Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies http://jlo.sagepub.com/

Work Engagement: The Roles of Organizational Justice and Leadership Style in Predicting Engagement
Among Employees
Diana L. Strom, Karen L. Sears and Kristine M. Kelly
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 2014 21: 71 originally published online 23 April 2013
DOI: 10.1177/1548051813485437

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jlo.sagepub.com/content/21/1/71

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Midwest Academy of Management

Additional services and information for Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jan 28, 2014

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Apr 23, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on July 3, 2014

485437
research-article2013
JLOXXX10.1177/1548051813485437Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesStrom et al.

Article
Journal of Leadership &

Work Engagement: The Roles of

Organizational Studies
2014, Vol. 21(1) 7182
The Authors 2013
Organizational Justice and Leadership Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Style in Predicting Engagement Among DOI: 10.1177/1548051813485437

jlo.sagepub.com

Employees

Diana L. Strom1, Karen L. Sears1, and Kristine M. Kelly1

Abstract
The primary objective of this research was to examine both transactional and transformational leadership styles as serving
in the role of moderators in the relationship between organizational justice and work engagement. An online survey was
administered to 348 respondents. Results supported the hypothesis that the positive relationship that both distributive and
procedural justice held to work engagement would be more pronounced among employees experiencing low transactional
leadership than among employees experiencing high transactional leadership. This set of results is consistent with the
principles of leader fairness theory, which suggests that a low transactional leadership style elicits uncertainty about ones
social self in the context of the workplace, and this state of uncertainty incites an employees intensified desire to seek
justice-related information.

Keywords
organizational justice, transactional leadership, transformational leadership, work engagement, leader fairness theory,
uncertainty management

The most productive and functional companies are com-
posed of valuable employees who are entirelyphysically,
cognitively, and emotionallyengaged in their work.
Developing and retaining these kinds of employees could
save U.S. companies an estimated $300 billion per year in
lost productivity (Bates, 2004). To encourage employee
engagement, organizations must focus on cultivating a
work environment supportive of employees, keeping them
motivated and positive, not just about their own jobs but
also about the organization as a whole. By offering high-
quality leadership in a sensible and orderly work envi-
ronment, an organization may enhance desired levels of
employee engagement. The current investigation was
designed to examine the joint roles of organizational justice
and leadership behavior in predicting work engagement.
Work engagement has, in recent years, increasingly
gained status as a legitimate construct among academic
scholars (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008). Proponents of this ris-
ing concept tout its ability to predict positive employee out-
comes, organizational success, and financial performance
(Saks, 2006). Among the most often cited definitions of
work engagement is that offered by Schaufeli and col-
leagues, describing work engagement as a positive, fulfill-
ing work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor,
dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova,
2006, p. 702). Vigor is characterized by high levels of
energy, mental resilience while working, persistence when
faced with difficulties, and a willingness to invest effort in
ones work. Dedication refers to a sense of inspiration,
pride, significance, enthusiasm, and challenge at work.
Absorption is being happy, fully concentrated, and deeply
engrossed in ones work, with trouble detaching from work
(Schaufeli et al., 2006). Scholars are currently involved in
building an empirical basis for legitimizing engagement
(Macey & Schneider, 2008). For instance, engagement has
been empirically linked to desired outcomes such as com-
mitment, health, job performance, lower absenteeism, and
job satisfaction (Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006;
Halbesleben, 2010; Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006; Saks,
2006; Schaufeli, Taris, & Van Rhenen, 2008). The primary
objective of the current study was to contribute to the
engagement literature by examining two social contextual
variables predicting engagement, specifically organizational
justice and leadership style.
1
Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Karen L. Sears, Department of Psychology, Western Illinois University,
100 University Circle, Macomb, IL 61455, USA.
Email: K-Sears@wiu.edu

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on July 3, 2014

72 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 21(1)
The fledgling state of the work engagement literature
offers relatively little empirical data from which to draw in
an investigation of social contextual antecedents. Some
scholars have suggested that organizational features are
more influential in inducing a state of engagement than are
workers personal attributes (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008).
The key organizational feature of interest in this research is
organizational justice. Organizational justice has been an
established area of research for several decades. Two dis-
tinct forms of justice identified in the literature are distribu-
tive justice, referring to employees views that the rewards
distributed by ones organization are fair, and procedural
justice, referring to employees views that the processes by
which organizations decide to distribute rewards are fair
(Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). A third dimension of
organizational justice, known as interactional justice, is not
addressed for purposes of this study.
Organizational justice has an established reputation as
predicting a wide range of organizational and personal out-
comes including, but not limited to, job satisfaction, organi-
zational citizenship behavior, organizational commitment,
counterproductive work behaviors, organizational with-
drawal, and job performance (Cohen-Charash & Spector,
2001). Of most relevance to the current research, two recent
studies have provided empirical evidence that organiza-
tional justice is one of several antecedents of work engage-
ment (Moliner, Martinez-Tur, Ramos, Peiro, & Cropanzano,
2008; Saks, 2006). Organizational leaders may be in a key
position to maintain a just work environment that promotes
norms for employees constructive efforts in promoting
organizational functioning, such as work engagement
(Brown & Trevino, 2006).
On seeking an established theoretical framework for
explaining how peoples reactions to justice may vary
depending on a leaders behavioral style, we came on leader
fairness theory, also dubbed the contingency approach to
leadership and fairness (De Cremer, 2006; De Cremer &
Tyler, 2005, 2011). This theory posits that a leaders style
will direct employees attention either toward or away from
matters of organizational justice. Leadership styles that
cause employees to focus on justice will strengthen jus-
tices effect on an employees resulting behavior, whereas
those leadership styles that channel employees attention
away from justice issues will, in contrast, diminish the jus-
ticebehavior relationship. This interactive effect for justice
and leadership has been demonstrated in its influence on
several employee responses, including group cooperation
(De Cremer & Tyler, 2005), employee emotions (De
Cremer, 2006), and employee self-esteem (De Cremer,
van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, Mullenders, &
Stinglhamber, 2005). Applying leader fairness theory to the
current study, we reasoned that although justice may, in
general, be positively related to work engagement, a leaders
behavioral style will modify the effect of justice on
engagement.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on July 3, 2014
But why, and in what manner, does leadership style
influence justices relationship to work engagement?
Leader fairness theory argues that certain leader styles pro-
voke self-focus, or a heightened attention to ones own
needs and motives (De Cremer & Tyler, 2011). If, for
instance, a leaders style elicits uncertainty about ones
social self in the context of the workplace (e.g., uncertainty
about ones standing, status, or reputation within the work
group), this state of uncertainty incites an employees inten-
sified desire to seek justice-related information. De Cremer
and colleagues suggest that workers view distributive and
procedural justice as critical sources of information about
their status within the work environment. Any resulting
employee reactionsuch as work engagementwill be, as
a consequence of uncertainty, more strongly related to per-
ceptions of distributive or procedural justice.
In a similar vein, uncertainty management theory posits
that, under a state of uncertainty (lacking direct and explicit
information regarding some aspect of ones workplace),
people react more strongly to variations of justice (Lind &
Van den Bos, 2002). The reasoning is that uncertainty
serves as a source of anxiety that the individual needs to
resolve, and thus a search for fairness information is acti-
vated to regain a sense of predictability and trust in the
social environment (Lind & Van den Bos, 2002).
Experimental research has demonstrated this effect by
inducing uncertainty (e.g., induced questions about the
trustworthiness of an authority figure and questions about
distributive fairness among group members) and reported
that those participants in the uncertainty groups were influ-
enced by justice information, more so than participants who
were provided more explicit and relevant information (Van
den Bos, Wilke, & Lind, 1998). The positive consequences
of fair treatment in uncertain contexts enhance positive
affect, increase trust, and generate more support for organi-
zational policies and decision making (Lind & Van den
Bos, 2002; See, 2009). The current study adopts the prem-
ises of both leader fairness and uncertainty management
theories to explore whether the leader fairness effect extends
to a particular form of employee behavior, namely, work
engagement.
Which leadership styles, arising naturally in real organi-
zational settings, would provoke a heightened sense of
uncertainty and the motive to seek justice information? To
address this question, we turned to the literature on transac-
tional and transformational leadership. A fundamental fea-
ture of most work relationships between the employee and
the organization is transactional leadership. Transactional
leadership refers to the exchange relationship between leader
and employee, in which each party is involved to meet their
respective self-interests. Each partys interests are met by
clarifying employee responsibilities, leaders expectations,
and benefits for compliance (Bass, 1999; Pillai, Schriesheim,
& Williams, 1999). This type of leadership style is founded
on the principle of social exchange, in which the relationship
Strom et al. 73
between leader and employee is based largely on an under-
standing that performance is provided in exchange for eco-
nomic gain. In a social exchange, obligations placed on both
parties are clearly specified and typically are shorter term in
nature (Blau, 1964). Transactional leaders may take on dif-
ferent roles, such as the roles of monitor, coordinator, or
director, depending on the situational conditions (Quinn,
1988), and may arise in part as a result of personal disposi-
tion (Bono & Judge, 2004). Elements of transactional lead-
ership include contingent reward, wherein desired employee
actions are rewarded and, in contrast, undesired actions are
punished, and active management-by-exception, referring to
a leaders active monitoring of employee performance and
correcting if the employee fails to meet standards (Bass,
1999; Bass & Avolio, 1993). We argue that an important
function served by transactionally oriented leaders is the
provision of direct and unambiguous information about
organizational goals and personal rewards. Therefore, cast
within the frameworks of leader fairness and uncertainty
management theories, a leader high in the transactional style
would satisfy employees need for information about the
social self within the context of the workplace. In contrast, a
leader low in the transactional style would trigger an
employees sense of uncertainty and the need to seek addi-
tional information in order to determine ones status in
relation to the work environment and would therefore dem-
onstrate more intense reactions toward perceptions of dis-
tributive and procedural justice. Applying this rationale to
the roles that organizational justice and transactional leader-
ship play in determining work engagement, we make the fol-
lowing predictions:
Hypothesis 1: The positive relationship between distrib-
utive justice and work engagement will be stronger
for employees reporting low, as compared to high,
transactional leadership.
Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between proce-
dural justice and work engagement will be stronger
for employees reporting low, as compared to high,
transactional leadership.
In the tradition of the seminal work by Bass and others,
yet another style of leadership has been identified and is of
interest for the purpose of the current research: transfor-
mational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1993). A transfor-
mational leader is one who stimulates and inspires
employees to embrace the goals and ideals of the organi-
zation and to forego their own self-interest and personal
motives in favor of the organizations collective interests.
Transformational leadership focuses on a leaders ability
to interact, understand, and support employees beyond the
standard employment exchange. Transformational leaders
may potentially take on roles such as that of facilitator,
mentor, and innovator, depending on situational condi-
tions (Quinn, 1988) and may arise in part as a result of
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on July 3, 2014
personal disposition (Bono & Judge, 2004). Transformational
leadership attempts to align employee values, beliefs, and
attitudes with that of the collective interest of the organi-
zation, creating a workforce committed to and working
toward a singular vision (Bass, 1999). Tims, Bakker, and
Xanthopoulou (2011) reported that transformational lead-
ership related positively with work engagement through
the mediating variable of optimism. Four specific dimen-
sions distinguish the transformational leaders actions:
idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration. Idealized
influence involves invoking admiration, respect, and trust
from ones subordinates so that they wish to follow by
example. Inspirational motivation means creating an
appealing future vision of optimism, meaning, and enthu-
siasm. Intellectual stimulation includes challenging ones
followers to modify their way of thinking and supporting
those creative methods and new ideas. Finally, individual-
ized consideration means attending to the needs of
employees through coaching, mentoring, and communi-
cating effectively (Bass, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1993).
Employee reports of transformational leadership in the
workplace have been demonstrated as positively related to
job performance, organizational citizenship behavior,
trust, effort, commitment, motivation, satisfaction, organi-
zational effectiveness, and productivity and have been
negatively correlated with work stress and employees
intentions to quit (Barbuto & Burbach, 2006; Judge &
Piccolo, 2004; Yukl, 1998).
We turn attention again to leader fairness theory, which
predicts a more pronounced justice effect on work-related
outcomes, depending on the nature of the leadership style.
To review, leader fairness theory argues that certain leader
styles provoke self-focus, or a heightened attention to ones
own motives for action. Several scholars, including those in
the behavioral ethics domain, have claimed that transforma-
tional leaders are likely to channel employees attention
toward transcendent principles of moral values, ethics, and
justice (Brown & Trevino, 2003; Brown, Trevino, &
Harrison, 2005; De Cremer, 2006; Trevino, Weaver, &
Reynolds, 2006). Indeed, De Cremer (2006) reported a
stronger positive relationship between procedural justice
and employees emotional responses when the leadership
style was high in transformational behavior. Extending this
reasoning to the current model, it follows that leaders high
in transformational style would promote a stronger relation-
ship between justice and work engagement due to employ-
ees heightened consideration of justice and ethical issues,
whereas, in contrast, leaders low in transformational style
would diminish such a relationship because employees
self-focus would not be directed toward justice to the same
degree. The following predictions regarding the roles that
organizational justice and transformational leadership play
in determining work engagement arise from this theoretical
analysis:
74 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 21(1)
Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between distrib-
utive justice and work engagement will be stronger
for employees reporting high, as compared to low,
transformational leadership.
Hypothesis 4: The positive relationship between proce-
dural justice and work engagement will be stronger
for employees reporting high, as compared to low,
transformational leadership.
Method
Participants
Participants were 356 individuals from across the United
States. On examining this data set, drawn from a large pool
of anonymous respondents, we identified and eliminated
the data from a subset of noneligible respondents because
they reported that they were currently retired or unem-
ployed (despite instructions stating current employment
was an eligibility requirement). The remaining set of data
was obtained from 348 eligible respondents, including 225
men and 120 women (3 individuals did not report gender).
In this sample, 76% reported being Caucasian, 7% African
American, 7% Hispanic, 1% Asian, and 7% Other. Of these
participants, 75% reported working full-time, with 16%
working part-time. Those who reported the size of their
organization indicated that 31% worked for a large organi-
zation (employing more than 1,000 people), 25% for a
medium organization (employing 100-1,000 employees),
and 41% for a small organization (employing less than 100
employees).
Materials
Employee Engagement. To measure employee engagement,
the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) was used
(Schaufeli et al., 2006). The UWES includes three dimen-
sions of engagementvigor (6 items), dedication (5 items),
and absorption (6 items)to comprise a 17-item measure.
Examples include, At my work, I feel bursting with
energy (vigor), I find the work that I do full of meaning
and purpose (dedication), and Time flies when I am
working (absorption). Responses were rated on a scale
ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always, every day). Higher
aggregate scores indicate higher levels of engagement. The
UWES has been shown to have internal consistencies
ranging between .80 and .90. The three dimensions of
engagementvigor, dedication, and absorptionhave also
been shown to correlate negatively with the three dimen-
sions of burnoutexhaustion, cynicism, and efficacy
(Schaufeli et al., 2006).
Distributive and Procedural Justice. To measure distributive
justice, we used a 5-item scale constructed by Niehoff and
Moorman (1993). The questions were answered on a 5-point
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on July 3, 2014
Likert-type scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). On this measure, higher scores indicated higher lev-
els of perceived distributive justice. Examples of items
included, My work schedule is fair and I think that my
level of pay is fair. Niehoff and Moorman (1993) reported
a Cronbachs alpha of .90 for this scale.
Items developed by Kausto, Elo, Lipponen, and
Elovainio (2005) were used to measure procedural justice.
The four items were answered on a 5-point scale, from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). On this measure,
higher scores indicated higher levels of procedural justice.
Examples of items in this scale included, Procedures are
designed to generate standards so that decisions can be
made with consistency and Procedures are designed to
hear the concerns of all those affected by the decision.
Cronbachs alpha for the scale has been reported in prior
research to be .82 (Kausto et al., 2005).
Leadership Style. To measure the leadership behavior of par-
ticipants direct supervisors, the Multidimensional Leader-
ship Questionnaire was used (Bass & Avolio, 1990).
Responses were rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from
0 (never) to 4 (frequently, if not always). The 28 items mea-
sured transactional leadership (8 items; comprising the
dimensions contingent reward and management-by-
exception active) and transformational leadership (20 items;
comprising the dimensions idealized influence, inspira-
tional motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individu-
alized consideration). An example of a transactional
leadership item was, Provides me with assistance in
exchange for my efforts. An example of a transformational
leadership items was, Talks about his/her most important
values and beliefs.
Procedure
An email was sent to a randomly generated group of 10,000
individuals via their Internet service provider informing
them of the nature of the study and inviting them to partici-
pate in this optional survey about their workplace experi-
ences. Specifically, the soliciting email to potential recruits
read as follows:
Because of your valued membership, [Internet Service
Provider] on behalf of [University] would like to offer you the
opportunity to participate in this survey and get your feedback.
We realize how busy you are and we want you to know that
your feedback provides valuable information. It should take
you approximately 15 minutes to complete this questionnaire
once your eligibility is determined. If you qualify for this
survey, your own workplace experiences will aid in the effort
to better understand workplace environments. We would like
to assure you that this is for research purposes only and does
not involve sales of any kind, now or in the future. Your
individual answers will remain strictly confidential. Thank you
in advance for your participation.
Strom et al. 75
If members who met the eligibility criteria (between
the ages of 18 and 65, currently employed) wished to par-
ticipate, they then clicked on the given web link and were
directed to the online questionnaire. This methodology
offered the ability to solicit participation from a diverse
group of people, unrestricted by age, race, or geographical
location within the United States. Arrangements to contact
potential recruits via the Internet service provider were
made through personal contacts with a former student
(now employee of the Internet service provider) of a
research team member and involved no monetary or other
incentive in exchange for that opportunity to contact
recruits. The survey was available online to participants
for 3 weeks, after which the survey was closed. Of the
10,000 individuals contacted about the study, usable data
were obtained from 348 Internet service customers, thus
yielding a response rate of 3.48%. Given the research
teams reliance on a third party to solicit participation in
the manner described herein, no means was available to
compare the demographic composition of respondents
versus nonrespondents.
Because self-report measures were collected on a single
occasion from the employee himself or herself, steps were
taken to attempt to reduce the potential influences of social
desirability and common method bias. In this vein, we fol-
lowed the data collection procedures recommended by
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) by,
first, assuring participants that all submitted information
would remain anonymous and confidential and, second,
that the responses would be used strictly for research pur-
poses. The instructions, repeated throughout the survey,
emphasized the importance of supplying honest answers
and the sole objective of using the responses for research.
Moreover, in the middle of the survey, a sense of psycho-
logical separation was created (to reduce potential for com-
mon method bias) through the insertion of an additional
page in the survey, between the leadership and engagement
measures, which repeated the survey instructions and
reemphasized issues of anonymity and the need for honest
answers.
Results
The means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and inter-
nal consistency reliability values for the major variables
used in the study are reported in Table 1. Internal consis-
tency reliabilities for all of the scales were above the com-
monly accepted threshold of .70, as recommended by
Churchill (1979) and Nunnally (1978). The two forms of
justice were correlated at r = .71, p < .01. Both forms of
justice were significantly related to engagement (r = .44 and
.52, both ps < .01, for distributive justice and procedural jus-
tice, respectively). Moreover, both transactional leadership
(r = .32, p < .01) and transformational leadership (r = .44,
p < .01) were significantly correlated with engagement.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on July 3, 2014
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for
all Variables.
M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. DJ 14.57 3.77 (.87)
2. PJ 16.63 5.15 .71** (.89)
3. Transact 25.67 6.28 .32** .46** (.78)
4. Transform 65.22 19.81 .54** .66** .74** (.97)
5. Engage 91.51 24.70 .44** .52** .32** .44** (.96)
Note. Internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbachs alpha) for scales
are provided along the diagonal in parentheses. DJ = Distributive
Justice; PJ = Procedural Justice; Transact = Transactional Leadership;
Transform = Transformational Leadership; Engage = Engagement.
**p < .01.
To test the hypotheses, leadership behavior was exam-
ined as a potential moderator of the relationship between
distributive and procedural justice, respectively, and work
engagement. To explore the predicted leadership moderator
effects for transactional leadership (Hypotheses 1 and 2),
hierarchical regression analyses were conducted, corre-
sponding to distributive and procedural justices, respec-
tively. For example, to examine Hypothesis 1, the simple
effect of distributive justice was added in the first step.
Transactional leadership was added in the second step.
Finally, the product of distributive justice and transactional
leadership was added in the third step. (In separate analyses,
the control variables of age, gender, and length of employ-
ment were added in an initial first step as control variables.
This set of analyses is not reported herein because the over-
all pattern of results and interpretations were not influenced
by the use of control variables in the regression analyses.)
This same analysis was repeated to test Hypothesis 2, sub-
stituting in procedural justice. Prior to creating the interac-
tion term, the predictors (distributive justice and procedural
justice) and the moderators (transactional leadership) were
centered by subtracting each value from its respective mean,
in order to reduce multicollinearity and achieve better esti-
mates of the interaction term (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen,
Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). A significant regression
weight for an interaction term would indicate that transac-
tional leadership serves as a moderator of the association
between that form of justice and work engagement.
Table 2 presents R2, change statistics, and regression
coefficients for the regression of engagement on distribu-
tive justice and transactional leadership, thereby testing
Hypothesis 1 (predicting that the positive relationship
between distributive justice and work engagement will be
stronger for employees reporting low, as compared to high,
transactional leadership). Table 3 presents R2, change statis-
tics, and regression coefficients for the regression of
engagement on procedural justice and transactional leader-
ship, thereby testing Hypothesis 2 (predicting that the posi-
tive relationship between procedural justice and work
engagement will be stronger for employees reporting low,
76 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 21(1)

Table 2. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Results: Engagement Regressed on Distributive Justice and Transactional Leadership.

Engagement
2
Steps R B SE(B)
Step 1 .18
Distributive Justice 2.71 .36 .43**
Step 2 .04
Distributive Justice 2.28 .37 .36**
Transactional Leadership .77 .22 .20**
Step 3 .02
Distributive Justice 2.02 .38 .32**
Transactional Leadership .83 .22 .22**
Distributive Justice Transactional Leadership .13 .05 .15**
Total R2 .24

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 3. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Results: Engagement Regressed on Procedural Justice and Transactional Leadership.

Engagement
2
Steps R B SE(B)
Step 1 .25
Procedural Justice 2.31 .25 .50**
Step 2 .01
Procedural Justice 2.10 .29 .45**
Transactional Leadership .36 .23 .10
Step 3 .01
Procedural Justice 1.96 .29 .42**
Transactional Leadership .40 .23 .10
Procedural Justice Transactional Leadership .08 .03 .12*
Total R2 .27
*p < .05. **p < .01.

as compared to high, transactional leadership). Results

80
showed a significant distributive justice transactional
leadership interaction, as well as a significant procedural 70
justice transactional leadership interaction, in support of
Hypotheses 1 and 2. 60

We needed yet to determine whether the patterns of the 50

Engagement

interactions were consistent with the predictions drawn

from leader fairness theory. To interpret the nature and 40
direction of the interactions, we then used a graphing tech-
30
nique examining the simple slope for engagement regressed
on justice at levels of both low transactional leadership and 20
high transactional leadership (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen Low Transactional Leadership
10
et al., 2003). The same procedure was conducted first for High Transactional Leadership
distributive justice (Figure 1). The pattern of results dis- 0
played in Figure 1 provides full support for the first hypoth- Low Distributive Justice High Distributive Justice
esis. There was a generally positive linear association
between distributive justice and engagement under condi- Figure 1. Relationship between distributive justice and
tions of both low and high transactional leadership, although engagement under high and low levels of transactional
justice perceptions were more influential in determining leadership.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on July 3, 2014

Strom et al. 77
engagement among those reporting low transactional lead-
ership, in comparison to those reporting high transactional
leadership. Therefore, in keeping with leader fairness the-
ory, respondents operating with little transactional leader-
ship, and consequently little information or certainty about
organizational exchange, demonstrated engagement levels
that were strongly influenced by perceived degree of dis-
tributive justice. Those respondents reporting high transac-
tional leadership (and therefore relatively high certainty
about organizational exchange) showed a less pro-
nounced positive relation between distributive justice and
engagement.
The pattern of results for the procedural justice trans-
actional leadership interaction (Hypothesis 2) replicated
this same pattern of relationships among constructs, thereby
also fully supporting the predictions of leader fairness
theory.
The same set of analyses, for distributive and procedural
justices, respectively, was conducted thereafter with trans-
formational leadership to examine the justiceleadership
interactions predicted in Hypotheses 3 and 4. Hypothesis 3
(predicting that the positive relationship between distribu-
tive justice and work engagement will be stronger for employ-
ees reporting high, as compared to low, transformational
leadership) was not supported. This analysis yielded a sim-
ple effect for distributive justice (b = 1.58; = .25, p < .01)
in the final step, but the relation between distributive justice
and engagement was not qualified by level of transforma-
tional leadership (b = .01, = .02, p = .76, for the interac-
tion term). Incidentally, the transformational leadership
main effect was also significant (b = .37, = .31,
p < .01). Total proportion of variance accounted for in the
fourth, and final, step was R2 = .24.
Hypothesis 4 (predicting that the positive relationship
between procedural justice and work engagement will be
stronger for employees reporting high, as compared to low,
transformational leadership) was not supported in that a
simple effect for procedural justice emerged as significant
in the final step (b = 1.66, = .36, p < .01), but the relation
between procedural justice and engagement was not quali-
fied by level of transformational leadership (b = .01, =
.01, p = .88, for the interaction term). Once again, the trans-
formational leadership main effect emerged as significant
in this analysis (b = .23, = .19, p < .01). Total proportion
of variance accounted for in the fourth, and final, step was
R2 = .26.
Discussion
Several scholars have argued that conceptual progress in
the organizational justice literature calls for identifying
those conditions under which justice is more or less impact-
ful on employees attitudes and behaviors (van Knippenberg,
De Cremer, & van Knippenberg, 2007). Moreover, justice
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on July 3, 2014
sources have encouraged the long overdue integration of
the organizational justice and leadership literatures. The
current study responds to these observations by demonstrat-
ing that employees are indeed more responsive to perceived
levels of justice when their leaders are not transactionally
oriented (and therefore are less informative in their actions
within the context of the employment exchange), compared
to employees who are working with a highly transactional
leader. In other words, the relationship between organiza-
tional justice and work engagement was stronger when
employees reported relatively lower levels of transactional
leadership.
This study contributes to a growing literature lending
support to the premise, according to leader fairness and
uncertainty management theories, that a fairness judgment
process is activated by concerns of uncertainty about the
self (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005; Thau, Aquino, & Wittek,
2007). Conversely, employees will not be so apt to seek
justice information in a state of relative certainty about self
within the context of the work setting. To account for this
justice and leadership interactive effect, we rely on, first,
the general principles of leader fairness theory (De Cremer,
2006; De Cremer & Tyler, 2005, 2011). This theory empha-
sizes the central role that self-focus and reinforcement of
basic needs play in explaining that certain leadership styles
motivate the employee to focus on the self and on needs of
competence and self-confidence (Deci & Ryan, 2000; De
Cremer & Tyler, 2011). In the specific case of a low trans-
actional style of leadership, the leader fails to sufficiently
clarify employee responsibilities, performance expecta-
tions, and rewards for meeting standards (Pillai et al., 1999).
Our findings suggest that the employees resulting uncer-
tainty about the social self, that is, ones individual standing
within the work context, provokes a focused attention on
ones own needs and motives and, therefore, a more acute
reaction to justice perceptions. In a related line of theory,
the employee is said to engage in sense-making, or a cogni-
tive process of attributing meaning to an event, in this case
resulting from insufficient employment exchange informa-
tion about his or her status as an organizational member
arising from a low transactional leader (De Cremer et al.,
2010). This pattern of results extends the general principles
of leader fairness theory in its application to work engage-
ment, which has heretofore remained largely unexplored in
its relations to justice and leadership (Saks, 2006).
To further explain the interactive effect of justice and
leadership on work engagement, we rely on, second, the
general principles of uncertainty management theory (Lind
& Van den Bos, 2002). Past research has tended to induce
certainty in participants with the delivery of information
that will influence their beliefs about the social or organiza-
tional context, or about ones own self-views, in an experi-
mental context (Lind & Van den Bos, 2002). Extending this
literature, the current study demonstrated that, in a naturally
78 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 21(1)
occurring setting, a leadership style (such as low transac-
tional leadership) that fails to inform the employee about
his or her standing vis--vis the employment exchange pro-
cess compels that individual to rely more heavily on cues of
distributive and procedural justice in influencing their level
of work engagement (De Cremer et al., 2010). See (2009)
noted that uncertainty management theory research has
explored two different sources of uncertainty: informational
(cognitive) uncertainty and, more recently, personal (self)
uncertainty (stemming from doubt in self-views or world
views). Like leader fairness theory, this line of reasoning
suggests that a low transactional leader who falls short
in meeting employees informational needs byfor
instancefailing to clarify employee responsibilities, lead-
ers expectations, and benefits for compliance, induces a
diffuse sense of anxiety and a degree of self-doubt in the
employee (Lind & Van den Bos, 2002). This employees
work-related behaviors and attitudes are, consequently,
more strongly influenced by perceptions of distributive and
procedural justice.
Uncertainty management theory has enjoyed support in
both experimental and nonexperimental organizational
research, which has tended to apply perceptions of justice
to a range of employee affective responses and attitudes,
such as positive and negative affect, trust, support for orga-
nizational policies (Lind & Van den Bos, 2002). The cur-
rent study contributes to this line of research relating
uncertainty and justice perceptions to behavioral outcomes
through its application to work engagement. There are ben-
efits to a trend of uncertainty management theory applica-
tion beyond the attitudinal domain (See, 2009). Do the
principles of this theory hold for work behavior as well?
Our findings suggest they do, and that work engagement
may be yet another consequence, aside from emotional and
attitudinal reactions, of combining uncertainty with condi-
tions of justice in the workplace. This work is testing and
extending the boundaries of uncertainty management the-
ory principles and is thus offering some insight into the
potential for generalized application of constructs, such
as the self and uncertainty, to employees workplace
behavior.
A potential alternative explanation for the moderator
effect of justice and transactional leadership derives from
the theoretical work on ethical leadership (Brown et al.,
2005; Brown & Trevino, 2006). Rather than uncertainty, it
may be perceived as low moral standards to which employ-
ees are reacting when dealing with a low-transactional
leader. Brown and colleagues theorized that ethical leaders
set clear behavioral standards and hold group members
accountable for ethical conduct at work, which are two sig-
nificant features of transactional leadership. Lacking that
moral compass in a low-transactional leader, employees
may turn instead to organizational justice cues in gauging
their degree of work engagement.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on July 3, 2014
The present study also speaks to the question of what are
the conditions under which a justiceleadership interaction
is not likely to emerge. Here, we did not find that transfor-
mational leadership moderated the relationship between
justice and engagement, as predicted in Hypotheses 3 and 4.
In so doing, the current study failed to replicate the transfor-
mational leadership and justice interaction reported by De
Cremer (2006). Our hypotheses had predicted that, similar
to the De Cremer study, transformational leadership would
enhance the relationship between justice and engagement
due to employees heightened awareness of issues of justice
and ethics under this form of leadership (Brown & Trevino,
2003; De Cremer, 2006). It was anticipated that, through
the mechanism of idealized influence, employees would
wish to emulate a transformational leader and therefore
would be inclined to demonstrate a deontic response to mat-
ters of justice (i.e., reacting strongly to ethical transgres-
sions solely because such actions violate societal norms for
appropriate behavior and not because one has any personal
stake in the outcome; Folger, Cropanzano, & Goldman,
2005). Instead, our research found that both transforma-
tional leadership and organizational justice each produced
main effects. We offer three speculative explanations
addressing the reasons why our study failed to support the
hypotheses suggesting that transformational leadership
would serve as a moderator. First, the reason may lie in the
inherent nature of our dependent measure, work engage-
ment, in contrast to those outcome variables used in the De
Cremer (2006) study. De Cremer reported that transforma-
tional leadership intensified the relationship that procedural
justice held with both the self-esteem and emotions of
employees. It seems reasonable to expect that ethical behav-
ior displayed by transformational leadership would promote
an organizational context in which followers react with
strong emotions toward breaches of normative prescriptions
for behavior (Trevino et al., 2006). Work engagement, in
comparison, is a complex and multidimensional form of
work behavior. As such, the influence of transformational
leadership, combined with justice, may not affect engage-
ment in the same manner that it affected the attitudinal and
emotional outcome variables highlighted in the De Cremer
(2006) study. Second, the reason for nonreplication may lie
in the theoretical underpinnings for the initial hypotheses.
We had anticipated that transformational leadership would
moderate the justiceengagement relationship because a
transformational leader would, in part, promote focus on
ones own motives for action and the personal benefits to be
derived through the intellectual stimulation and individual-
ized consideration components of transformational leader-
ship (Bass, 1999). However, this focus may be overshadowed
by yet another effect of transformational leadershipthe
tendency for transformational leadership to promote a shift
among followers away from self-interests, in favor of col-
lective interests (De Cremer, 2006; Yukl, 1998). That is,
Strom et al. 79
transformational leaders are, by definition, capable of moti-
vating employees to emphasize feelings of social identifica-
tion and affiliation within the work group, thereby
encouraging a more collectivistic orientation (Yukl, 1998).
Thus, the competing influences of both a heightened focus
on personal motives and issues of justice, in addition to an
intensified collective identity that reduces the desire to seek
justice information, may account for the finding that trans-
formational leadership did not operate as a moderator in the
current research. Third, it may be the case that one or more
significant situational variables (e.g., type of job, organiza-
tional culture) were omitted from the model, thus accounting
for the failure to find the predicted moderator effect (Eagly,
Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003; Yukl, 1999).
The burgeoning literature on work engagement also ben-
efits from the novel contributions of the present research.
Scholars in this area have described a need for increased
academic attention to the causes and consequences of work
engagement (Saks, 2006). Our research has implicated two
social contextual variables, justice and style of leadership,
as predictors of work engagement. On a conceptual level,
the contextual influences of justice and leadership style
may serve as specific examples of job resources, which
Bakker and Demerouti (2008) identified as contributing
forces to engagement in their job demands-resources model.
Relatedly, Saks (2006) aptly applied the principles of social
exchange theory to explain why people display engagement
at work (Blau, 1964). Social exchange theory argues that
parties to a social or, in this case, employment exchange
experience a reciprocal interdependence that, over the
course of time and a series of interactions, may develop into
a more meaningful relationship. Over time, as long as both
parties adhere to rules of exchangesuch as reciprocity in
the exchange of benefitsthe employeeemployer rela-
tionship may evolve into a trusting, loyal, and mutual com-
mitment. Saks continued by suggesting that one currency
available to the employee to offer in this social exchange is
work engagement. Employees will choose to engage in
response to the economic resources and socioemotional
benefits they feel they are provided by the employer. Results
of the current study align well with this theoretical perspec-
tive, in that important organizational elements, such as
transactional and transformational leadership, distributive
justice, and procedural justice, were positively related to
work engagement. One may infer from these findings that,
in the course of social exchange, employees may very well
choose to engage more readily when their organization ful-
fills its obligations of providing a just, predictable, reward-
ing, and motivating environment in which to work.
Examination of justice and leadership style as influences
on work engagement is valuable not only from a theoretical
standpoint, but it is also of practical significance to human
resource practitioners who seek understanding as a means
to promote engagement in the workplace. There is indeed
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on July 3, 2014
considerable interest among practitioners and consulting
firms in work engagement (Saks, 2006). The plummeting
numbers of engaged workers in the United States has been
a cause for concern (Bates, 2004). The present findings
imply that potential targets for change, in the event of orga-
nizational concern about engagement, are the organiza-
tional-level factors of justice and leadership. For instance,
organizational policies addressing fair distribution of
rewards, and the procedures by which decisions are made
for extending those rewards, would be worth reviewing and
updating, with a focus on elements such as equitable distri-
bution of rewards, providing employees a chance to voice
concerns and to appeal decisions, and establishing transpar-
ent and standardized procedures for enacting policies. In the
same vein, human resources practices would be established
to provide leadership training to managers, at all levels of
the organization, which provides information on transac-
tional and transformational styles of leadership, as well as
the need for immediate supervisors to be clear in conveying
reward systems and their own expectations to employees.
Limitations, Strengths, and Future Research
A research project of this nature is not without its limita-
tions. For instance, the survey design used in this research
limits our ability to draw conclusions about causal relation-
ships among variables. There is nonetheless a well-devel-
oped literature base on both leader fairness and uncertainty
management that draws from experimental research, the pre-
ponderance of which supports the predictions of both theo-
ries. This literature lends some credence to our contention
that we may be looking at causal relationships (De Cremer,
2006; Lind & Van den Bos, 2002).
Yet another study limitation is the reliance on self-report
data in gathering information about justice, leadership, and
engagement from a single individual (the respondent) on a
single occasion. This approach raises questions about com-
mon source bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The data collection
method available to us was of value in that it offered access
to a large sample of potential respondents from a variety of
job positions and industries. The method, however, did not
make information gathering from a different source, such as
a coworker or supervisoror on separate occasionsfeasi-
ble. Recent debates in the literature suggest that common
method bias, although a concern to be taken seriously, does
not automatically overestimate relationships among con-
structs. Rather, the effect of common method bias on
research results varies considerably, depending on the nature
of the constructs in use and the forms of assessment (Spector,
2006). The procedures of the current study did, nonetheless,
conform to good measurement and implementation prac-
tices, for instance, compiling items that minimize item ambi-
guity, using reliable and valid scales, and reducing potential
evaluation apprehension by guaranteeing anonymity of
80 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 21(1)
respondents answers, all of which recommended to help
minimize the effects of common method bias (Podsakoff
et al., 2003).
One strength of the present study lies in its data collec-
tion procedure, which enabled us to obtain responses from
a diverse sample of workers across the United States. In
contrast to much of the organizational survey research
reported in the literature, data for the current study are not
restricted to individuals employed at a single company, in a
particular job position, or living in a concentrated geo-
graphical location. Rather, respondents represented a wide
array of demographic groups, organizational positions, and
industries. The diversity of respondent data offered by our
methodology promotes some added confidence in the exter-
nal validity and applicability of findings beyond our
employee sample. Another methodological strength, in con-
trast to the numerous past experimental studies investigat-
ing uncertainty management theory, is our use of field
research to test the propositions of that theory. The support
for uncertainty management theory in a field context
enhances conclusions drawn from uncertainty management
principles and their application to organizational contexts.
Successful support of the key premise that a leaders
style may be responsible for directing employees attention
either toward, or away from, matters of organizational jus-
tice should encourage further investigation in this area.
Employment settings appear to be ripe for testing the cen-
tral elements of leader fairness and uncertainty manage-
ment theories. Employees are often faced with a demanding
work environment fraught with uncertainty and issues of
fairness. The results of the current study hold implications
for applying the leader fairness and uncertainty manage-
ment principles to a wider array of work-related behaviors
and outcomes. Past uncertainty management research has
tended to concentrate on employees support for organiza-
tional policies, and trust in supervisor, as the outcomes of
interest (See, 2009; Van den Bos et al., 1998). Past leader
fairness research, examining the role that leaders have in
inducing uncertainty about ones standing in the organiza-
tional context, has examined the effect in relation to out-
come variables such as group cooperation, employee
emotions, and employee self-esteem (De Cremer, 2006; De
Cremer & Tyler, 2005; De Cremer et al., 2005). Moreover,
recent research that has successfully replicated the fairness
effect under conditions of uncertainty in predicting antiso-
cial work behaviors suggests a fairly general phenomenon
that is potentially applicable to numerous behaviors of tra-
ditional interest to organizational scholarscounterproduc-
tive work behaviors, organizational citizenship behaviors,
organizational withdrawal, and performance, to name a few
(Thau et al., 2007). Knowledge of the behavioral conse-
quences of employees management of uncertainty in
response to varying leadership styles will provide insights
for managers and human resource specialists into those
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on July 3, 2014
means by which dysfunctional workplace behavior may be
avoided and positive behaviors may be promoted. We call
on future research to continue exploring the interaction of
organizational justice and leadership styles and to relate
those predictors to a variety of work-related outcomes.
Acknowledgments
A message of gratitude goes to Scott Hemenover, Audra Lifka,
Kimberley McClure, and Teresa North for assistance at stages of
this project.
Authors Note
Portions of this research were presented at the 2010 annual meet-
ing of the Association for Psychological Science in Boston, MA.
The former name of the second author is Karen L. Harris.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
This research reports on findings from a masters thesis by the
first author. Funding support for this project was made available
through the Graduate Student Research and Professional
Development Fund, School of Graduate Studies, Western Illinois
University.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing
and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work
engagement. Career Development International, 13, 209-223.
Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. (2008). Positive organizational
behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 147-154.
Barbuto, J. E., Jr., & Burbach, M. E. (2006). The emotional intel-
ligence of transformational leaders: A field study of elected
officials. Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 51-64.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in
transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-26.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The multifactor leadership
questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leader-
ship: A response to critiques. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman
(Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and
directions (pp. 49-80). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bates, S. (2004). Getting engaged. HR Magazine, 49, 44-51.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transforma-
tional and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 89, 901-910.
Strom et al. 81
Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2003). Is values-based leader-
ship ethical leadership? In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner &
D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on values in
organizations (pp. 151-174). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review
and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595-616.
Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical
leadership: A social learning perspective for construct devel-
opment and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 97, 117-134.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better mea-
sures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research,
16, 64-73.
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.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in
organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decisions Processes, 86, 278-321.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal
pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behav-
ior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
De Cremer, D. (2006). When authorities influence followers affect:
The interactive effect of procedural justice and transformational
leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 15, 322-351.
De Cremer, D., Brockner, J., Fishman, A., van Dijke, M.,
van Olffen, W., & Mayer, D. M. (2010). When do procedural
fairness and outcome fairness interact to influence employ-
ees work attitudes and behaviors? The moderating effect of
uncertainty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 291-304.
De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Managing group behavior:
The interplay between procedural justice, sense of self, and
cooperation. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 151-218). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2011). On being the leader and
acting fairly: A contingency approach. In D. De Cremer,
R. van Dick, & J. K. Murnighan (Eds.), Social psychology
and organizations (pp. 39-65). New York, NY: Routledge/
Taylor & Francis.
De Cremer, D., van Knippenberg, B., van Knippenberg, D.,
Mullenders, D., & Stinglhamber, F. (2005). Rewarding lead-
ership and fair procedures as determinants of self-esteem.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 3-12.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L.
(2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire lead-
ership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men.
Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569-591.
Folger, R., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. (2005). What is the
relationship between justice and morality? In J. Greenberg
& J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice
(pp. 215-246). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006).
Burnout and engagement among teachers. Journal of School
Psychology, 43, 495-513.
Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engage-
ment: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources and
consequences. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on July 3, 2014
engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research
(pp. 118-131). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Hallberg, U., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Same same but differ-
ent: Can work engagement be discriminated from job involve-
ment and organizational commitment? European Journal of
Psychology, 11, 119-127.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and trans-
actional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative
validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-769.
Kausto, J., Elo, A. L., Lipponen, J., & Elovainio, M. (2005).
Moderating effects of job insecurity in the relationship
between procedural justice and employee well-being: Gender
difference. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 14, 431-452.
Lind, E. A., & Van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works:
Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. In
B. M. Staw & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior (Vol. 24, pp. 181-223). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). Engaged in engagement:
We are delighted we did it. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 1, 76-83.
Moliner, C., Martinez-Tur, V., Ramos, J., Peiro, J. M., &
Cropanzano, R. (2008). Organizational justice and extrarole
customer service: The mediating role of well-being at work.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
17, 327-348.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator
of the relationship between methods of monitoring and orga-
nizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management
Journal, 3, 537-556.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness
perceptions and trust as mediators for transformation and
transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of
Management, 25, 897-933.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee
engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600-619.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The
measurement of work engagement with a short question-
naire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 66, 701-715.
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008).
Workaholism, burnout and engagement: Three of a kind
or three different kinds of employee well-being. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 57, 173-203.
See, K. E. (2009). Reactions to decisions with uncertain conse-
quences: Reliance on perceived fairness versus predicted
outcomes depends on knowledge. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 96, 104-118.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organization research:
Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9,
221-232.
82 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 21(1)
Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Wittek, R. (2007). An extension of
uncertainty management theory to the self: The relationship
between justice, social comparison orientation, and antiso-
cial work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
250-258.
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2011). Do transfor-
mational leaders enhance their followers daily work engage-
ment? Leadership Quarterly, 22, 121-131.
Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral
ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management,
32, 951-990.
Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., & Lind, E. A. (1998). When
do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1449-1458.
van Knippenberg, D., De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, B.
(2007). Leadership and fairness: The state of the art. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 113-140.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on July 3, 2014
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in trans-
formational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership
Quarterly, 10, 285-305.
Author Biographies
Diana L. Strom earned her masters degree in general experimen-
tal psychology, specializing in industrial-organizational psychol-
ogy, at Western Illinois University. She is employed at Western
Illinois University as a financial aid adviser manager.
Karen L. Sears earned her PhD degree from the Department of
Psychology at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, in 1990.
She is a professor at Western Illinois University, teaching and
publishing in the field of industrial-organizational psychology.
Kristine M. Kelly earned her PhD degree in experimental psy-
chology from the University of Tennessee. She is a professor at
Western Illinois University, teaching and publishing in the field of
social psychology.