7-Haynie, Mossholder, & Harris, 2016. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 889-910.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav.
(2016)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2082
Research Article
Justice and job engagement: The role of senior
management trust
JEFFREY J. HAYNIE1*, KEVIN W. MOSSHOLDER2 AND STANLEY G. HARRIS2
1
Nicholls State University, Thibodaux, Louisiana, U.S.A.
2
Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, U.S.A.
Summary We examined whether job engagement mediated the effects of organizational justice dimensions on work be-
haviors and attitudes. Considering distributive and procedural justice from a motivational perspective, we pro-
posed that job engagement would mediate these two dimensions’ relations with the work outcomes of task
performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and job satisfaction. We also expected this mediation effect
would be magnified when senior management trust (SMT) was high. Our results showed that the simple me-
diation model was supported only for distributive justice. Alternatively, the indirect effect of procedural jus-
tice on work outcomes through job engagement was significant only when SMT was high. Implications of our
findings and areas for future research are discussed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords: job engagement; organizational justice; trust; performance; job attitudes
Effective organizational leadership involves motivating employees to contribute to firm goals. A general means by
which senior managers can establish an organizational context that favorably influences employee contributions is
offering equitable outcomes (distributive justice) and enacting fair policies and procedures (procedural justice)
(Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005). These justice dimensions have been considered as structural determi-
nants of justice because they focus more on the context in which organizational members interact (Greenberg, 1993).
Often treated under the rubric of organizational justice, distributive and procedural justice have each been argued to
increase employees’ efforts to meet work responsibilities and attain organizational goals (e.g., Folger & Konovsky,
1989; Kim & Mauborgne, 1991, 1993). These two forms of justice have been shown to favorably influence job per-
formance and work attitudes (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001).
Although social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) has often been used to explain justice–outcome effects, justice
scholars (e.g., Colquitt et al., 2013) have begun to recognize that these effects may be due as much to motivat-
ing processes as the influence of reciprocity norms and social indebtedness at the heart of social exchange the-
ory. This nascent research stream suggests procedural justice includes intrinsic and relational motives that
promote stronger effort by enhancing positive affect, identity, and cooperative attainment (Blader & Tyler,
2009; van Dijke, De Cremer, Brebels, & van Quaquebeke, 2015; Zapata-Phelan, Colquitt, Scott, & Livingston,
2009). These effects should also extend to distributive justice because organizational policies and procedures
make possible desired outcomes on which distributive justice perceptions are based. Building upon these dynam-
ics, we examined job engagement as a motivational vehicle capable of explaining distributive and procedural
justice effects on performance and attitudes.
Job engagement signifies group or organization identification (Tyler & Blader, 2003) whereby employees invest
physical, cognitive, and emotional energies to meet role expectations (Macey & Schneider, 2008). We argue that
justice stimulates affect and identity, in the form of job engagement, that may not be fully captured by social
exchange reciprocation processes (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960). Instead, employees willingly invest themselves
in their jobs in the presence of positive psychological states (i.e., safety, availability, and meaningfulness; Kahn,
*Correspondence to: Jeffrey J. Haynie, Department of Management, Nicholls State University, P. O. Box 2015, Thibodaux, Louisiana 70310,
U.S.A. E-mail: jeffrey.haynie@nicholls.edu
Received 06 March 2015

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 03 December 2015, Accepted 07 December 2015
J. J. HAYNIE ET AL.
1990). Fair organizational outcomes and procedures may energize employees to give of themselves, thus establish-
ing relational identities that ultimately facilitate cooperative exchanges (Blader & Tyler, 2009; van Dijke et al.,
2015). In short, we suggest justice may promote feelings and energies leading to job engagement, a notion congruent
with research supporting the positive influence of organizational resources on job engagement states (Crawford,
LePine, & Rich, 2010; Freeney & Fellenz, 2013).
While justice judgments have the ability to energize job engagement states, Colquitt and Greenberg (2003)
suggested that employee sensitivity to justice may be contingent on authority trustworthiness. Collins and Smith
(2006) indicated the broader social context of an organization can affect employee motivation and knowledge
sharing and identified trust as a critical relational mechanism. In many organizations, senior managers are the par-
amount authority responsible for external strategic direction and oversight of internal governance structures that
guide employee work efforts (Hodson, 2004). As such, trust that employees develop in senior managers (senior
management trust, SMT) is partly shaped by experiences employees have with various organizational systems as
well as their broader perceptions about the effectiveness with which senior managers have guided the organization
(Gillespie & Dietz, 2009). From the reliability of work arrangements and the consistency of policies promoting
organizational solidarity, employees draw overall cues as a basis for such institutional-based trust (Bachmann,
2003, 2011; Wittek, 2003).
Employees have limited interactions with senior managers, which means that SMT is likely to be impersonal.
Given the information from which SMT is derived, it should be institutional based (Bachmann, 2003) and descrip-
tive of the organization’s trust environment. Trust assessments derived from organizational-level decisions and ini-
tiatives can act as contexts that alter relationships between employee-level attitudes and behaviors (Fulmer &
Gelfand, 2012). Thus, despite its impersonal, contextual grounding, we argue SMT could play an important function
in moderating the relations of distributive and procedural justice with job engagement. Dirks and Ferrin (2001) of-
fered that trust can affect how employees evaluate the future and their willingness to invest effort in bettering the
organization. In line with Dirks and Ferrin’s anticipation proposition, employees with higher SMT could be more
motivated by past positive organizational experiences (e.g., fair outcomes and procedures) in comparison with em-
ployees having lower SMT. Trust can facilitate potent mobilizing effects (McEvily, Perrone, & Zaheer, 2003),
allowing employees to feel their efforts will benefit the organization collectively and assuring employees about
the organization’s viability (Shapiro, 1987).
Employees need to trust those charged with enacting fair outcomes, policies, and procedures to become fully en-
gaged (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Senior managers generate trust by credibly guiding the firm and displaying abil-
ity, benevolence, and integrity (trustworthiness factors; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995) in managing employees.
When employees evaluate these factors favorably, they are more likely to develop SMT perceptions that promote
confidence in the system administered by these senior managers (Shapiro, 1987). In essence, high SMT helps re-
move uncertainty surrounding the system, so employees can better appreciate the behavioral guidance set forth by
fair organizational practices. This circumstance allows the impact of justice to be more easily converted into job
engagement.
Our proposed theoretical model is displayed in Figure 1. By examining the combined influence of justice, SMT,
and job engagement on job performance and attitudes, we make two main contributions. First, we examine whether
job engagement provides an agentic path through which organizational justice influences work outcomes. Employee
engagement (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011) has been shown to lead to higher job-related effort (i.e., task per-
formance) as well as supplying increased employee assistance that contributes to the overall work context (i.e.,
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB); Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). Additionally, engaged em-
ployees view work as a more fulfilling experience, which may be manifested in terms of higher job satisfaction
(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Rather than rest solely on the dynamics of social exchange indebtedness, we suggest
that distributive and procedural justice influence work behavior and attitudes through affect-related and identity-
related motivation embodied by job engagement. Second, we investigate whether SMT magnifies the effect of orga-
nizational justice on employees’ willingness to fully invest in their work. SMT is an important global indicator of the
faith employees have in senior managers despite their greater hierarchical position and status (Six & Sorge, 2008).
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/job
JUSTICE AND JOB ENGAGEMENT
Figure 1. The hypothesized theoretical model. OCB, organizational citizenship behavior
Bachmann (2011) stressed the need to understand the dynamics underpinning impersonal forms of trust, such as
those extant between employees and senior managers, especially given the likely role these trust forms play in
attaining broader organizational goals and objectives. By conceptualizing SMT as a contextual variable that could
moderate relations of structural justice dimensions (distributive and procedural) with job engagement, we attempt
to elucidate such dynamics.
Organizational Justice, Job Engagement, and Outcomes

Organizational scholars have long maintained that the effectiveness of employee control mechanisms require that
employees perceive the outcomes, policies, and procedures as well intentioned and beneficial (e.g., Barnard,
1938; Simon, 1957). A general means by which senior managers can accomplish this is by establishing internal
allocations and policies that are fair (Colquitt et al., 2005). Senior managers utilize such practices to influence the
social environment that legitimizes and regulates expected behaviors throughout the organization (Choi & Chang,
2009; Purvis, Sambamurthy, & Zmud, 2001). When employees perceive outcomes in relation to effort as equi-
table (Leventhal, 1976) and decision-making processes impacting outcomes as consistent and bias free
(Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975), they should feel an inherent desire to be involved in work processes
and experience positive feelings (Colquitt et al., 2013) and closer ties with the organization offering such benefits
(Tyler & Blader, 2003).
Affect-related responses to justice have been shown to apply to overall judgments about an organization’s
fairness. For example, Barclay and Kiefer (2014) recently found overall justice assessments stimulated positive em-
ployee emotions and performance outcomes. Such responses also indicate employees’ self-enhancement needs are
being met, which increases the likelihood of identification with the organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). More
specifically, both distributive and procedural justice have been tied to greater organizational identification
(Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006). Because job engagement involves behavioral, cognitive, and emotional elements
that stimulate employees’ full investment in work (Kahn, 1990), it can be viewed as encapsulating both the affect
and identity induced by organizational justice. In reference to the organization as a whole, distributive and proce-
dural justice may influence behavior more as a result of generalized affect and identity than of specific social
DOI: 10.1002/job
J. J. HAYNIE ET AL.
exchange expectations extant between individuals (Hogg & Martin, 2003). Relatedly, Colquitt et al.’s (2013) meta-
analysis found the relations of distributive and procedural justice with task performance and OCB were mediated by
affect. These same indirect effects were not found for interpersonal fairness extended by supervisors. Framed
broadly, we suggest distributive and procedural justice facilitate employees’ willingness to undertake work pro-
cesses with energies and emotions often associated with job engagement.
When an organization uses rewards and procedures to fairly regulate work behavior, employees are prone to exert
work effort in ways that benefit both themselves and the organization (Lawler, 2001). Macey and Schneider (2008)
proposed such efforts are a critical part of job engagement, as exemplified by employee activities that encapsulate
pride, dedication, and absorption. The feelings generated from justice and encapsulated by job engagement are forms
of autonomous regulation (Meyer & Gagne, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). This gives job engagement and intrinsic-
oriented motivation a theoretical kinship (cf. Zapata-Phelan et al., 2009), which when activated helps employees per-
sist in their efforts and enjoy their work routines. Even so, job engagement does exert effects on job performance
beyond those accounted for by intrinsic-oriented motivation (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010).
Job engagement heightens the meaningfulness (Kahn, 1992) and favorability (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) of work,
enabling employees to exert effort toward quality task performance. In addition, job engagement can expand em-
ployees’ view of role requirements to include OCB (Rich et al., 2010). Organizations provide employees with both
extrinsic and intrinsic benefits for performing OCB (Organ et al., 2006), and engaged employees may be in a better
position to accumulate these benefits. Finally, with regard to work attitudes, the experience of engagement should
lead employees to evaluate their jobs as more satisfying. Job satisfaction involves employees’ evaluating their jobs
in positive or negative ways (Weiss, 2002) and has been demonstrated to be distinct from job engagement (Christian
et al., 2011). Satisfaction with work thus serves as an attitudinal outcome of employees’ current job engagement.
Summarizing, we propose that distributive and procedural justice promote both emotion-related (Colquitt et al.,
2013) and identity-related (Tyler & Blader, 2003) affective energies that are embodied by job engagement. In turn,
job engagement generates a willingness to pursue work processes that lead to higher performance and favorable
work evaluations. It should be noted that although a global justice measure can produce effects of a similar nature
(e.g., Barclay & Kiefer, 2014), we chose to examine distributive and procedural justice as separate dimensions to
capture potential nuances that might be specific to each. As our study is among the few to examine justice–job
engagement relations, any effects that are specific to either dimension could be important for future research. We
therefore hypothesize the following.
Hypothesis 1: Job engagement will mediate the relations of (a) distributive justice and (b) procedural justice with
task performance, OCB, and job satisfaction.
The Role of Senior Management Trust
Senior managers make long-term decisions affecting an organization’s internal policies, procedures, and core cul-
ture. Thus, despite limited personal interactions with them, employees are ultimately influenced by decisions and
actions that senior managers take (Barrick, Thurgood, Smith, & Courtright, 2015). We offer that such actions have
the potential to affect employee SMT perceptions. In particular, demonstrations of managerial ability, benevolence,
and integrity have been considered as salient SMT antecedents (e.g., Davis, Schoorman, Mayer, & Hwee Hoon,
2000; Mayer & Gavin, 2005; Palanski & Yammarino, 2009; Shamir & Lapidot, 2003).
Lacking close relationships with senior managers, employees must assess broader, impersonal organizational in-
dicators when making decisions to trust. Bachmann (2003) noted such indicators include technical systems,
organizational standards, and the stability of work arrangements. These indicators provide structural assurance
(Shapiro, 1987) so that employee work involvement can be more effective. Gillespie and Dietz (2009) argue that
leaders who employ effective organizational strategies and maintain a strong culture of acceptable and unacceptable
behaviors influence employee judgments of senior management trustworthiness. We offer that internal and external
governance initiatives impact employee perceptions about senior management trustworthiness and lead to SMT
DOI: 10.1002/job
judgments. Justice perceptions can also exert some influence on trust in leadership directly (Colquitt et al., 2001),
but SMT represents a reaction to a multitude of trustworthiness cues from senior managers that are captured in this
overarching form of trust.
When senior managers establish and maintain robust governance processes (Mayer & Davis, 1999), make deci-
sions resulting in competitive advantages (e.g., Davis et al., 2000), and lead in consultative and transformational ways
(Burke, Sims, Lazzara, & Salas, 2007; Kim & Mauborgne, 1991), they cumulatively shape employees’ perceptions of
their managerial ability. Further, by implementing collaborative human resource practices (e.g., Hodson, 2004;
Mossholder, Richardson, & Settoon, 2011) and emphasizing timely and informative communication with employees
(e.g., Ellis & Shockley-Zalabak, 2001), senior managers generate a culture emphasizing employee concern and
thereby convey their benevolence. Lastly, senior managers who understand the organization’s culture and values
are able to better design work structures with only limited changes over time, leading to enhanced perceptions of their
integrity (Simons, 2002).
Fair practices contain properties directly promoting the psychological connections necessary for employees to fully
invest themselves in their organization and work roles (Tyler & Blader, 2003). Nevertheless, employees may worry
about being exploited by organizational authorities as they are affected by work processes during their continued em-
ployment (Lind, 2001). This can reduce the saliency of ostensibly fair organizational practices, which may be why
some researchers have found job engagement plays a major role in relations between fairness and various work be-
haviors (e.g., Moliner, Martinez-Tur, Ramos, Peiro, & Cropanzano, 2008) and others have not (e.g., Saks, 2006).
Employees having less trust in senior managers may be more hesitant to view outcomes and processes occurring un-
der the auspices of senior managers as genuine, legitimate, and reliable, reducing positive emotions and organiza-
tional connections potentially emerging from this fair treatment. Low-SMT perceptions may also lead employees
to question the real intention behind practices initiated by this group, so job engagement emerges to a lesser extent.
De Cremer and Tyler (2007) showed that trust in the enacting authority heightens the impact of procedural
fairness on behaviors (e.g., cooperation) that are closely aligned with employee engagement. With greater trust,
senior managers can more directly articulate the need for behavioral control mechanisms so that employees will
accept them as reasonable ways to reduce potential agency costs (Husted & Folger, 2004). We argue that high
SMT is indicative of the contextual confidence (Child & Mollering, 2003) employees can develop because of the
quality of their experiences in the organization. Kahn (1990) noted employees are more likely to become
engaged when they understand the risks involved but feel psychologically secure. Christian et al. (2011)
speculated that an atmosphere of trust may supply the psychological safety necessary for the actions of
organizational leaders to elicit job engagement. Recent research has shown justice perceptions and discretionary
work behaviors are less correlated among employees having weak relational attachment to the organization
(Collins & Mossholder, in press). Given that trust promotes a social context supportive of work effort, lower
SMT could be expected to diminish the relationship between organizational justice and employee job
engagement. Alternatively, when SMT is high, distributive and procedural justice should give rise to increased
levels of job engagement. This increase in engagement should be manifested subsequently in higher task perfor-
mance, OCB, and job satisfaction. We therefore hypothesize the following.
Hypothesis 2: Senior management trust will moderate the mediated relations of (a) distributive justice and (b)
procedural justice with task performance, OCB, and job satisfaction via job engagement such that mediation
effects will be stronger when trust is higher.
Method
Participants and procedure
Using a cross-sectional design, data were collected from subordinates and their supervisors in two divisions
(corporate and non-corporate) of an industrial equipment company located in the southeastern United States. The
DOI: 10.1002/job
J. J. HAYNIE ET AL.
corporate office comprised professionals overseeing the business operations of the company. The non-corporate
office consisted of sales professionals tasked with establishing new accounts and maintaining high customer service
with existing accounts. Both subordinates and their supervisors were contacted via email about participating in an
online survey. Participation was completely voluntary, and consent was obtained prior to allowing employees access
to the online questionnaire. The subordinate survey contained items assessing distributive justice, procedural justice,
SMT, job engagement, job satisfaction, and patriotism (marker variable). The supervisor survey contained items for
rating their subordinates on task performance and OCB. Surveys were matched using identifiers, and responses were
kept completely confidential.
Of the 313 subordinates and 77 supervisors contacted for participation across the two company divisions, 234
subordinates and 64 supervisors completed the surveys. Only those supervisors with at least two subordinate re-
sponses were retained. When subordinate and supervisor responses were matched using these inclusion criteria,
151 complete subordinate–supervisor matches (48.24 percent overall response rate1) nested under 46 supervisors
were obtained. The subordinates rated by their supervisors ranged in number from two to nine subordinates per
supervisor (M = 3.28 rated subordinates; SD = 1.79).
Upon further review of the 151 subordinate–supervisor matches, there were some cases where 5 percent or less of
the data had missing values. To retain these cases, we performed maximum-likelihood imputations for these missing
values (Enders, 2001; Schafer & Graham, 2002). The final subordinate sample demographics were as follows: tenure
(M = 106.10 months; SD = 95.72), gender (53.60 percent male), and race (88.74 percent White, 7.29 percent Black,
0.66 percent Asian, 1.99 percent Hispanic, 0.66 percent Pacific Islander, and 0.66 percent Other).
Demographic data were obtained from archival sources, allowing comparisons of respondents with non-
respondents to check for possible biases. Reported results could be biased if respondents held significantly different
characteristics from non-respondents. We ran a simple t-test to examine possible respondent and non-respondent dif-
ferences on tenure, as well as chi-squared tests for differences on gender and race. Our results indicated no differ-
ences in tenure (t(311) = 1.33, p = .19), gender (χ 2(1) = 0.20, p = .65), and race (χ 2(5) = 6.30, p = .28), reducing
concern about non-response bias.
Subordinate measures
Organizational justice
Distributive (four items) and procedural (seven items) justice were measured using Colquitt’s (2001) organizational
justice scale. Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with items on a scale ranging from 1 (to a small
extent) to 5 (to a great extent). Participants considered the fairness of organizational outcomes (e.g., pay) and
procedures (e.g., performance appraisals) used in determining those outcomes. Sample items for distributive justice
include “Are your outcomes appropriate for the work you have completed?” and “Are those outcomes justified given
your performance?” (α = .97). Items associated with procedural justice include “Have those procedures been applied
consistently?” and “Have those procedures been free of bias?” (α = .93).
Senior management trust

Senior management trust was assessed using a four-item scale drawn from models of motive-based trust in an au-
thority figure (De Cremer & Tyler, 2007; Tyler & Huo, 2002). This measure was chosen for its sufficient reliability
and previously found interactive effects with justice. Items were altered to specify the authority figure target as
senior management. Participants responded to items on a scale from 1 (very uncertain) to 5 (very certain). A sample
item is “How certain are you that you can trust senior management here?” (α = .93).
1
We considered our response rate as acceptable given that it was above the average response rate (35.7 percent) of most organizational field stud-
ies (Baruch & Holtom, 2008).
DOI: 10.1002/job
Job engagement
Job engagement was assessed using nine items from Rich et al.’s (2010) 18-item scale. This scale is meant to deter-
mine the extent participants agree with items relating to physical, cognitive, and emotional energies invested into
work (i.e., the three job engagement subfacets). The nine items chosen consisted of the three highest loading items
from each subfacet reported in previous research (Rich et al., 2010). This scale was used because other scales have
been criticized for not properly capturing Kahn’s (1990) three-component job engagement conceptualization. Items
were rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item is “I exert my full effort to my
job” (α = .90).
Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction was assessed using Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh’s (1983) three-item overall job satisfac-
tion scale. Items were rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item is “All in all, I
am satisfied with my job here at this organization” (α = .82).
Controls
Subordinate tenure, gender, and race were used as control variables. Tenure (in months) was expected to exert a pos-
itive main effect on the mediator (i.e., job engagement) and outcome variables (i.e., task performance, OCB, and job
satisfaction). Gender and race were also expected to exert effects on these same variables. Gender and racial differ-
ences have been found with job performance attributions made by supervisors (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1993).
To reduce the number of estimated parameters, we dummy coded the racial categories into “0” for White and “1”
for non-White (Black, Asian, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, and Other). Gender was also dummy coded (0 = male
and 1 = female).
Because data were collected from two divisions (i.e., corporate and non-corporate) within the surveyed organiza-
tion, it is possible that covariance among study variables collected from these two divisions could differ and poten-
tially bias our results. Therefore, we examined the homogeneity of our study variables’ covariance matrices using
Box’s (1949) M test. The results showed there were no differences between divisions (Box’s M = 37.16,
F(28, 31,745.66) = 1.25, p = .17). Examining potential divisional differences further, we compared the means of
corporate and non-corporate variable responses. When examining differences between divisions using simple t-tests,
differences were found for job engagement (t(149) = 2.29, p = .02; MCorporate = 4.32, MNon-corporate = 4.52) and task
performance (t(149) = 2.71, p = .01; MCorporate = 4.38, MNon-corporate = 4.08). Because mean differences could alter
the variance of job engagement and task performance, biasing relationships with these variables, a dummy code
for division (1 = corporate and 0 = non-corporate) was included as an additional control.
Patriotism (marker variable)

All variables excluding supervisor-rated behaviors were collected from the same source, so common method
variance (CMV) could be problematic. Marker variable analysis has been indicated as a means for determining
the extent CMV impacts self-report data (Richardson, Simmering, & Sturman, 2009). Patriotism was used as the
marker variable and is defined as a positive love of one’s own country (Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989). Items were
assessed on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and a sample item for this scale is “I am
proud to be an American” (α = .89).
Supervisor measures
Task performance
Supervisors were asked to rate the degree subordinates performed job duties based on evaluations from Podsakoff
and Mackenzie’s (1989) five-item in-role performance scale. Each item was rated for the particular subordinate
DOI: 10.1002/job
J. J. HAYNIE ET AL.
on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item is “[This employee] fulfills
all responsibilities required by his/her job” (α = .93).
Organizational citizenship behaviors

Supervisors rated the extent they observed subordinates engaging in OCB behaviors using Lee and Allen’s (2002)
16-item OCB scale. For each subordinate, supervisors assessed the frequency of these behaviors on a scale from 1
(never) to 5 (always). A sample item for OCB is “Keeps up with developments in the organization” (α = .96).
Results
Descriptive statistics
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations of all study variables. The study
variables generally related in expected ways. For example, distributive and procedural justice were positively related
with job engagement, and job engagement was positively related with task performance, OCB, and job satisfaction.
Marker variable analysis using patriotism

Prior to proceeding with the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), a marker variable analysis was performed. Taking
recommendations from Simmering, Fuller, Richardson, Ocal, and Atinc (2015), we closely considered our marker
variable’s functionality before using this technique. We clearly define and report the scale format used, along with
its correlation with other same-source variables (Table 1). We chose this variable a priori and did not expect it to
exert substantial effects on justice, trust, and motivation because perceptions of one’s country generally develop in-
dependent of judgments about particular organizations. We could not find other organizational studies that used pa-
triotism as a marker variable, making it difficult to determine the particular CMV source (e.g., affectivity, social
desirability, and response style) captured by patriotism. Conway and Lance (2010) noted that knowing the CMV
source is a critical limitation of using the CFA marker technique recommended by Richardson et al. (2009). Thus,
we chose Lindell and Whitney’s (2001) approach to examine potential CMV issues.
Lindell and Whitney’s (2001) marker variable analysis tests the extent of CMV among same-source variable re-
lationships by identifying the smallest correlation between the marker variable and another same-source variable.
Because the marker variable is theoretically unrelated to other same-source variables, the smallest correlation found
with the marker variable represents potential CMV bias. After identifying this relationship, we partialed it out using
two types of correlation corrections for testing CMV: the corrected correlations after partialing out CMV (rCorrected)
and the disattenuated partial correlations after adjusting for scale reliability (rDisattenuated).
Zero-order correlations and scale reliabilities needed to make the two types of adjustments were drawn from
Table 1. The smallest same-source variable correlation was found between patriotism and procedural justice
(r = .17), which was used in the marker variable analysis. Same-source correlations should not drastically change
when this small marker variable effect is partialed out. Table 2 displays the results of the marker variable analysis
examining unadjusted zero-order correlations (rUnadjusted) along with rCorrected and rDisattenuated. None of the same-
source relationships went from significant to non-significant, and the 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs) for unad-
justed correlations still overlap with their adjusted correlation forms. The partialed marker variable effect was
moderately strong, which made the analysis more conservative. Nevertheless, our results suggested CMV was not
a problem for the study. We therefore used the unadjusted correlations in our focal analyses.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations for study variables.
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1. Division 0.68 0.47 — .11 .26** .02 .05 .02 .05 .11 .19* .22** .02 .02
2. Tenure (in months) 106.10 95.72 — .10 .10 .15 .10 .02 .17* .06 .05 .02 .02
3. Gender 0.46 0.50 — .30** .00 .00 .05 .06 .01 .09 .01 .01
4. White/non-White 0.11 0.32 — .17* .13 .22** .38** .11 .17* .23** .18*
5. Distributive justice 3.47 1.07 (.97) .71** .51** .23** .38** .11 .20* .58**
6. Procedural justice 3.37 0.91 (.93) .60** .17* .34** .10 .17* .51**
7. Senior 3.66 1.08 (.93) .29** .43** .03 .12 .53**
management trust
8. Patriotism 4.57 0.51 (.89) .35** .07 .22** .29**
9. Job engagement 4.38 0.51 (.90) .18* .31** .55**
10. Task 4.28 0.64 (.93) .55** .22**
performance
11. Organizational 3.99 0.72 (.96) .24**
citizenship behavior
12. Job satisfaction 4.20 0.68 (.82)
Note: N = 151; Cronbach’s alphas appear on the diagonal in parentheses.
*p < .05; **p < .01.
DOI: 10.1002/job
J. Organiz. Behav. (2016)
J. J. HAYNIE ET AL.
Table 2. Assessment of common method variance.

Relationships rUnadjusted 95% CI rCorrected 95% CI rDisattenuated 95% CI
Job engagement with

Distributive justice .38 [0.24, 0.51] .25 [0.10, 0.40] .19 [0.03, 0.34]
Procedural justice .34 [0.19, 0.47] .20 [0.05, 0.35] .16 [0.00, 0.32]
Senior management trust .43 [0.29, 0.55] .31 [0.16, 0.45] .26 [0.10, 0.43]
Job satisfaction with
Distributive justice .58 [0.46, 0.68] .49 [0.36, 0.61] .43 [0.30, 0.63]
Procedural justice .51 [0.38, 0.62] .41 [0.27, 0.53] .37 [0.23, 0.55]
Senior management trust .53 [0.41, 0.64] .43 [0.29, 0.56] .40 [0.26, 0.58]
Job engagement .55 [0.43, 0.65] .46 [0.32, 0.58] .43 [0.30, 0.63]
Note: N = 151. CI = confidence interval.
Confirmatory factor analysis
Before proceeding with our hypothesis tests using these unadjusted correlations, we tested the fit of our proposed
model structure. We assessed model fit for several theoretically driven CFA models, including the proposed factor
structure, using MPLUS software (Muthen & Muthen, 2007). Because model fit indices can be a problem when the
subject-to-item ratio is less than the recommended 10:1 ratio, we used parcels as indicators in our measurement and
structural models (Bandalos, 2002). Item parcels improve the ratio of participants to parameters modeled (Little,
Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002) and are more reliable because they (compared with items used to build
it) capture a larger proportion of true-score variance (Little, Rhemtulla, Gibson, & Schoemann, 2013). Thus, for
large models like ours, parceling improves model convergence and stability. Using item factor loadings, parcels
were generated by averaging the highest and lowest loading items for a given scale. After the first scale parcel
was created, the next parcel was made by averaging the second highest and second lowest loading items, and so
on. Landis, Beal, and Tesluk (2000) compared various parceling methods and found this a superior approach.
Because the scale used to model OCB consisted of items measuring both individual-directed (OCBI) and
organization-directed (OCBO) citizenship behaviors, we modeled OCB as a second-order construct using OCBI
and OCBO as first-order indicators. All other factors were modeled as single-order constructs. Our hypothesized
seven-factor model fit the data well: χ 2(207) = 321.65, p < .001, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.97, standardized root
mean residual (SRMR) = 0.05, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06, 90% CI [0.05, 0.07].
All factor loadings for item parcels were also significant. Given the high relationship among justice facets as well as
the potential for OCB to separate into two first-order factors, two additional factor structures were modeled and com-
pared with the hypothesized model. Distributive and procedural justice were modeled as one factor, producing a
poorer model fit, χ 2(213) = 470.55, p < .001, CFI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.06, and RMSEA = 0.09, 90% CI [0.08, 0.10],
which was significantly different than the seven-factor structure, Δχ 2(6) = 148.90, p < .001. OCBI and OCBO were
also modeled as two first-order factors, which did not improve model fit, χ 2(202) = 312.98, p < .001, CFI = 0.97,
SRMR = 0.04, and RMSEA = 0.06, 90% CI [0.05, 0.07], and was not significantly different than the hypothesized
model, Δχ 2(5) = 8.67, p = .12. Based on these two comparisons, we proceeded to test our hypotheses using the pro-
posed factor structure.
Hypothesis testing
Initial estimates used in computing the indirect effects for hypothesis testing were performed with the SPSS program
(IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) (Norusis, 2010). Hypothesis 1 predicted that job engagement would mediate the
relationships of (a) distributive and (b) procedural justice with task performance, OCB, and job satisfaction. To
estimate the indirect effects for relations involving justice, job engagement, and work outcomes, we followed
DOI: 10.1002/job
procedures by Edwards and Lambert (2007), which utilize the product of the paths between the predictor and me-
diator and the mediator and outcome for testing indirect effects (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets,
2002). As can be seen in Table 3, we ran a series of regressions estimating the relationships between the predictors
and mediator as well as the mediator and our observed outcomes. All predictors, excluding division, gender, and
race, were grand mean centered (Aiken & West, 1991).
The results of these regressions in Table 3 show that distributive justice (β = .13, SE = 0.05, p = .01), but not
procedural justice (β = .08, SE = 0.06, p = .20), was significantly related with job engagement. In addition, job en-
gagement significantly influenced task performance (β = .26, SE = 0.11, p = .02), OCB (β = .39, SE = 0.12, p = .00),
and job satisfaction (β = .53, SE = 0.09, p = .00). Because the coefficient between procedural justice and job engage-
ment was not significant, we proceeded to test the indirect effects for distributive justice only. Thus, Hypothesis 1b
was not supported. Using the estimated path coefficients, we bootstrapped 1000 samples from our initial 151
responses as recommended by Edwards and Lambert (2007). These generated samples allowed us to compute
95 percent bias-corrected CIs for the indirect effects. Referring to Table 4, the 95 percent bias-corrected CIs for
the indirect effects of distributive justice with task performance [0.00, 0.09], OCB [0.01, 0.11], and job satisfaction
[0.02, 0.14] via job engagement were all significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 1a was supported.
Hypothesis 2 stated that SMT will moderate the mediated relationships of (a) distributive and (b) procedural jus-
tice with task performance, OCB, and job satisfaction via job engagement such that the mediation effect will be
stronger when trust is higher. Based on this hypothesis, we tested several first-stage moderation models (Edwards
& Lambert, 2007; i.e., the moderator only influences the relationship between the predictor and mediator in a me-
diated model). Conditional indirect effects were computed for the relationships of justice with our tested outcomes
via job engagement at high (+1 SD) and low ( 1 SD) SMT values. We estimated 95 percent bias-corrected CIs for
the conditional indirect effects using 1000 bootstrapped samples as per Edwards and Lambert (2007). As can be seen
in Table 3, SMT significantly moderated the relationship of procedural justice with job engagement (β = .14,
SE = 0.05, p = .01), but not the relationship of distributive justice with job engagement (β = .05, SE = 0.05,
p = .28), so a first-stage moderation model with distributive justice could not be examined, and Hypothesis 2a was
not supported. Thus, conditional indirect effects were only examined for procedural justice.
As can be found in Table 5, the 95 percent bias-corrected indirect effects of procedural justice on task perfor-
mance [0.00, 0.17], OCB [0.01, 0.19], and job satisfaction [0.02, 0.22] were only significant when SMT was
high. When these indirect effect estimates at high SMT were compared with the null indirect effects when
SMT was low, these indirect effects also showed significant differences between high and low SMT values for
task performance [0.01, 0.25], OCB [0.02, 0.27], and job satisfaction [0.04, 0.32]. Taken together, Hypothesis
2b was supported. To further examine the significant interaction, we performed a simple slopes test of high
and low moderator values (Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006). Procedural justice was positively related to job en-
gagement when SMT was high (β = .19, SE = 0.10, p = .04), but unrelated when SMT was low (β = .12,
SE = 0.07, p = .10). Although the slope between procedural justice and job engagement when SMT was low ap-
pears to be negative, it is not statistically significant; procedural justice does not reduce job engagement in
low-SMT contexts. However, we found relations between procedural justice and job engagement to be positive
and significant when SMT was high, which aligns with our initial theoretical arguments. Figure 2 displays the
significant interaction results from the grand-mean-centered data.
Post hoc analyses

Race unexpectedly exhibited low to moderate correlations with some study variables (Table 1) and explained signif-
icant variance as a control variable in analyses used to estimate conditional indirect effects (Table 3). We therefore
conducted post hoc analyses to ensure that race did not have an undue influence on our moderation hypotheses.
Specifically, we reran the regressions from Table 3 using race as a moderating influence of justice–job engagement
relationships. We also introduced the justice-by-race interactions in the regression analyses with task performance,
DOI: 10.1002/job
J. J. HAYNIE ET AL.
Table 3. Regression results used for estimating conditional indirect effects for the outcome variables.
JE JE TP OCB JS
b SE 95% CI b SE 95% CI b SE 95% CI b SE 95% CI b SE 95% CI
Intercept, 0.14* 0.07 [0.00, 0.06 0.07 [ 0.09, 0.22* 0.10 [ 0.41, 0.05 0.11 [ 0.26, 0.07 0.08 [ 0.23,
b0 0.28] 0.20] 0.04] 0.16] 0.08]
Division, 0.24** 0.08 [ 0.41, 0.22** 0.08 [ 0.38, 0.32** 0.12 [0.10, 0.09 0.13 [ 0.16, 0.11 0.09 [ 0.07,
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

b1 0.07] 0.06] 0.55] 0.34] 0.30]
Tenure, b2 0.00 0.00 [ 0.00, 0.00 0.00 [ 0.00, 0.00 0.00 [ 0.00, 0.00 0.00 [ 0.00, 0.00 0.00 [0.00,
0.00] 0.00] 0.00] 0.00] 0.00]
Gender, b3 0.07 0.08 [ 0.09, 0.10 0.08 [ 0.06, 0.10 0.11 [ 0.12, 0.09 0.12 [ 0.15, 0.02 0.09 [ 0.16,
0.23] 0.26] 0.31] 0.32] 0.20]
Race, b4 0.11 0.13 [ 0.36, 0.04 0.12 [ 0.28, 0.36* 0.17 [ 0.70, 0.47* 0.19 [ 0.84, 0.13 0.14 [ 0.40,
0.15] 0.20] 0.03] 0.10] 0.15]
DJ, b5 0.13* 0.05 [0.03, 0.07 0.05 [ 0.04, 0.01 0.07 [ 0.15, 0.03 0.08 [ 0.13, 0.22** 0.06 [0.11,
0.23] 0.18] 0.12] 0.18] 0.33]
PJ, b6 0.08 0.06 [ 0.04, 0.04 0.06 [ 0.09, 0.01 0.08 [ 0.15, 0.02 0.09 [ 0.16, 0.09 0.06 [ 0.03,
0.19] 0.16] 0.16] 0.19] 0.22]
SMT, b7 0.18** 0.04 [0.09,
0.26]
JE, b8 0.26* 0.11 [0.04, 0.39** 0.12 [0.15, 0.53** 0.09 [0.35,
0.48] 0.64] 0.71]
DJ * SMT, 0.05 0.05 [ 0.14,
b9 0.04]
PJ * SMT, 0.14** 0.05 [0.04,
b10 0.25]
R2 .20** .30** .13** .15** .49**
Note: b is the unstandardized regression coefficient. n = 151. DJ = distributive justice; PJ = procedural justice; SMT = senior management trust; JE = job engagement; TP = task perfor-
mance; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; JS = job satisfaction.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
DOI: 10.1002/job
J. Organiz. Behav. (2016)
Table 4. Estimates and confidence intervals for the indirect effect of distributive justice on outcomes.
Indirect effect
Estimate (SE) 95% CI
Distributive justice–job engagement–task performance 0.03 (0.02) [0.00, 0.09]

Distributive justice–job engagement–organizational citizenship behavior 0.05 (0.02) [0.01, 0.11]
Distributive justice–job engagement–job satisfaction 0.07 (0.03) [0.02, 0.14]
Note: 95% CI = 95% confidence intervals. Bootstrapped estimates for the standard error (SE) are given.
Table 5. Estimates and confidence intervals for the indirect effect of justice on outcomes at ±1 standard deviation of senior
management trust.
Indirect effect
Estimate (SE) 95% CI
Procedural justice–job engagement–task performance at

Low senior management trust 0.03 (0.03) [ 0.11, 0.00]
High senior management trust 0.05 (0.04) [0.00, 0.17]
Difference between high and low moderator levels 0.08 (0.04) [0.01, 0.25]
Procedural justice–job engagement–organizational citizenship behavior at
Procedural justice–job engagement–job satisfaction at
Note: 95% CI = 95% confidence intervals. Bootstrapped estimates for the standard error (SE) are given.
Figure 2. The moderating effect of senior management trust on procedural justice–job engagement relations
DOI: 10.1002/job
J. J. HAYNIE ET AL.
OCB, and job satisfaction as outcomes. In none of the analyses were justice-by-race interactions significant, suggest-
ing race effects were not entangled with our reported findings.2
Discussion
Considering the mediating impact of job engagement, we attempted to move beyond conventional social exchange
explanations for relations of distributive and procedural justice with work outcomes. Research has found structural
forms of justice (i.e., distributive and procedural justice) can exert intrinsic and relational motives by promoting af-
fect, identity, and cooperative attainment, leading to increased work effort (Blader & Tyler, 2009; van Dijke et al.,
2015; Zapata-Phelan et al., 2009). Recent meta-analytic results have also shown the value of affect-based explana-
tions of justice effects (Colquitt et al., 2013). Moreover, social identity has been argued to exert a strong motivating
force in contexts that do not hinge on interpersonal influence (Hogg & Martin, 2003). We posited that distributive
and procedural justice would increase employee work-related energies as manifested by job engagement and lead to
greater task performance, OCB, and job satisfaction. The expected mediation effect was found for distributive but
not procedural justice.
Rewards and other tangible resources provide relatively immediate information to employees. We suggest that in
comparison with procedural justice, distributive justice effects can be more directly weighed and converted to job
engagement. An established finding in the justice literature is that distributive justice increases employees’ affective
reactions to work (Greenberg, 2011). The mediating effect of job engagement on distributive justice–work outcome
relations may be due to its motivational foundation. Job engagement captures an affective wellspring among em-
ployees, which in part arises from the distributive justice employees have experienced. In short, job engagement
might tap into the evaluative elements of organizational identity (cf. Blader & Tyler, 2009) that promote OCB,
and possibly task performance and job satisfaction as well.
Interestingly, Zapata-Phelan et al. (2009) found procedural justice influenced intrinsic work motivation, but dis-
tributive justice was not examined in their study. Distributive justice assessments are based on the extent employees
perceive sufficient equity surrounding the delivered work outcomes (Leventhal, 1976). Procedural justice judgments
depend partly on whether procedures and practices leading to these work outcomes are consistent and bias free
(Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Early justice scholars (e.g., Thibaut & Walker, 1975) suggested that
part of procedural justice’s effect is due to its outcome instrumentality. Because we examined distributive and pro-
cedural justice simultaneously in our study, it may be that distributive justice absorbed variance in job engagement
that might otherwise have been explained by procedural justice. We did find procedural justice positively correlated
with job engagement (Table 1), which aligns with Zapata-Phelan et al.’s findings. However, when both forms of jus-
tice are considered together as in our study, distributive justice’s more tangible impact may exert a stronger influence
on job engagement than does procedural justice.
In addition to examining direct motivational processes explaining justice effects, we proposed that SMT would
moderate the mediating effect of job engagement on organizational justice–work outcome relations. SMT reflects
employee judgments about senior managers’ abilities, benevolence, and integrity in making strategic decisions
and overseeing internal social governance mechanisms (Bachmann, 2003, 2011). It represents employees’ overarch-
ing confidence in the system and provides global assurances so employees can willingly accept behavioral control
and coordination mechanisms as part of their work efforts (Shapiro, 1987). This moderator effect was supported only
for procedural justice such that its effect on work outcomes (through job engagement) was strengthened only when
SMT was high. De Cremer and Tyler (2007) found procedural justice was primarily related to cooperative behavior
when trust in the enacting authority was high. If one equates such trust with SMT in the present study, we found a
2
We thank an anonymous reviewer for raising this issue. The results of the post hoc regression analyses in which the justice-by-race interaction
was included as an additional predictor are available upon request from the corresponding author.
DOI: 10.1002/job
commensurate result. This contingency is consistent with the enabling effects of trust described by other job engage-
ment researchers (e.g., Christian et al., 2011; Macey & Schneider, 2008). It also reveals the promise of impersonal
trust forms in organizational research (Bachmann, 2011) as setting boundary conditions for the influence of proce-
dural justice on job engagement or related variables (e.g., cooperation).
The moderating influence of SMT could indicate that employees’ procedural justice perceptions need bolstering
to induce job engagement, especially when distributive justice effects are considered simultaneously. Employees
draw information from their environment to better interpret the meaning of organizational systems and initiatives
overseen by senior management levels (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). We suggest that SMT can work as
an organizing force (McEvily et al., 2003), helping employees understand the authenticity and reliability of policies
and procedures for which organizational authorities are responsible. It has been found that managers who consider
all affected stakeholders in their strategic decisions and uphold high corporate social responsibility can attain posi-
tive firm outcomes (e.g., Campbell, 2007; Orlitzky, Schmidt, & Rynes, 2003; Shank, Hill, & Stang, 2013). This “do-
ing well by doing good” strategy has been argued to positively affect internal stakeholders (i.e., employees) as well
(Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Glavas & Godwin, 2013). Our results provide a potential micro-level insight into why this
strategy is effective: Organizations benefit when senior managers fully capitalize on the motivating potential of em-
ployee behavioral control practices.
Limitations
Some study limitations should be mentioned. First, we did not include interactional justice dimensions in our theo-
retical model. We purposely focused on distributive and procedural justice to examine the energizing capacity of
structural justice forms that regulate employee behavior through organizational systems (Loi, Yang, & Diefendorff,
2009). The social nature of interactional justice (Bies & Moag, 1986; Greenberg, 2011) requires frequent encounters
between individuals supplying the interpersonal treatment (Bies, 2005). Because interactions between senior man-
agers and employees are not common occurrences, we felt interactional justice fell outside the scope of the paper.
However, in future tests of the model, researchers might also incorporate interactional justice dimensions. This could
help determine whether personal treatment extended by direct supervisors may play a role in our model.
A second limitation is that mediation effects were found only in connection with distributive justice, whereas
moderated-mediation effects were found only in connection with procedural justice. Although we argue the moti-
vational processes for these two justice forms may be distinct, the sample size (n = 151) could have affected our
power for finding effects. We examined the power for finding main effects for our predictor–mediator relationships
with the G*POWER program (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). Using a conservative effect size applied to
our regression model, the power analysis indicated that a sufficient sample size was 124 responses for finding this
direct effect (f2 = 0.08, α = .05, power = 0.80, number of predictors = 2). Next, we used the same small effect size
for judging the moderating effect while accounting for the inclusion of the two justice dimensions, SMT, and
the two justice-by-SMT interactions. Our analysis indicated that an N of 166 was necessary (f2 = 0.08, α = .05,
power = 0.80, number of predictors = 5). Because our sample size was either above or approaching the required
sample size, low power would not seem to be a predominant factor in our findings.
A third limitation in our study is the use of self-report scales for assessing distributive justice, procedural justice,
SMT, job engagement, and job satisfaction. Despite task performance and OCB being rated by employee supervi-
sors, relationships among the other same-source variables could be influenced by CMV (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
& Podsakoff, 2012). We measured patriotism as our marker variable to determine the extent CMV might be prob-
lematic. Despite recommendations for using a CFA marker approach (Richardson et al., 2009; Simmering et al.,
2015), we were unable to determine the particular source of CMV captured by our marker variable. This is a limi-
tation reducing the justification for using the CFA marker approach (Conway & Lance, 2010), so we used Lindell
and Whitney’s (2001) marker variable analysis. Because our marker variable’s correlation was higher than antici-
pated, we also reran tests of our model’s indirect and conditional indirect effects including patriotism as an
DOI: 10.1002/job
J. J. HAYNIE ET AL.
additional control variable. These tests did not produce different results, so CMV does not appear to have a predom-
inant influence on our results.
A fourth limitation is that all data were collected during the same time period, limiting our ability to make causal
assessments. Despite theoretical arguments justifying the direction of our hypotheses, future studies should examine
our model with separate collections of study variables at time-lagged intervals to further enhance causality argu-
ments. Time-lagged designs would also serve as a way of further minimizing CMV concerns.
Finally, we had included employee demographic variables (gender, tenure, and race) as controls because of their
potential influence on supervisor-rated performance. Unexpectedly, we found that employee race was negatively
related with task performance and OCB. We are unaware of any particular organizational practices or initiatives op-
erating at the time of data collection that might explain this finding. Also, there were no differences in the demo-
graphic composition of sample respondents (compared with non-respondents). In controlling for race, we were
able to control for its potential influence in hypothesis tests involving the performance behaviors. Job engagement
still affected task performance and OCB after accounting for employee race. In post hoc regression analyses, we also
examined whether race might have unduly affected hypothesized moderator effects. As noted earlier, justice-by-race
interactions did not exert any significant effects in these analyses. Nevertheless, it should be noted that White em-
ployees comprised 89 percent of our sample, so we urge caution in extrapolating our results to more racially diverse
samples.
Theoretical and practical implications
Our study has both theoretical and practical implications. In drawing on affect-based (Colquitt et al., 2013) and re-
lational (Tyler & Blader, 2003) justice perspectives, we found support for the mediating role of job engagement in
distributive justice–outcome relations. Future studies might test this linkage while including both positive affect and
organizational identity to determine how these factors contribute to the emergence of job engagement from distrib-
utive justice. Insights into the energizing effect of justice may provide an understanding of its longer-term effects.
That is, in addition to energizing positive employee work behavior, justice may encourage employees to strengthen
their links with the organization. Assuming they experience job engagement emerging from justice as having both
intrinsic and instrumental value (Halbesleben, Neveu, Paustian-Underdahl, & Westman, 2014), employees should
become more embedded as a means of preserving potential future benefits deriving from job engagement. As pos-
itive work behaviors have been associated with job embeddedness (Lee, Burch, & Mitchell, 2014), investigating the
association of justice with both job engagement and job embeddedness would be a fruitful avenue for future
research.
Our findings suggest, when considering distributive and procedural justice together, high SMT is required for the
energizing effects of procedural justice to emerge. According to the group engagement model, procedural justice
comprises instrumental (information used in pursuit of desired outcomes) and value-expressive (indicators of respect
and pride) facets that generate the willingness to display positive work behaviors (Blader & Tyler, 2009). If distrib-
utive and procedural justice are considered together, instrumental concerns within procedural justice may be cap-
tured by distributive justice, leaving only value-expressive information for guiding work motivation. For this
value-expressive facet to affect employees’ job engagement, employees need to have high confidence (i.e., SMT)
that senior managers are governing the organization with their interests in mind.
We found support for considering SMT as tantamount to employee confidence in senior managers’ guidance of
the organization. Although SMT has been discussed in terms of its direct effects on employee outcomes (e.g., Burke
et al., 2007), researchers have not always found such effects (e.g., Yang & Mossholder, 2010). This may be due to
the likelihood that SMT is more of a reflection of the overall environment rather than of relationships with a specific
individual (Bachmann, 2011). This feature can permit SMT to function as a moderator of relations between lower-
level variables (cf. Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012). Future research should continue to investigate SMT as a salient con-
textual variable in connection with fairness-related organizational phenomena. For example, in organizations
DOI: 10.1002/job
undergoing significant changes (e.g., Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis, 2011), the content of the change communications
offered by senior managers may generate positive emotions or other motivational states only when SMT is high.
These endeavors will help to fully uncover the indirect motivating potential of SMT so that employees continue
to be engaged even during these trying times.
Having an engaged workforce has been linked with organizational effectiveness (Pugh & Dietz, 2008) and in-
creased business unit performance (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). Barrick et al. (2015) recently found
motivation-focused organizational practices promoted collective organizational engagement, which in turn led to in-
creases in firm performance. Two of these practices (investments in human resources and transformational leader-
ship) align positively with employee justice perceptions (e.g., Cho & Dansereau, 2010; Pare & Tremblay, 2007).
Barrick et al. also found that senior manager actions that build employee trust (focused implementation and moni-
toring of firm strategies) amplified the effects of these motivation-focused practices. In some respects, these results
parallel our findings regarding the moderating impact of trust on procedural justice–job engagement relations.
In terms of practical implications, our research suggests that organizational justice can exert a motivational im-
pact, as manifested by job engagement. Regarding distributive justice, delivering fair pay and benefits may be the
most direct means of enhancing employees’ willingness to engage in positive work behaviors and attitudes. With
respect to procedural justice, establishing policies and procedures that permit voice, information sharing, and ethi-
cality may set the stage for job engagement. However, for the motivating potential of procedural justice to be fully
capitalized on, senior managers must behave in a trustworthy manner and insure that employees are aware that they
do so. This might be accomplished by signaling their trustworthiness to employees through the development of sup-
portive personnel systems (e.g., Mossholder et al., 2011) or by other appropriate leadership practices (Burke et al.,
2007). By establishing positive social governance mechanisms in addition to traditional economic-based ones, orga-
nizations can not only augment employees’ sharing of firm-specific knowledge but also improve firm performance
(Wang, He, & Mahoney, 2009). In short, actions that increase SMT magnify the impact of procedural justice on em-
ployee outcomes and benefit the organization strategically. Our results are particularly interesting given the focus on
structural forms of justice. As organizations become more global and virtual, employees may not always have direct
supervisors as a proximal source of motivation. Organizations may instead have to rely more on structural mecha-
nisms to encourage work efforts. Our results highlight and perhaps foreshadow the combined importance of distrib-
utive justice, procedural justice, and SMT in developing employee job engagement and subsequent work outcomes
where immediate supervisors will not always be available.
Many managers understand the benefits of having an engaged workforce. For their part, senior managers can take
more robust action to facilitate employee engagement by insuring the development of performance management
practices (i.e., recruitment, training, appraisal, and feedback processes) that boost employee engagement (Gruman
& Saks, 2011). Such practices often include fairness considerations as foundational. Of course, organizational
leaders in their attempts to maintain organizational competitiveness need to be simultaneously aware of the impact
large-scale changes to the organizational system have on employees and their perceptions about the system
(Pasmore, 2011). As a way of minimizing any negative perceptions concerning these changes, senior managers
should mindfully share information with employees about such changes to maintain perceptions of their ability, be-
nevolence, and integrity in employees’ eyes. That way, senior managers will be able to maintain the motivating po-
tential of behavioral control mechanisms even as the changes occur.
Conclusion
Our research has uncovered potential intricacies pertaining to the motivational impact of organizational justice on
job engagement and subsequent work attitudes and behaviors. Job engagement mediated the relations of distributive
justice with these work outcomes. The influence of procedural justice was mediated by job engagement, but only
under the moderating influence of SMT. A better understanding of the “engaging” undercurrents of organizational
DOI: 10.1002/job
J. J. HAYNIE ET AL.
justice is important because having a motivated workforce positively affects organizational performance (Asplund,
Fleming, & Harter, 2007; Macey, Schneider, Barbera, & Young, 2009). Going forward, we hope that the present
study will stimulate research regarding the complex relations among organizational justice, job engagement, and
institutional-based trust (e.g., SMT).
Author biographies
Jeffrey J. Haynie (jeffrey.haynie@nicholls.edu) is an Assistant Professor of Management at Nicholls State

University. Jeffrey joined the faculty in August 2012 and teaches various management classes including princi-
ples of management and entrepreneurship. His research interests consist of organizational justice, relational trust,
and core self-evaluations. He is also an active member in the Academy of Management and Southern Manage-
ment Association.
Kevin W. Mossholder (kmossh@auburn.edu) is a C. G. Mills Professor of Management at Auburn University. He
received his Ph.D. from the University of Tennessee–Knoxville. His primary research interests center on interper-
sonal workplace interactions, the effects of these interactions on organizational outcomes, and contextual issues that
shape such effects.
Stanley G. Harris (harris4@auburn.edu) is a Torchmark Professor and Associate Dean for Graduate and Interna-
tional Programs in Auburn University’s Harbert College of Business. Stan earned his Ph.D. in Organizational Psy-
chology from the University of Michigan. His research interests focus on managing change and the emotions of
change.
References
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research
agenda. Journal of Management, 38, 932–968. 10.1177/0149206311436079.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.
10.2307/258189.
Asplund, J., Fleming, J. H., & Harter, J. (2007). Return on investment in engaging employees. Gallup Business Journal.
Retrieved 5 August 2013, from http://businessjournal.gallup.com
Bachmann, R. (2003). Trust and power as a means of coordinating the internal relations of the organization: A conceptual frame-
work. In B. Nooteboom & F. Six (Eds.), The Trust Process in Organizations: Empirical Studies in the Determinants and the
Process of Trust Development (pp. 58–74). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Bachmann, R. (2011). At the crossroads: Future directions in trust research. Journal of Trust Research, 1, 203–213. 10.1080/
21515581.2011.603513.
Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation model-
ing. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 78–102. 10.1207/s15328007sem0901_5.
Barclay, L. J., & Kiefer, T. (2014). Approach or avoid? Exploring overall justice and the differential effects of positive and
negative emotions. Journal of Management, 40, 1857–1898. 10.1177/0149206312441833.
Barnard, C. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: John Wiley.
Barrick, M. R., Thurgood, G. R., Smith, T. A., & Courtright, S. H. (2015). Collective organizational engagement: Linking
motivational antecedents, strategic implementation, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 111–135.
10.5465/amj.2013.0227.
Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61,
1139–1160. 10.1177/0018726708094863.
Bies, R. (2005). Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.),
Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 85–112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 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.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity,
procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 445–464. 10.1037/a0013935.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
Box, G. E. P. (1949). A general distribution theory for a class of likelihood criteria. Biometrika, 36, 317–346.
Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration.
Leadership Quarterly, 18, 606–632. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.006.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. R. (1983). The Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire. In S. E. Seashore
(Ed.), Assessing Organizational Change: A Guide to Methods, Measures, and Practices (pp. 71–138). New York: Wiley.
Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social
responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, 946–967. 10.5465/AMR.2007.25275684.
Child, J., & Mollering, G. (2003). Contextual confidence and active trust development in the Chinese business environment.
Organization Science, 14, 69–80. 10.1287/orsc.14.1.69.12813.
Cho, J., & Dansereau, F. (2010). Are transformational leaders fair? A multi-level study of transformational leadership, justice per-
ceptions, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 409–421. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.006.
Choi, J. N., & Chang, J. Y. (2009). Innovation implementation in the public sector: An integration of institutional and collective
dynamics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 245–253. 10.1037/a0012994.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with
task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89–136. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior &
Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321. 10.1006/obhd.2001.2958.
Collins, B. J., & Mossholder, K. W. (in press). Fairness means more to some than others: Interactional fairness, job
embeddedness, and discretionary work behaviors. Journal of Management. 10.1177/0149206314527132.
Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the per-
formance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 544–560. 10.5465/AMJ.2006.21794671.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 386–400. 10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.386.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & 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. 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.), Research in Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science (2nd ed., pp. 165–210). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In J.
Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 3–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Colquitt, J. A., Rodell, J. B., Zapata, C. P., Wesson, M. J., Scott, B. A., & Long, D. M. (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.
10.1037/a0031757.
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organiza-
tional research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334. 10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6.
Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout:
A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 834–848. 10.1037/a0019364.
Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Hwee Hoon, T. (2000). The trusted general manager and business unit perfor-
mance: Empirical evidence of a competitive. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 563–576. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200005)
21:5%3C563::AID-SMJ99%3E3.0.CO;2-0.
De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2007). The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 639–649. 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.639.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12, 450–467. 10.1287/
orsc.12.4.450.10640.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework
using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22. 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1.
Ellis, K., & Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2001). Trust in top management and immediate supervisor: The relationship to satisfaction,
perceived organizational effectiveness, and information receiving. Communication Quarterly, 49, 382–398. 10.1080/
01463370109385637.
Enders, C. K. (2001). A primer on maximum likelihood algorithms available for use with missing data. Structural Equation
Modeling, 8, 128–141. 10.1207/S15328007SEM0801_7.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the so-
cial, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. 10.3758/BF03193146.
DOI: 10.1002/job
J. J. HAYNIE ET AL.
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. 10.2307/256422.
Freeney, Y., & Fellenz, M. R. (2013). Work engagement, job design and the role of the social context at work: Exploring ante-
cedents from a relational perspective. Human Relations, 66, 1427–1445. 10.1177/0018726713478245.
Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Jour-
nal of Management, 38, 1167–1230. 10.1177/0149206312439327.
Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. (2009). Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Academy of Management Review, 34, 127–145.
10.5465/AMR.2009.35713319.
Glavas, A., & Godwin, L. (2013). Is the perception of “goodness” good enough? Exploring the relationship between perceived
corporate social responsibility and employee organizational identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 15–27. 10.1007/
s10551-012-1323-5.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
10.2307/2092623.
Greenberg, J. (1993). 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. (2011). Organizational justice: The dynamics of fairness in the workplace. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Maintaining, Expanding, and Contracting the Organization (Vol. 3, pp. 271–327).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1993). Job performance attributions and career advancement prospects: An examination of
gender and race effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 273–297. 10.1006/obhd.1993.1034.
Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Re-
view, 21, 123–136. 10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.004.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J.-P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the
role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40, 1334–1364. 10.1177/0149206314527130.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee
engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279. 10.1037/0021-
9010.87.2.268.
Hodson, R. (2004). Organizational trustworthiness: Findings from the population of organizational ethnographies. Organization
Science, 15, 432–445. 10.1287/orsc.1040.0077.
Hogg, M. A., & Martin, R. P. (2003). Social identity analysis of leader–member relations: Reconciling self-categorization and
leader–member exchange theories of leadership. In S. A. Haslma, D. van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.),
Social Identity at Work: Developing Theory for Organizational Practice (pp. 139–154). New York: Psychology Press.
Husted, B. W., & Folger, R. (2004). Fairness and transaction costs: The contribution of organizational justice theory to an inte-
grative model of economic organization. Organization Science, 15, 719–729. 10.1287/orsc.1040.0088.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management
Journal, 33, 692–724. 10.2307/256287.
Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45, 321–349. 10.1177/
001872679204500402.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1991). Implementing global strategies: The role of procedural justice. Strategic Management
Journal, 12, 125–143. 10.1002/smj.4250120910.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1993). Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary top management compliance with multi-
nationals’ corporate strategic decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 502–526. 10.2307/256590.
Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes. Political Psychology, 10, 257–
274. 10.2307/3791647.
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures in structural equa-
tion models. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 186–207. 10.1177/109442810032003.
Lawler, E. J. (2001). An affect theory of social exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 321–352. 10.1086/324071.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131–142. 10.1037//0021-9010.87.1.131.
Lee, T. W., Burch, T. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (2014). The story of why we stay: A review of job embeddedness. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 199–216. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091244.
Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz & W. Walster
(Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 91–131). New York: Academic.
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.
DOI: 10.1002/job
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. 151–199). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 114–121. 10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.114.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question,
weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1.
Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one.
Psychological Methods, 18, 285–300. 10.1037/a0033266.
Loi, R., Yang, J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). Four-factor justice and daily job satisfaction: A multilevel investigation. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 770–781.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). Engaged in engagement: We are delighted we did it. Industrial & Organizational
Psychology, 1, 76–83. 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00016.x.
Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & Young, S. A. (2009). Employee Engagement: Tools for Analysis, Practice, and
Competitive Advantage. Malden, MA: Wiley & Sons.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test me-
diation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104. 10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83.
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-
experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123–136. 10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management
Review, 20, 709–734. 10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335.
Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch
the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 874–888. 10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803928.
McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14, 91–103. 10.1287/
orsc.14.1.91.12814.
Meyer, J. P., & Gagne, M. (2008). Employee engagement from a self-determination theory perspective. Industrial & Organiza-
tional Psychology, 1, 60–62. 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00010.x.
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 & Organizational Psychology, 17, 327–348.
10.1080/13594320701743616.
Mossholder, K. W., Richardson, H. A., & Settoon, R. P. (2011). Human resource systems and helping in organizations: A rela-
tional perspective. Academy of Management Review, 36, 33–52. 10.5465/AMR.2011.55662500.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2007). Mplus User’s Guide (5th ed.,, ). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
Norusis, M. J. (2010). PASW Statistics 18 Guide to Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Press.
Olkkonen, M. E., & Lipponen, J. (2006). Relationships between organizational justice, identification with organization and work
unit, and group-related outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 202–215. 10.1016/j.
obhdp.2005.08.007.
Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A sixty-year review of
quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47, 461–524. 10.1177/0021886310396550.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and
Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization
Studies, 24, 403–441. 10.1177/0170840603024003910.
Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2009). Integrity and leadership: A multi-level conceptual framework. Leadership
Quarterly, 20, 405–420. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.008.
Pare, G., & Tremblay, M. (2007). The influence of high-involvement human resources practices, procedural justice, organiza-
tional commitment, and citizenship behaviors on information technology professionals’ turnover intentions. Group &
Organization Management, 32, 326–357. 10.1177/1059601106286875.
Pasmore, W. A. (2011). Tipping the balance: Overcoming persistent problems in organizational change. In A. B. Shani, R. W. Woodman,
& W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change and Development (Vol. 19, pp. 259–292). Bingley, United Kingdom:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1989). A Second Generation Measure of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Bloom-
ington: Indiana University.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recom-
mendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression,
multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448. 10.3102/
10769986031004437.
DOI: 10.1002/job
J. J. HAYNIE ET AL.
Pugh, S. D., & Dietz, J. (2008). Employee engagement at the organizational level of analysis. Industrial & Organizational
Psychology, 1, 44–47. 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00006.x.
Purvis, R. L., Sambamurthy, V., & Zmud, R. W. (2001). The assimilation of knowledge platforms in organizations: An empirical
investigation. Organization Science, 12, 117–135. 10.1287/orsc.12.2.117.10115.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 53, 617–635. 10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988.
Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturman, M. C. (2009). A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical tech-
niques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 762–800. 10.1177/
1094428109332834.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and
well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600–619.
10.1108/02683940610690169.
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177.
10.1037//1082-989X.7.2.147.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A
multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. 10.1002/job.248.
Shamir, B., & Lapidot, Y. (2003). Trust in organizational superiors: Systemic and collective considerations. Organization
Studies, 24, 463–491. 10.1177/0170840603024003912.
Shank, T., Hill, R. P., & Stang, J. (2013). Do investors benefit from good corporate governance? Corporate governance: The
international journal of business in society, 13, 384–396. 10.1108/CG-03-2010-0027.
Shapiro, S. P. (1987). The social control of impersonal trust. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 623–658. 10.1086/228791.
Simmering, M. J., Fuller, C. M., Richardson, H. A., Ocal, Y., & Atinc, G. M. (2015). Marker variable choice, reporting, and in-
terpretation in the detection of common method variance: A review and demonstration. Organizational Research Methods, 18,
473–511. 10.1177/1094428114560023.
Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative Behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus.
Organization Science, 13, 18–35. 10.1287/orsc.13.1.18.543.
Six, F., & Sorge, A. (2008). Creating a high-trust organization: An exploration into organizational policies that stimulate inter-
personal trust building. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 857–884. 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00763.x.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361. 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07.
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
van Dijke, M., De Cremer, D., Brebels, L., & van Quaquebeke, N. (2015). Willing and able: Action-state orientation and the re-
lation between procedural justice and employee cooperation. Journal of Management, 41, 1982–2003. 10.1177/
0149206313478187.
Wang, H. C., He, J., & Mahoney, J. T. (2009). Firm-specific knowledge resources and competitive advantage: The roles of
economic- and relationship-based employee governance mechanisms. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 1265–1285.
10.1002/smj.787.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16,
409–421. 10.1287/orsc.1050.0133.
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource
Management Review, 12, 173–194. 10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00045-1.
Wittek, R. (2003). Norm violations and informal control in organizations: A relational signaling perspective. In B. Nooteboom &
F. Six (Eds.), The Trust Process within Organizations: Empirical Studies of the Determinants and the Process of Trust Devel-
opment (pp. 168–195). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Yang, J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2010). Examining the effects of trust in leaders: A bases-and-foci approach. Leadership
Quarterly, 21, 50–63. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.004.
Zapata-Phelan, C. P., Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & Livingston, B. (2009). Procedural justice, interactional justice, and task per-
formance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 108, 93–105.
10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.08.001.
DOI: 10.1002/job

7-Haynie, Mossholder, & Harris, 2016. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 889-910.

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

7-Haynie, Mossholder, & Harris, 2016. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 889-910.

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav.

Received 06 March 2015

Figure 1. The hypothesized theoretical model. OCB, organizational citizenship behavior

Organizational Justice, Job Engagement, and Outcomes

The Role of Senior Management Trust

Senior management trust

Patriotism (marker variable)

Organizational citizenship behaviors

Marker variable analysis using patriotism

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Table 2. Assessment of common method variance.

Job engagement with

Conﬁrmatory factor analysis

Post hoc analyses

b SE 95% CI b SE 95% CI b SE 95% CI b SE 95% CI b SE 95% CI

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Estimate (SE) 95% CI

Distributive justice–job engagement–task performance 0.03 (0.02) [0.00, 0.09]

Estimate (SE) 95% CI

Procedural justice–job engagement–task performance at

Theoretical and practical implications

Jeffrey J. Haynie (jeffrey.haynie@nicholls.edu) is an Assistant Professor of Management at Nicholls State

Você também pode gostar

7-Haynie, Mossholder, &amp; Harris, 2016. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 889-910.

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

7-Haynie, Mossholder, &amp; Harris, 2016. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 889-910.

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav.

Received 06 March 2015

Figure 1. The hypothesized theoretical model. OCB, organizational citizenship behavior

Organizational Justice, Job Engagement, and Outcomes

The Role of Senior Management Trust

Senior management trust

Patriotism (marker variable)

Organizational citizenship behaviors

Marker variable analysis using patriotism

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Table 2. Assessment of common method variance.

Job engagement with

Conﬁrmatory factor analysis

Post hoc analyses

b SE 95% CI b SE 95% CI b SE 95% CI b SE 95% CI b SE 95% CI

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Estimate (SE) 95% CI

Distributive justice–job engagement–task performance 0.03 (0.02) [0.00, 0.09]

Estimate (SE) 95% CI

Procedural justice–job engagement–task performance at

Theoretical and practical implications

Jeffrey J. Haynie (jeffrey.haynie@nicholls.edu) is an Assistant Professor of Management at Nicholls State

Você também pode gostar

7-Haynie, Mossholder, & Harris, 2016. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 889-910.

7-Haynie, Mossholder, & Harris, 2016. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 889-910.