflect on the rewards, pay, 4 = very often promotions, fringe benefits, public recognition, or other 5 = always benefits or outcomes that you allocate to [EMPLOYEE NAME]. 1. 2. 3. 4. How often … … do those outcomes reflect the effort this employee has put into his/her work … are those outcomes appropriate for the work this employee has completed … do those outcomes reflect what this employee has contributed to the organization … are those outcomes justified, given this employee’s performance Procedural Justice: Now, please take a moment to reflect on the procedures that you use to determine the previously discussed allocations (e.g., rewards, pay, promotions, fringe benefits, public recognition, or other benefits or outcomes) to [EMPLOYEE NAME]. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. How often … … do you allow this employee to express his/her views and feelings during those procedures … do you allow this employee to have influence over the outcome arrived at by those procedures … do you allow this employee to appeal the outcome arrived at by those procedures … have those procedures been applied consistently regarding this employee … have those procedures been free of bias regarding this employee … have those procedures been based on accurate information regarding this employee … have those procedures upheld ethical and moral standards regarding this employee 109 Table 20 (cont’d) Organizational Justice Colquitt (2001) Please indicate the extent to which the following statements are 0 = not applicable accurate using the scale provided 1 = rarely or occasionally 2 = sometimes Informational Justice: 3 = often Now, please take a moment to reflect on the explanations and 4 = very often general communications regarding decisions or other 5 = always organizational issues you provide to [EMPLOYEE NAME]. How often … 1. … are you candid when communicating with this employee 2. … do you explain procedures thoroughly to this employee 3. … do you provide reasonable explanations regarding those procedures to this employee 4. … do you communicate details in a timely manner to this employee 5. … do you tailor your communications to this employee’s specific needs Interpersonal Justice: Finally, please take a moment to reflect on how you interact, in general, with [EMPLOYEE NAME] How often … … do you treat this employee in a polite manner … do you treat this employee with dignity … do you treat this employee with respect … do you refrain from improper remarks or comments toward this employee Individual Task Proficiency – Supplemental Analysis Please indicate the extent to which the following statements regarding [EMPLOYEE NAME] are accurate 1. Carry out the core parts of the job well 2. Complete core tasks well using the standard procedures 3. Ensure that tasks are completed properly 1. 2. 3. 4. 110 Griffin et al. (2007) SUBORDINATE RATING 1 = rarely or occasionally 2 = sometimes 3 = often 4 = very often 5 = always Table 21 - Main Effect Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Employee political skill is positively associated with status striving behavior. Hypothesis 2: Employee political skill is positively associated with communion striving behavior. Hypothesis 3a: Employee status striving is positively associated with supervisor adherence to distributive justice rules. Hypothesis 3b: Employee status striving is positively associated with supervisor adherence to procedural justice rules. Hypothesis 4a: Employee communion striving is positively associated with supervisor adherence to informational justice rules. Hypothesis 4b: Employee communion striving is positively associated with supervisor adherence to interpersonal justice rules. Hypothesis 5: Employee communion striving is positively associated with supervisor adherence to procedural justice rules Hypothesis 6: Employee status striving is positively associated with supervisor adherence to informational justice rules. 111 Supported Supported Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported Supported Not Supported Not Supported Table 22 - Mediation and Moderation Hypotheses Hypothesis 7a: The relationship between employee political skill and supervisor adherence to distributive justice rules is mediated by employee status striving behavior. Hypothesis 7b: The relationship between employee political skill and supervisor adherence to procedural justice rules is mediated by both employee status and communion striving behavior. Hypothesis 7c: The relationship between employee political skill and supervisor adherence to informational justice rules is mediated by both employee status and communion striving behavior. Hypothesis 7d: The relationship between employee political skill and supervisor adherence to interpersonal justice rules is mediated by employee communion striving behavior. Hypothesis 8a: Employee extraversion is positively associated with status striving behavior. Hypothesis 8b: Employee agreeableness is positively associated with communion striving behavior. Hypothesis 9a: Extraversion moderates the positive relationship between political skill and status striving, such that the relationship is stronger for more extraverted employees. Hypothesis 9b: Agreeableness moderates the positive relationship between political skill and communion striving, such that the relationship is stronger for more agreeable employees. Hypothesis 10a: Perceptions of politics moderates the positive relationship between political skill and status striving, such that the relationship is stronger for more politicized environments. Hypothesis 10b: Perceptions of politics moderates the positive relationship between political skill and communion striving, such that the relationship is stronger for more politicized environments. 112 Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported Supported Not Supported Supported Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported REFERENCES 113 REFERENCES Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918. Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 247-260. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.83.2.247 Ambrose, M. L., & Arnaud, A. (2005). Are procedural justice and distributive justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 59-84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009). The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: A test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 491-500. doi: 10.1037/a0013203 Ambrose, M. L., Schminke, M., & Mayer, D. M. (2013). Trickle-down effects of supervisor perceptions of interactional justice: A moderated mediation approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 678-689. doi: 10.1037/a0032080 Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (2001). Discriminating among organizational politics, justice, and support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 347-366. doi: 10.1002/job.92 Andrews, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., & Harris, K. J. (2009). Got political skill? The impact of justice on the importance of political skill for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1427-1437. doi: 10.1037/a0017154 Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 653-668. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.653 Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., & Budhwar, P. S. (2004). Exchange fairness and employee performance: An examination of the relationship between organizational politics and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94, 1-14. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.03.002 Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in western man. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 114 Barclay, L. J., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2009). Healing the wounds of organizational injustice: Examining the benefits of expressive writing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 511523. doi: 10.1037/a0013451 Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2005). Yes, personality matters: Moving on to more important matters. Human performance, 18, 359-372. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1804_3 Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Li, N. (2013). The theory of purposeful work behavior: The role of personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics. Academy of Management Review, 38, 132-153. doi: 10.5465/amr.2010.0479 Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43-51. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.1.43 Barsky, A., & Kaplan, S. A. (2007). If you feel bad, it's unfair: A quantitative synthesis of affect and organizational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 286-295. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.286 Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of organizational behavior, 14, 103-118. Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11, 142-163. doi: 10.1037/1082989x.11.2.142 Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Conlon, D. E., Humphrey, S. E., Moon, H., & Ilgen, D. R. (2009). Cutthroat cooperation: The effects of team role decisions on adaptation to alternative reward structures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 131-142. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.07.002 Bendersky, C., & Shah, N. P. (2013). The downfall of extraverts and rise of neurotics: The dynamic process of status allocation in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 387-406. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0316 Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 85-112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press. Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2001). A passion for justice: The rationality and morality of revenge. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2, pp. 197-208). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 115 Bing, M. N., Davison, H. K., Minor, I., Novicevic, M. M., & Frink, D. D. (2011). The prediction of task and contextual performance by political skill: A meta-analysis and moderator test. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 563-577. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.02.006 Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Blickle, G., Frohlich, J. K., Ehlert, S., Pirner, K., Dietl, E., Hanes, T. J., et al. (2011). Socioanalytic theory and work behavior: Roles of work values and politic, skill in job performance and promotability assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 136-148. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.05.010 Blickle, G., Kramer, J., Schneider, P. B., Meurs, J. A., Ferris, G. R., Mierke, J., et al. (2011). Role of political skill in job performance prediction beyond general mental ability and personality in cross-sectional and predictive studies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 488-514. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00723.x Blickle, G., Meurs, J. A., Zettler, I., Solga, J., Noethen, D., Kramer, J., et al. (2008). Personality, political skill, and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 377-387. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2007.11.008 Blickle, G., Oerder, K., & Summers, J. K. (2010). The impact of political skill on career success of employees' representatives. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 383-390. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.05.007 Blickle, G., Schneider, P. B., Liu, Y. M., & Ferris, G. R. (2011). A predictive investigation of reputation as mediator of the political-skill/career-success relationship. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 3026-3048. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00862.x Blickle, G., Wendel, S., & Ferris, G. R. (2010). Political skill as moderator of personality - job performance relationships in socioanalytic theory: Test of the getting ahead motive in automobile sales. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 326-335. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2009.10.005 Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bobocel, D. R. (2013). Coping with unfair events constructively or destructively: The effects of overall justice and self-other orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 720-731. doi: 10.1037/a0032857 Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 441-470. Brockner, J., & Wisenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedurs. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189-208. 116 Brouer, R. L., Duke, A., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2009). The moderating effect of political skill on the demographic dissimilarity - leader-member exchange quality relationship. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 61-69. Brouer, R. L., Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2011). The moderating effects of political skill on the perceived politics-outcome relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 869-885. doi: 10.1002/job.718 Bryk, A., & Raudenbush, S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Carton, A. M., & Rosette, A. S. (2011). Explaining bias against black leaders: Integrating theory on information processing and goal-based stereotyping. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1141-1158. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.0745 Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234-246. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234 Chang, C. H., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and employee attitudes, strain, and behavior: A meta-analytic examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 779-801. Chiaburu, D., Stoverink, A. C., Li, N., & Zhang, X.-A. (in press). Extraverts engage in more interpersonal citizenship when motivated to impression manage: Getting along to get ahead? Journal of Management. Christian, J. S., Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2012). Examining retaliatory responses to justice violations and recovery attempts in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1218-1232. doi: 10.1037/a0029450 Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2001.2958 Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-dosclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457-475. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400. doi: 10.1037//00219010.86.3.386 Colquitt, J. A. (2008). Two decades of organizational justice: Findings, controversies, and future directions. In C. L. Cooper & J. Barling (Eds.), The sage handbook of organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 73-88). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 117 Colquitt, J. A. (2012). Organizational justice. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The oxford handbook of organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 526-547). New York: Oxford University Press. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.425 Colquitt, J. A., & Greenberg, J. (2003). Organizational justice: A fair assessment of the state of the literature. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 165-210). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Scott, B. A. (2005). Organizational justice: Where do we stand? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 589619). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3-58). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & Lepine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909-927. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909 Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., 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, 199-236. doi: 10.1037/a0031757 Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37, 39-67. doi: 10.1177/0149206310388419 Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33, 55-75. Costa, P. T., & Mccrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the revised neo personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 2150. Crant, J. M. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective job-performance among realestate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 532-537. doi: 10.1037/00219010.80.4.532 Cropanzano, R., & Ambrose, M. L. (2001). Procedural and distributive justice are more similar than you think: A monistic perspective and a research agenda. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 119-151). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 118 Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164-209. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2001.1791 Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., Mohler, C. J., & Schminke, M. (2001). Three roads to organizational justice. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Cullen, K. L., Fan, J., & Liu, C. (in press). Employee popularity mediates the relationship between political skill and workplace interpersonal mistreatment. Journal of Management. Degoey, P. (2000). Contagious justice: Exploring the social construction of justice in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 51-102. doi: 10.1016/s01913085(00)22003-0 Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869-884. Dimotakis, N., Scott, B. A., & Koopman, J. (2011). An experience sampling investigation of workplace interactions, affective states, and employee well-being. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 572-588. doi: 10.1002/job.722 Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A metaanalysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38, 1715-1759. Dulebohn, J. H., Conlon, D. E., Sarinopoulos, I., Davison, R. B., & Mcnamara, G. (2009). The biological bases of unfairness: Neuroimaging evidence for the distinctiveness of procedural and distributive justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 140-151. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.09.001 Dulebohn, J. H., & Ferris, G. R. (1999). The role of influence tactics in perceptions of performance evaluations' fairness. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 288-303. doi: 10.2307/256920 Eastman, K. K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional approach to ingratiation and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1379-1391. Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31-41. Ferris, G. R., Blass, F. R., Douglas, C., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Treadway, D. C. (2003). Personal reputation in organizations. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 211-246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ferris, G. R., Davidson, S. L., & Perrewe, P. L. (2005). Political skill at work: Impact on work effectiveness. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black. 119 Ferris, G. R., Fedor, D. B., & King, T. R. (1994). A political conceptualization of managerial behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 4, 1-34. doi: 10.1016/10534822(94)90002-7 Ferris, G. R., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2011). Organizational politics. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Apa handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 435-459). Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association. Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., Blass, F. R., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Treadway, D. C. (2002). Social influence processes in organizations and human resources systems. In G. R. Ferris & J. J. Martocchio (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 21, pp. 65-127). Oxford, UK: JAI Press/Elsevier Science. Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political influence perspective. Journal of Management, 17, 447-488. Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of Management, 18, 93-116. Ferris, G. R., Perrewe, P. L., Anthony, W. P., & Gilmore, D. C. (2000). Political skill at work. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 25-37. doi: 10.1016/s0090-2616(00)00007-3 Ferris, G. R., Perrewe, P. L., & Douglas, C. (2002). Social effectiveness in organizations: Construct validity and research directions. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9, 49-63. Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 143-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Brouer, R. L., & Munyon, T. P. (2012). Political skill in the organizational sciences. In G. R. Ferris & D. C. Treadway (Eds.), Politics in organizations: Theory and research considerations (pp. 487-529). New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis. Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., et al. (2005). Development and validation of the political skill inventory. Journal of Management, 31, 126-152. doi: 10.1177/0149206304271386 Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewe, P. L., Brouer, R. L., Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007). Political skill in organizations. Journal of Management, 33, 290-320. doi: 10.1177/0149206307300813 Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. 120 Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 1-55). Stanford, CA: Standford University Press. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130. Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1998). When tough times make tough bosses: Managerial distancing as a function of layoff blame. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 79-87. doi: 10.2307/256899 Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2001). Fariness as a dependent variable: Why tough times can lead to bad management. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2, pp. 97-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233-258. Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530-555. Ganster, D. C., Rosen, C. C., Mayes, B. T., & Sime, W. E. (2014). Workplace politics and wellbeing as a tragedy of the commons: Explaining divergent effects at individual and collective levels. Paper to be presentated at the 29th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, HI Gentry, W. A., Gilmore, D. C., Shuffler, M. L., & Leslie, J. B. (2012). Political skill as an indicator of promotability among multiple rater sources. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 89-104. doi: 10.1002/job.740 George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 605-622. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827 Gillespie, J. Z., & Greenberg, J. (2005). Are the goals of organizational justice self-interested. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 179214). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gilliland, S. W., & Schepers, D. H. (2003). Why we do the things we do: A discussion and analysis of determinants of just treatment in layoff implementation decisions. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 59-83. 121 Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 528550. Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., & Eissa, G. (2012). Bottom-line mentality as an antecedent of social undermining and the moderating roles of core self-evaluations and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 343-359. doi: 10.1037/a0025217 Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340-342. Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9-22. Greenberg, J. (1993a). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Greenberg, J. (1993b). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81-103. Greenberg, J. (2006). Losing sleep over organizational injustice: Attenuating insomniac reactions to underpayment inequity with supervisory training in interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 58-69. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.58 Greenberg, J., & Wiethoff, C. (2001). Organizational justice as proaction and reaction: Implications for research and application. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2, pp. 271-302). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327-347. Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Bowler, W. M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 93-106. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.93 Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., & Shaw, J. D. (2007). The impact of political skill on impression management effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 278-285. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.278 Heider, F. (1958). Psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Heslin, P. A., & Vandewalle, D. (2011). Performance appraisal procedural justice: The role of a manager's implicit person theory. Journal of Management, 37, 1694-1718. doi: 10.1177/0149206309342895 122 Hofmann, S. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 75-170). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100-112. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.100 Hogan, J., Rybicki, S. L., Motowidlo, S. J., & Borman, W. C. (1998). Relations between contextual performance, personality, and occupational advancement. Human performance, 11, 189-207. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1102&3_5 Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Human performance, 11, 129-144. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1102&3_2 Hollensbe, E. C., Khazanchi, S., & Masterson, S. S. (2008). How do i assess if my supervisor and organization are fair? Identifying the rules underlying entity-based justice perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1099-1116. Holtz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. (2013). Interpersonal justice and deviance: The moderating effects of interpersonal justice values and justice orientation. Journal of Management, 39, 339365. doi: 10.1177/0149206310390049 Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Horowitz, L. M., Wilson, K. R., Turan, B., Zolotsev, P., Constantino, M. J., & Henderson, L. (2006). How interpersonal motives clarify the meaning of interpersonal behavior: A revised circumplex model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 67-86. James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219-229. James, L. R., Demaree, R. J., & Wolf, G. (1993). Rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309. Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1039-1050. doi: 10.2307/3069447 Jawahar, I. M., Meurs, J. A., Ferris, G. R., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2008). Self-efficacy and political skill as comparative predictors of task and contextual performance: A two-study constructive replication. Human performance, 21, 138-157. doi: 10.1080/08959280801917685 Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386-408. 123 Johnson, D. E., Erez, A., Kiker, D. S., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2002). Liking and attributions of motives as mediators of the relationships between individuals' reputations, helpful behaviors, and raters' reward decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 808-815. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.808 Johnson, M. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Ilgen, D. R., Jundt, D., & Meyer, C. J. (2006). Cutthroat cooperation: Asymmetrical adaptation to changes in team reward structures. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 103-119. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765 Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376-407. Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: The state of the field, links to related processes, and an agenda for future research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 17, pp. 1-39). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1997). Further validation of the perceptions of politics scale (pops): A multiple sample investigation. Journal of Management, 23, 627-658. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2063(97)90019-2 Kapoutsis, I., Papalexandris, A., Nikolopoulos, A., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2011). Politics perceptions as moderator of the political skill - job performance relationship: A two-study, cross-national, constructive replication. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 123-135. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.09.009 Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265-284. Kolodinsky, R. W., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2007). Political skill and influence effectiveness: Testing portions of an expanded ferris and judge (1991) model. Human Relations, 60, 1747-1777. doi: 10.1177/0018726707084913 Korsgaard, M. A., Roberson, L., & Rymph, R. D. (1998). What motivates fairness? The role of subordinate assertive behavior on managers' interactional fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 731-744. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.83.5.731 Krings, F., & Facchin, S. (2009). Organizational justice and men's likelihood to sexually harass: The moderating role of sexism and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 501510. doi: 10.1037/a0013391 Lanaj, K., Chang, C. H., & Johnson, R. E. (2012). Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 998-1034. 124 Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Barnes, C. M. (in press). Beginning the workday yet already depleted? Consequences of late-night smartphone use and sleep. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. (2011). Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of Management, 37, 153-184. doi: 10.1177/0149206310390963 Leventhal, G. S. (1979). Effects of external conflict on resource allocation and fairness within groups and organizations. In W. G. Austin & S. Worschel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 237-251). Monterrey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum Press. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Li, J., Masterson, S. S., & Sprinkle, T. A. (2012). Beyond the eye of the beholder: Why managers act in ways likely to be perceived as unfair. In C. A. Schriesheim & L. L. Neider (Eds.), Research in management: Perspectives on justice and trust in organizations (Vol. 9, pp. 139-163). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 7192. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0176 Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43-72. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2063(99)80053-1 Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56-88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Lind, E. A., & Van Den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol 24, 24, 181-223. doi: 10.1016/s0191-3085(02)24006-x Liu, Y. M., Ferris, G. R., Zinko, R., Perrewe, P. L., Weitz, B., & Xu, J. (2007). Dispositional antecedents and outcomes of political skill in organizations: A four-study investigation with convergence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 146-165. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.003 Liu, Y. M., Liu, J., & Wu, L. Z. (2010). Are you willing and able? Roles of motivation, power, and politics in career growth. Journal of Management, 36, 1432-1460. doi: 10.1177/0149206309359810 125 Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptiosn and performance. New York: Routledge. Madison, D. L., Allen, R. W., Porter, L. W., Renwick, P. A., & Mayes, B. T. (1980). Organizational politics: An exploration of managers' perceptions. Human Relations, 33, 79-100. Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 352-398. Maher, K. J. (1995). The role of cognitive load in supervisor attributions. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: An organizational perspective (pp. 193-210). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press. Masterson, S. S., Byrne, Z. S., & Mao, H. (2005). Interpersonal and informational justice: Identifying the differential antecedents of interactional justice behaviors. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, D. P. Skarlicki & K. V. D. Bos (Eds.), What motivates fairness in organizations? (pp. 79-103). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Mayer, D., Nishii, L., Schneider, B., & Goldstein, H. (2007). The precursors and products of justice climates: Group leader antecedents and employee attitudinal consequences. Personnel Psychology, 60, 929-963. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00096.x Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence Annual review of psychology (Vol. 59, pp. 507-536). Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734. doi: 10.2307/258792 Meindl, J. R. (1989). Managing to be fair: An exploration of values, motives, and leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly252-276. Meurs, J. A., Perrewe, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2011). Political skill as moderator of the trait sincerity-task performance relationship: A socioanalytic, narrow trait perspective. Human performance, 24, 119-134. doi: 10.1080/08959285.2011.554469 Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842 Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Mintzberg, H. (1985). The organization as political arena. Journal of Management Studies, 22, 133-154. 126 Mishina, Y., Block, E. S., & Mannor, M. J. (2012). The path dependence of organizational reputation: How social judgment influences assessments of capability and character. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 459-477. doi: 10.1002/smj.958 Mitchell, T. R., & Mickel, A. E. (1999). The meaning of money: An individual-difference perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 568-578. doi: 10.2307/259143 Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer information-seeking - exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 557-589. Myers, D. G. (1999). Close relationships and quality of life. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 374-391). New York: Sage Foundation. Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58, 367-408. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00515.x Nifadkar, S., Tsui, A. S., & Ashforth, B. E. (2012). The way you make me feel and behave: Supervisor-triggered newcomer affect and approach-avoidance behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1146-1168. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0133 Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Boswell, W. R. (2008). An integrative model of experiencing and responding to mistreatment at work. Academy of Management Review, 33, 76-96. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 609-626. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(199611)17:6<609::aid-job1828>3.0.co;2-k Patient, D. L., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2005). Why managers don't always do the right thing when delivering bad news: The roles of empathy, self-esteem, and moral development in interactional fairness. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, D. P. Skarlicki & K. V. D. Bos (Eds.), What motivates fairness in organizations? (pp. 149-178). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Patient, D. L., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2010). Increasing interpersonal and informational justice when communicating negative news: The role of the manager's empathic concern and moral development. Journal of Management, 36, 555-578. doi: 10.1177/0149206308328509 Penley, L. E., & Hawkins, B. (1985). Studying interpersonal communication in organizations: A leadership application. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 309-326. Perrewe, P. L., Zellars, K. L., Ferris, G. R., Rossi, A. M., Kacmar, C. J., & Ralston, D. A. (2004). Neutralizing job stressors: Political skill as an antidote to the dysfunctional consequences of role conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 141-152. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Boston: Pitman. 127 Pfeffer, J. (2010). Power: Why some people have it and others don't. New York: HarperCollins. Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122-141. doi: 10.1037/a0013079 Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891. Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel sem framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209-233. doi: 10.1037/a0020141 Robbins, J. M., Ford, M. T., & Tetrick, L. E. (2012). Perceived unfairness and employee health: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 235-272. doi: 10.1037/a0025408 Roberson, Q. M., & Colquitt, J. A. (2005). Shared and configural justice: A social network model of justice in teams. Academy of Management Review, 30, 595-607. Rosen, C. C., Chang, C. H., Johnson, R. E., & Levy, P. E. (2009). Perceptions of the organizational context and psychological contract breach: Assessing competing perspectives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 202-217. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.07.003 Rosen, C. C., Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2011). Lmx, context perceptions, and performance: An uncertainty management perspective. Journal of Management, 37, 819838. doi: 10.1177/0149206310365727 Rosen, C. C., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). Placing perceptions of politics in the context of the feedback environment, employee attitudes, and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 211-220. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.211 Rupp, D. E., Mccance, A. S., Spencer, S., & Sonntag, K. (2008). Customer (in)justice and emotional labor: The role of perspective taking, anger, and emotional regulation. Journal of Management, 34, 903-924. doi: 10.1177/0149206307309261 Rynes, S. L., Gerhart, B., & Parks, L. (2005). Personnal psychology: Performance evaluation and pay for performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 571-600. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070254 Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. R. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-252. Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of goldberg's unipolar big-five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506-516. 128 Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Cropanzano, R. S. (2000). The effect of organizational structure on perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 294304. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.85.2.294 Scott, B. A., Barnes, C. M., & Wagner, D. T. (2012). Chameleonic or consistent? A multilevel investigation of emotional labor variability and self-monitoring. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 905-926. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.1050 Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Paddock, E. L. (2009). An actor-focused model of justice rule adherence and violation: The role of managerial motives and discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 756-769. doi: 10.1037/a0015712 Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Justice as a dependent variable: Subordinate charisma as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1597-1609. doi: 10.1037/00219010.92.6.1597 Scott, B. A., Garza, A. S., Conlon, D. E., & Kim, Y. J. (in press). Why do managers act fairly in the first place? A daily investigation of "hot" and "cold" motives and discretion. Academy of Management Journal. Semadar, A., Robins, G., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). Comparing the validity of multiple social effectiveness constructs in the prediction of managerial job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 443-461. doi: 10.1002/job.385 Shaughnessy, B. A., Treadway, D. C., Breland, J. A., Williams, L. V., & Brouer, R. L. (2011). Influence and promotability: The importance of female political skill. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26, 584-603. doi: 10.1108/02683941111164490 Shaw, J. D., & Gupta, N. (2007). Pay system characteristics and quit patterns of good, average, and poor performers. Personnel Psychology, 60, 903-928. doi: 10.1111/j.17446570.2007.00095.x Shi, J. Q., Johnson, R. E., Liu, Y. H., & Wang, M. (2013). Linking subordinate political skill to supervisor dependence and reward recommendations: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 374-384. doi: 10.1037/a0031129 Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434-443. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.82.3.434 Skarlicki, D. P., Van Jaarsveld, D. D., & Walker, D. D. (2008). Getting even for customer mistreatment: The role of moral identity in the relationship between customer interpersonal injustice and employee sabotage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 13351347. doi: 10.1037/a0012704 129 Smith, E. R. (1994). Procedural knowledge and processing strategies in social cognition. In R. S. W. Jr. & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 80-115). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA. Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 125-139. Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355-374. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124240–261. Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. A., Devinney, L. C., Star, S. A., & Williams Jr., R. M. (1949). The american soldier: Adjustment during army life (Vol. 1). Clinton, MA: Colonial Press. Sullivan, J. J. (1988). Three roles of language in motivation theory. Academy of Management Journal, 13, 104-115. Sweeney, P. D., & Mcfarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers' evaluations of the "ends" and the "means": An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 23-40. Takeuchi, R., Chen, Z. J., & Cheung, S. Y. (2012). Applying uncertainty management theory to employee voice behavior: An integrative investigation. Personnel Psychology, 65, 283323. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01247.x Taylor, M. S. (2001). Reflections on fairness: Continuing the progression of justice research and practice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 243-253. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2001.1796 Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tost, L. P., Gino, F., & Larrick, R. P. (2013). When power makes others speechless: The negative impact of leader power on team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1465-1486. Treadway, D. C. (2012). Political will in organizations. In G. R. Ferris & D. C. Treadway (Eds.), Politics in organizations: Theory and research considerations (pp. 531-556). new York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis. Treadway, D. C., Breland, J. W., Williams, L. M., Cho, J., Yang, J., & Ferris, G. R. (in press). Social influence and interpersonal power in organizations: Roles of performance and political skill in two studies. Journal of Management. Treadway, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Duke, A. B., Adams, G. L., & Thatcher, J. B. (2007). The moderating role of subordinate political skill on supervisors' impressions of subordinate ingratiation and ratings of subordinate interpersonal facilitation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 848-855. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.848 130 Treadway, D. C., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., & Ferris, G. R. (2005). Political will, political skill, and political behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 229-245. doi: 10.1002/job.310 Trevino, L. K. (1992). The social effects of punishment in organizations: A justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 17, 647-676. Tyler, T. R. (1987). Conditions leading to value-expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice: A test of four models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 333344. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). San Diego: Academic Press. Walker, H. J., Bauer, T. N., Cole, M. S., Bernerth, J. B., Feild, H. S., & Short, J. C. (2013). Is this how i will be treated? Reducing uncertainty through recruitment interactions. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1325-1347. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0196 Wang, M., Liu, S. Q., Liao, H., Gong, Y. P., Kammeyer-Mueller, J., & Shi, J. Q. (2013). Can't get it out of my mind: Employee rumination after customer mistreatment and negative mood in the next morning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 989-1004. doi: 10.1037/a0033656 Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487-499. Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (1995). Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 232-260. doi: 10.2307/256734 Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Graf, I. K., & Ferris, G. R. (1997). The role of upward influence tactics in human resource decisions. Personnel Psychology, 50, 979-1006. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb01491.x Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1921). Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2 ed.). Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution. Academy of Management Review, 14, 490-495. Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In W. Grove & D. Cicchetti (Eds.), Thinking 131 clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of paul e. Meehl (Vol. 2, pp. 89-113). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1996). A dyadic-interactional perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 88-162). New York: Guilford Press. Wiggins, J. S., & Trobst, K. K. (1999). The fields of interpersonal behavior. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality (2 ed., pp. 653-670). New York: Guilford Press. Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). Social ostracism by coworkers: Does rejection lead to loafing or compensation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 693-706. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1-27. Zapata, C. P., Olsen, J. E., & Martins, L. L. (2013). Social exchange from the supervisor's perspective: Employee trustworthiness as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121, 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.001 Zellars, K. L., Perrewe, P. L., Rossi, A. M., Tepper, B. J., & Ferris, G. R. (2008). Moderating effects of political skill, perceived control, and job-related self-efficacy on the relationship between negative affectivity and physiological strain. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 549-571. doi: 10.1002/job.484 Zhu, L. L., Martens, J. P., & Aquino, K. (2012). Third party responses to justice failure an identity-based meaning maintenance model. Organizational Psychology Review, 2, 129151. Zinko, R., Ferris, G. R., Blass, F. R., & Laird, M. D. (2007). Toward a theory of reputation in organizations. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 26, pp. 163-204). Oxford, UK: JAI Press/Elsevier Science Ltd. Zinko, R., Ferris, G. R., Humphrey, S. E., Meyer, C. J., & Aime, F. (2012). Personal reputation in organizations: Two-study constructive replication and extension of antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85, 156-180. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02017.x 132