Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journa~ Vol. 8, No.

L 1995
Relationships Among Pay Inequity, Perceptions of
Procedural Justice, and Organizational Citizenship
Kar l Aq u i n o 1
This study explored relationships between employee dissatisfaction with pay, perceptions
of procedural justice, and organizational citizenship behavior. It was hypothesized that
pay inequity wouM be negatively related to citizenship, while favorable perceptions of
procedural and interpersonal justice would be positively related. Results provided strong
support for the hypotheses only with regard to a dimension of citizenship labeled
"compliance." Implications for employee behavior in the workplace and the expression
of grievances are discussed; fiaure research directions are also offered.
KEY WORDS: procedural justice; OCB; distributive justice; interpersonal fairness; perceptions of
interpersonal fairness.
Al mos t t hi rt y year s ago Kat z (1964) recogni zed t hat organi zat i ons d e p e n d
u p o n i nnumer abl e acts o f cooper at i on, hel pful ness, and self-sacrifice f r om empl oy-
ees t o f unct i on effectively. Or gan and his col l eagues (Organ, 1988; Smi t h, Or gan,
& Near , 1983) have l abel ed t hese acts "organi zat i onal ci t i zenshi p behavi or " ( OCB) .
Accor di ng t o Or gan (1988), ci t i zenshi p falls i nt o one of t wo gener al classes: (a)
al t rui sm, whi ch refers t o behavi ors t hat are s pont aneous , di r ect ed t oward specific
per sons, and el i ci t ed by si t uat i onal cues, and (b) consci ent i ousness, whi ch refers t o
behavi or s t hat whi l e bei ng r i ght and pr ope r are ne i t he r di r ect ed t owar d speci fi c
per s ons nor el i ci t ed by si t uat i onal cues.
Th e benefi t s of OCB have been not e d by many writers. They i ncl ude pr o-
mot i ng posi t i ve r el at i onshi ps a mong empl oyees, provi di ng t he flexibility n e e d e d f or
i nnovat i on, and gui di ng t he effi ci ent use of scarce resources (Organ, 1988; Gr aham,
1986; Smi t h et al., 1983). Ci t i zenshi p also cont r i but es t o what Gr a ha m (1986) refers
t o as "r esponsi bl e par t i ci pat i on i n t he pol i t i cal life of t he organi zat i on. " As a con-
st ruct , ci t i zenshi p behavi or is i nt erest i ng because unl i ke acts i nduced by cont r act ual ,
enf or ceabl e rol e pr escr i pt i ons it is di scret i onary and s el dom r ewar ded by t he or-
gani zat i on (Katz, 1964).
1Department of Management, College of Business Administration, Georgia State University, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303.
21
69"2-7545F95/03004)021507.50,90 1995 lolenum Publishing Corporation
22 Aquino
Many st udi es have expl or ed t he ant ecedent s of ci t i zenshi p (e.g., Ba t e ma n &
Or gan, 1983; Gr aham, 1986; Smi t h, Organ, & Near , 1983). The mos t consi st ent
fi ndi ng of this r esear ch has been t hat mo o d st at e, typically oper at i onal i zed as j ob
satisfaction, is positively r el at ed t o OCB ( Bat eman & Organ, 1983; Gr aham, 1986;
Mot owi dl o, 1984; Smi t h e t a l . , 1983). St abl e per sonal i t y traits also pr edi ct ci t i zenshi p
t o t he ext ent t hat t hese traits pr edi spose per sons t owar d charact eri st i c mo o d st at es
( Smi t h e t a l . , 1983). Finally, a few st udi es have shown t hat citizenship cor r el at es
posi t i vel y wi t h per cept i ons of pay equi t y or fairness (Scholl, Cooper , & McKenna,
1987; Puffer, 1987).
Thi s last set of fi ndi ngs is provocat i ve because it assigns a cogni t i ve basis t o
ci t i zenshi p. Pe r c e pt i ons of pay equi t y pr oduc e bel i efs about di st ri but i ve j ust i ce
( Deut sch, 1986; Br i ckman, 1975), whi ch t hen affect behavi or (Adams, 1965; Leven-
thai, 1976). Unl i ke mo o d states, t hese beliefs are less vul ner abl e t o arbi t rary event s
t hat can al t er mo o d and, consequent l y, r educe t he per f or mance of ci t i zenshi p. Thi s
has several i mpl i cat i ons f or research and pract i ce. First, it suggests t hat pat t er ns of
r ewar d di st ri but i on can det er mi ne bot h t he nat ur e and f r equency of OCB. Second,
it i mpl i es t hat t he pr ocedur es by whi ch rewards are al l ocat ed may also de t e r mi ne
t he l i kel i hood of ci t i zenshi p.
Th e second hypot hesi s is based on t he a r gume nt t hat peopl e hol d bel i efs not
onl y about di st ri but i ve j ust i ce, but also about pr ocedur al j ust i ce ( Thi baut & Wal ker ,
1975; Li nd & Tyler, 1988). The l i t er at ur e on ci t i zenshi p has been relatively si l ent
wi t h r egar d t o pr ocedur al j ust i ce. I n fact, Or gan (1988) argues t hat pr ocedur al be-
liefs are s ubor di nat e t o beliefs concer ni ng di st ri but i ve fairness.
My own vi ew chal l enges this hypot hesi s, as I pr edi ct t hat per cept i ons of pr o-
cedur al j ust i ce will be si gni fi cant pr edi ct or s of ci t i zenshi p, per haps t o an even
gr eat er ext ent t ha n per cept i ons of di st ri but i ve j ust i ce ( Al exander & Ru d e r ma n ,
1987; Konovsky & Cr opanzano, 1991). Th e r easons f or this are as follows. Fi rst ,
t her e are di f f er ent di mensi ons of pr ocedur al j ust i ce ( Gr eenber g, 1987a; Fol ger &
Bies, 1989; Tyl er, 1988) and it is pl ausi bl e t hat s ome di mensi ons may be mor e
st rongl y r el at ed t o ci t i zenshi p t han per cept i ons of pay equity. Second, becaus e citi-
zenshi p itself is a mul t i di mensi onal const ruct , pr ocedur al and di st ri but i ve j ust i ce
per cept i ons may have varying effect sizes dependi ng on whi ch di mens i on of citi-
zenshi p is consi der ed. Finally, because t her e is s ome evi dence t hat pr ocedur al j us-
t i ce i nf l uences per cept i ons of distributive fairness (e.g., Li nd & Tyler, 1988; Paese,
Li nd, & Kanfer, 1988), it is possible t hat pr ocedur al j ust i ce moder at es t he r el at i on-
shi p bet ween di st ri but i ve j ust i ce and OCB.
Thi s st udy exami ned whet her per cept i ons of di st ri but i ve and pr ocedur al j ust i ce
wer e significantly r el at ed t o two di mensi ons of OCB. A corol l ary pur pos e of t he
st udy was t o de t e r mi ne t he ext ent t o whi ch di st ri but i ve and pr ocedur al j ust i ce per -
cept i ons are r el at ed t o one anot her .
Di st ri but i ve Justi ce, Pay Inequi ty, and OCB
Di st ri but i ve j ust i ce concer ns t he way resources are al l ocat ed. Accor di ng t o
mos t model s of di st ri but i ve justice, t hese per cept i ons are relative, meani ng assess-
Procedural Justice, Pay Inequity, and OCB 23
ment s of fairness are based on compari ng one' s out comes wi t h t hose of a r ef er ent
(Adams, 1965; Davis, 1959; Stouffer, Suchman, DeVi nney, Star, & Williams, 1949).
Ear l i er I said t hat percept i ons of pay equity have been positively r el at ed to OCB.
This resul t can be expl ai ned by t he t heory of equity (Adams, 1965). Accordi ng t o
t he t heory, feelings of inequity, or relative deprivation (e.g., Stouffer et al. , 1949),
i nduce peopl e to wi t hhol d citizenship behavi or to bal ance t he calculus of social
exchange. Conversely, percept i ons of distributive fairness or equi t y will t end to in-
crease t he per f or mance of citizenship. Based on an application of t he equi t y pri n-
ciple, I predi ct t he following:
HI : Dissatisfaction wi t h pay will be negatively r el at ed to OCB.
The rel at i onshi p bet ween inequity and OCB has been established in previous
studies. Consequent l y t he mor e interesting relationship is bet ween percept i ons of
pr ocedur al justice and citizenship.
Procedural Justice
The r e have been many at t empt s to describe t he characteristics of fair proce-
dures ei t her for decision maki ng or resource allocation (e.g., Bar r et t - Howar d &
Tyler, 1986; Fol ger & Bies, 1989; Greenberg, 1986; Levent hal , Karuza, & Frey,
1980). On t he whol e t hese descriptions show consi derabl e overl ap in what consti-
t ut es fairness. Fr equent l y ment i oned attributes of fair pr ocedur es i ncl ude consis
t ency of application, mai nt enance of ethical standards, suppression of biases, use
of accur at e i nformat i on, and allowing affected persons to express concerns and
make correct i ons when necessary.
Whe n Or gan dismissed t he probabl e effects of pr ocedur al justice on citizen-
ship, he failed to consi der t hat percept i ons of pr ocedur al j ust i ce t ake several forms
( Gr eenber g, 1990). I nst ead, Or gan appeared t o narrowly focus his criticism on per -
cept i ons concer ni ng t he fairness of reward allocation procedures. Incl uded her e
woul d be t he set of pr ocedur es, i.e., per f or mance evaluations, compensat i on sys-
tems, used to det er mi ne pay or pr omot i on opport uni t i es ( Gr eenber g, 1986; Leven-
thai, 1980).
A second cat egory of pr ocedur al justice perceptions, t hough, comes f r om a
legal perspect i ve and emphasi zes t he rol e of process cont rol or "voice" in det er -
mi ni ng out comes and subsequent fairness percept i ons (Thi baut & Walker, 1975).
For mal gri evance pr ocedur es whi ch allow empl oyee i nput ar e examples of proce-
dures t hat allow process cont rol . The availability of such pr ocedur es has significant
consequences. First, it appear s t o i ncrease percept i ons of distributive fairness (Paese
et al., 1988; Gr eenber g, 1987b) and diminish t he negative effects of pay i nequi t y
(Folger, Rosenfi el d, & Robi nson, 1983; Fol ger & Martin, 1986). Second, it seems
to i ncrease peopl es' satisfaction with decisions even when t hey go against t hem
(Tyl er & McGraw, 1986).
Mor e recently, a t hi rd cat egory of procedural j ust i ce percept i ons has be e n
i nt r oduced i nt o t he l i t erat ure. This category, whi ch was compl et el y i gnored by Or-
gan (1988), has been r ef er r ed t o as interactional justice (Bies & Moag, 1986). In-
24 Aqulno
t er act i onal j ust i ce, whi ch gives rise t o per cept i ons of i nt er per sonal fai rness, refl ect s
t he eval uat i on of t he t r e a t me nt a per s on receives f r om a deci si on ma ke r or super i or .
I t is uncl ear whe t he r such per cept i ons fall wi t hi n t he ambi t of pr ocedur al j ust i ce.
Yet t he di st i nct i on bet ween pr ocedur al and i nt er act i onal j ust i ce is of t en bl ur r ed i n
pract i ce. Some pr ocesses t hat wer e consi der ed i nt er per sonal have now be e n i ncor-
por a t e d i nt o f or mal pr ocedur es. For exampl e, gat her i ng i nf or mat i on about age, sex,
and race wer e once i nt eract i onal , but t oday t her e are pr ocedur al pol i ci es i n pl ace
f or col l ect i ng such dat a (Schrot h, 1992).
Al t hough t he r e may be di sagr eement about whe t he r i nt er per sonal fai rness is
an e l e me nt of pr ocedur al justice, t her e is little di s agr eement about what const i t ut es
fair t r eat ment . Tr ut hf ul ness, sincerity, impartiality, respect , and pr ovi di ng justifica-
t i on f or har mf ul cons equences have all been me nt i one d as bei ng charact eri st i cs of
i nt er per sonal fai rness (Bies & Moag, 1986; Bies & Shapi ro, 1987; Li nd & Lissak,
1985).
As I have shown, t he concept of pr ocedur al j ust i ce is mor e expansi ve t han
Or gan (1988) s eems t o concl ude when he di smi sses its rel at i onshi p t o OCB. Ac-
cordingly, we s houl d i dent i fy t he processes t hat under l i e t he hypot hesi zed r el at i on-
ships bet ween pr ocedur al j ust i ce and OCB.
A pr evi ous st udy has f ound t hat subor di nat e per cept i ons of i nt er per sonal fair-
ness are r el at ed t o supervi sors' per cept i ons of t hei r ci t i zenshi p behavi or ( Moor ma n,
1991). Thi s i mpl i es t hat subor di nat es who are t r eat ed fairly, court eousl y, and con-
si st ent l y by supervi sors ar e mor e likely t o pe r f or m benefi ci al acts on behal f of t he
organi zat i on. One expl anat i on for this is t hat j ust t r e a t me nt by supervi sors i nduces
a positive mo o d st at e which, is t he mos t consi st ent pr edi ct or of ci t i zenshi p. Con-
versely, a pat t er n of unj ust t r eat ment , i.e., di shonest y, mani pul at i on, and favori t i sm,
t ends t o pr omul ga t e confl i ct and hostility bet ween supervi sors and s ubor di nat es
( For t ado, 1992). Thi s hostility may pr omot e such pot ent i al l y dysfunct i onal acts as
grumbl i ng, r ul e br eaki ng, mal i ci ous compl i ance, vandal i sm, and t he wi t hhol di ng of
ci t i zenshi p behavi or. Accordi ngl y, as a resul t of t he positive mood st at e it i nduces
I pr edi ct t he following:
H2: Per cept i ons of i nt er per sonal fairness will be positively r el at ed t o OCB.
Wi t h r egar d t o t he pr ocedur es f or al l ocat i ng j ob out comes, one st udy f ound
t hat per cept i ons of fairness wer e r el at ed t o wor k per f or mance, j ob satisfaction, and
or gani zat i onal c o mmi t me n t (Konovsky & Cr opanzano, 1991). Previ ous st udi es have
f ound t hat bot h j ob sat i sfact i on (Organ, 1988) and c ommi t me nt (O' Rei l l y & Chat -
man, 1986) are posi t i vel y r el at ed t o OCB. Hence, I pr edi ct t he following:
H3: Per cept i ons of pr ocedur al fairness r egar di ng t he al l ocat i on of j ob out -
comes will be posi t i vel y r el at ed t o OCB.
Th e hypot hes i zed rel at i onshi p bet ween pr ocess cont r ol and OCB is based on
t he resul t s of t he a f or e me nt i one d fi ndi ng t hat allowing "voi ce" can i ncr ease peopl es '
per cept i ons of di st ri but i ve fairness ( Gr eenber g, 1987b, Paese et al., 1988; Tyl er &
McGr aw, 1986). Si nce process cont r ol can mi t i gat e feelings of i nequi t y (Fol ger,
Rosenf i el d, & Robi ns on, 1983; Fol ger & Mart i n, 1986), allowing voice can suppr ess
or count er act t he pr edi ct ed negat i ve rel at i onshi p bet ween i nequi t y and OCB. But
Procedural Justice, Pay Inequity, and OCB 25
this does not necessarily explain why process control will increase the likelihood of
citizenship behavior. I suggest that the reason process control will be positively as-
sociated with OCB is that it evokes positive sentiments directed toward the organi-
zation and its members. This prediction is consistent with the "group value model "
(Lind & Tyler, 1988), which suggests that voice serves as a proxy for a person' s
status within the group. By allowing a person to express voice, the group affirms
both his worth and t he value of his contributions. In return, the group becomes
the recipient of his loyalty, compliance, or feelings of goodwill. Based on this ar-
gument, I hypothesize the following:
H4: Perceptions of process control will be positively related to OCB.
METHOD
Sample
The sample consisted of employees from five organizations as well as stu-
dents from t he evening MBA program of a Midwestern business school. The or-
ganizations from which a portion of the sample was drawn represent ed diverse
occupational groups. They included managerial and nonmanagerial employees at
a midsized air-freight company (n = 24); deputy sheriffs at a county jail in a
large Sout heast ern city (n = 19); social workers, clerical staff, and administrators
at a women' s homeless shelter (n = 13); support personnel (i.e., depart ment as-
sistants, mailroom employees) at a Midwestern (n = 27) and a Sout heast ern (n
= 3) business school; and nurses and administrators at a Vet eran' s hospital in
t he Southeast (n = 13). The student participants (n = 18) worked full-time in
both t he public (e.g., university, hospital) and private (e.g., consumer products,
banking) sector. Two-hundred questionnaires were distributed, 117 were r et ur ned
(response rat e 59%). The average age of respondents was 35 (s.d. = 10.4); t hei r
average job t enure was 2.5 years (s.d. = 2.7). Sixty-four percent of t he respon-
dents were female. Over 53% had a college degree and 83% had at least some
college education.
Independent Variables
Four items measured pay inequity. Three items were developed by the re-
searcher (e.g., "When I compare myself to ot her employees in my work unit or
department, I feel dissatisfied with the pay I get from this organization"). A fourth
item was taken from a study by Crosby (1982): "Within the last year how oft en
have you felt some sense of grievance about your salary?" Respondents answered
t he researcher generat ed items using a 5-point strongly disagree (1) to strongly
agree (5) scale. The item from the Crosby (1982) study was answered on a 5-point
never (1) to frequently (5) scale.
Thi rt een items measured perceptions of procedural justice, e.g., procedural
fairness with regard to out come allocation, process control, and interpersonal fair-
26 Aquino
ness. Thes e i t ems wer e ei t her gener at ed by t he r es ear cher or t aken f r om pr evi ous
st udi es (e.g., Bies & Shapi ro, 1987; Tyler, 1988). A s ampl e pr ocedur al fai rness i t em
wi t h r egar d t o o u t c o me al l ocat i on is " Pr omot i ons i n this organi zat i on ar e bas ed on
mer i t , not on ' who you know' . " A sampl e process cont r ol i t em is "Thi s or gani zat i on
offers empl oyees ways t o express t hei r gri evances and compl ai nt s. " A s ampl e in-
t er per sonal fai rness i t em is "I n general , I don' t t hi nk my supervi sors t r eat me fairly."
Re s p o n d e n t s ans wer ed each i t em on a 5- poi nt st rongl y di sagree (1) t o st rongl y
agr ee (5) scale.
Dependent Variables
Si xt een sel f - r epor t i t ems f r om Smi t h e t a l . ' s (1983) st udy wer e us ed t o assess
citizenship. Th e Smi t h e t al . (1983) st udy showed t hat t he 16 i t ems t ap t wo di men-
si ons of ci t i zenshi p, whi ch t hey l abel l ed "al t r ui sm" and "compl i ance". Th e compl i -
ance di mens i on cor r es ponds t o t he consci ent i ousness di mens i on i dent i f i ed by Or gan
(1988). A s ampl e al t r ui sm i t em is "Hel pi ng ot her s wi t h heavy wor kl oads", a s ampl e
compl i ance i t em is " At t endi ng wor k every day. " I n t he pr es ent study, r e s ponde nt s
wer e asked t o i ndi cat e how f r equent l y t hey pe r f or me d each of 16 ci t i zenshi p acts
on a 5- poi nt scale f r om (1) never t o (5) always. Th e 7 i t ems cor r es pondi ng t he
al t ur i sm di mens i on and t he 9 i t ems cor r es pondi ng t o compl i ance wer e t h e n s u mme d
t o f or m t wo scales. The s e scales showed accept abl e levels of i nt er nal consi st ency,
wi t h Cr onbach' s al phas of 0.75 and 0.76 f or t he al t r ui sm and compl i ance scales,
respectively.
RESULTS
Factor Analysis of the Justice Measures
To de t e r mi ne whe t he r per cept i ons of pay i nequi t y and pr ocedur es act ual l y
r epr es ent ed di st i nct j ust i ce percept i ons, a f act or analysis wi t h vari max r ot at i on was
pe r f or me d o n all o f t he j ust i ce i t ems. The analysis pr oduc e d t hr ee i nt er pr et abl e
fact ors def i ned by 12 of t he original 17 i t ems. Thi s r educed set was t he n r eanal yzed
and t he resul t s shown i n Tabl e I.
Th e s econd analysis agai n yi el ded t hr ee fact ors account i ng f or 59% of t he
vari ance. Th e first fact or, def i ned by f our i t ems, clearly r epr esent s per cept i ons of
pay i nequi t y or di st ri but i ve justice. Th e second fact or, def i ned by f our i t ems, ap-
pear s t o meas ur e per cept i ons of i nt eract i ve j ust i ce. Th e t hi r d fact or, def i ned by
t hr ee i t ems, capt ur es bot h per cept i ons of process cont r ol and t he fai rness of out -
c ome al l ocat i on pr ocedur es . Since t he i t ems di d not clearly di st i ngui sh bet ween
t hese t wo di mens i ons of pr ocedur al j ust i ce, I shall r ef er t o this di mens i on by t he
gener al t e r m " pr ocedur es . " I n sum, t he fact or analysis showed t hat t he i t ems meas-
ur i ng i nequi t y and pr ocedur al and i nt er per sonal fairness appear t o t ap di st i nct j us-
tice per cept i ons.
Procedural Justi ce, Pay Inequity, and OCB
Tabl e I. Varimax Factor Loadings for Procedural Justice Dimensions
27
Item F1 F2 F3
1. When I compare myself to ot her employees in my 0.73 -0.14
work units or department I feel dissatisfied with the
pay I get from this organization.
2. When I compare myself to employees in other work 0.8____.0 -0.21
units or departments I feel dissatisfied with the pay I
get from this organization.
3. When I compare the employees of this organization 0.75 -0.09
with those in other organizations of the same kind I
feel dissatisfied with the pay this organization provides
to its employees.
4. Within the last year how often have you felt some 0.6_..33 -0.13
sense of grievance about your salary.
5. Promotions in the organization are based on merit, -0.32 0.27
not on "who you know."
6. This organization offers employees ways to express -0.13 0.20
their grievances and compliants
7. The management of this organization pays attention to -0.30 0.25
employee grievances nd complaints.
8. I can always go to my supervisor when I have a 0.30 0.61
problem.
9. My sepervisors treat a lot of employees better than -0.21 0.58
they treat me.
10. In general, I don' t think my supervisors treat me -0.20 0.9..._00
fairly.
11. My supervisors seldom give me accurate performance -0.17 0.6._33
ratings.
Eigenvalue 4.91 1.17
Percentage of variance explained 40.9 9.8
-0.18
-0.23
-0.08
-0.24
0.49
0.71
0.83
0.35
0.21
0.11
0.20
0.97
8.1
Fo r t he pur pos es of s ubs equent analysis i t ems l oadi ng on t he same f act or
wer e s u mme d t o pr oduc e t hr ee scales. Thes e scales showed hi gh levels of i nt er nal
consi st ency: Cr onbach' s al phas of 0.85, 0.79, and 0.81 f or t he pay inequity, pr oce-
dur es, a nd i nt er per s onal fai rness scales, respectively.
Descriptive Stati sti cs
Tabl e I I shows t he means , st andar d devi at i ons, and i nt er cor r el at i ons a mong
t he i n d e p e n d e n t and d e p e n d e n t variables.
T h e t wo ci t i zenshi p di mens i ons wer e onl y slightly cor r el at ed, i ndi cat i ng t hey
wer e rel at i vel y i nde pe nde nt as previ ous st udi es suggest ( Smi t h e t a l . , 1983). Th e
pr oc e dur a l j ust i ce and i nt er per s onal fairness per cept i ons wer e mor e highly cor r e-
l at ed. Thi s is expect ed gi ven t he expl orat ory nat ur e of t he meas ur es and t he likely
c onc e pt ua l r el at i onshi p bet ween t he const ruct s. Nevert hel ess, t he hi gh cor r el at i on
suggest s t hat t he const r uct s ar e not or t hogonal . As expect ed, bot h pr ocedur al j ust i ce
di mens i ons wer e significantly and negatively cor r el at ed wi t h i nequi t y.
28 Aquino
Tabl e II. Descriptive Statistics for I ndependent and Dependent Variables
Variables Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5
1. Inequity 13.2 4.0 0.85
2. Procedures 8.8 3.2 ._0.50 c 0.79
3. Int erpersonal
fairness 14.7 3.5 ...0.36 c 0.51 c 0.81
4. Altruism 24.1 4.2 -0. 07 0-20~ 0-17a
5. Compliance 34.6 4.1 ._0.27 b 0.28 b 0.25 b
0.75T
0.32 c 0.76
Note: (N = 17). Al pha reliabilities are shown along t he diagonal.
< 0.05.
P < 0.01.
Cp < 0.001.
Th e zer o- or der correl at i ons among t he i nde pe nde nt and d e p e n d e n t vari abl es
show t hat i nequi t y was significantly and negat i vel y r el at ed t o t he compl i ance di-
mens i on of OCB, but not t o t he al t rui sm di mensi on. Thi s pr ovi ded par t i al s uppor t
for Hypot hesi s 1. Per cept i ons of pr ocedur al and i nt er per sonal fairness wer e posi-
tively r el at ed t o b o t h di mensi ons of OCB, s uppor t i ng Hypot heses 2, 3, a nd 4. Gi ven
t he he t e r oge nous nat ur e of t he sampl e, however, it is likely t hat s ome of t he in-
d e p e n d e n t vari abl es are serving as proxies f or vari ous r es pondent charact eri st i cs.
For exampl e, becaus e of t he way process cont r ol was operat i onal i zed, its r el at i on-
shi p t o OCB may vary as f unct i on of j ob t enur e, gender , or age.
To assess t he stability of t hese rel at i onshi ps whe n r es pondent charact eri st i cs
are cont r ol l ed, I r egr essed t he t wo di mensi ons of OCB on t he t hr ee j ust i ce per -
cept i ons, as well as on j ob t enur e, gender , age, and level of educat i on. Fo r t he
pur pos es of this analysis level of educat i on was col l apsed i nt o two cat egori es: col-
l ege degr ee and no col l ege degree. Th e results of t he regressi on are shown i n Tabl e
III. I t can be s een t hat among t he i nde pe nde nt vari abl es onl y pr ocedur es r et ai ned
its significant ( and onl y margi nal l y so) rel at i onshi p t o altruism. Amo n g t he de mo-
gr aphi c variables, age was also margi nal l y r el at ed t o al t rui sm, suggest i ng t hat ol der
empl oyees p e r f o r me d act s of al t rui sm mor e f r equent l y t han younger ones. Wi t h
r egar d t o t he compl i ance di mensi on, age agai n showed t he st rongest r el at i onshi p
t o t he d e p e n d e n t measur e. Amo n g t he j ust i ce variables, per cept i ons of i nt er per s onal
fairness s howed a significant (p = 0.06) and positive rel at i onshi p t o compl i ance,
whi l e i nequi t y was margi nal l y significant and negat i vel y rel at ed. Job t e nur e also
had a margi nal l y significant, negat i ve rel at i onshi p t o compl i ance. Thus, af t er con-
t rol l i ng for r e s ponde nt characteristics onl y Hypot hesi s 4 was strongly s uppor t e d by
t he dat a.
DI SCUSSI ON
Thi s s t udy s howed t hat pay i nequi t y and per cept i ons of pr ocedur al j ust i ce
wer e significantly cor r el at ed t o organi zat i onal citizenship. The s e r el at i onshi ps wer e
st r ongest f or t he di mens i on of citizenship l abel ed compl i ance, a di mens i on of citi-
Procedural Justi ce, Pay Inequi ty, and OCB
Tabl e HI . Re gr e s s i on o f OCB o n I n d e p e n d e n t Var i abl es a n d Re s p o n d e n t
Char act er i st i cs
29
Al t r ui s m Compl i a nc e
Var i abl es b R 2 F b R 2 F
1. I nequi t y 0. 03 _. 17 a
2. Pr oc e dur e s 0. 19 a 0.11
3. I nt e r pe r s ona l 0. 19 a
f ai r nes s 0. 06
4. Ag e 0. 17 a 0. 40 c
5. Ge n d e r - 0 . 1 6 0. 08
6. Educ a t i on 0. 13 - 0 . 0 4
7. J ob t e n u r e 0. 00 _0. 18 a
Over al l 0.07 2. 24 b 0. 19 4. 97 c
< 0.10.
< 0 . 0 5 .
Cp < 0.01.
zenship that refers to behaviors falling within the scope of a person' s job require-
ments and which are not directed toward specific persons.
Inequity was negatively correlated to compliance. This is consistent with pre-
vious research, and supports the argument that acts of citizenship are used to bal-
ance t he calculus of distributive justice. That is, t he gr eat er t he empl oyee' s
dissatisfaction with pay, the less likely he is to comply with organizational demands.
Inequity did not show any significant relationship to respondents' willingness to
engage in altruism. One explanation for this is that because altruism is directed
toward specific persons rat her than to t he organization, it does not serve the same
equity-restoring function as compliance. For example, if an employee is mad at t he
organization for rewarding him unfairly, this does not justify taking it out on his
co-workers by being less altruistic.
One important contribution of this study was to show that distributive and
pr ocedur al percept i ons wer e distinct, but correl at ed, dimensions of justice as
Thibaut and Walker (1975) have proposed. Although the intercorrelations among
inequity, procedural, and interpersonal fairness scales were significant, they were
not so high as to suggest that we were measuring identical constructs. Indeed, sig-
nificant correlations bet ween perceptions of distributive and procedural justice are
oft en found in the literature (e.g., Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Fryxell & Gordon,
1989). It is worth noting, however, that the items designed to measure perceptions
of reward allocation procedures and process control loaded on the same factor.
This makes it unclear whet her these dimensions of procedural justice are in fact
distinct.
As has been found in previous research (e.g., Folger, Rosenfield, & Robinson,
1983; Folger & Martin, 1986), procedural justice was negatively related to inequity.
This supports t he conclusion that the presence of fair procedures can minimize
feelings of dissatisfaction.
The procedural and interpersonal justice perceptions were significantly and
positively correlated with OCB. But like pay inequity, they were more strongly related
30 Aquino
t o t he compl i ance di mensi on t han t o altruism. An d once r es pondent characteristics
wer e cont rol l ed, onl y per cept i ons of i nt er per sonal fairness exhibited a significantly
rel at i onshi p. For t ado' s (1992) wor k on t he nat ur e of supervi sor-subordi nat e rel at i on-
ships provi des a possi bl e expl anat i on f or t hese effects.
I n his study, For t a do (1992) out l i ned t he pr ocess by whi ch subor di nat es con-
st ruct t hei r r el at i onshi ps wi t h supervi sors and how t hese social const r uct i ons (e.g.,
Ber ger & Luckman, 1966; Weick, 1979) pr oduce subcul t ur al meani ngs. Amo n g t he
key el ement s of t hes e meani ngs are t he nat ur e of rel at i onshi ps and t he na t ur e and
cons equences of grieving. A close exami nat i on of t hese const ruct i ons pr ovi des one
expl anat i on f or why (a) process cont r ol was not significantly r el at ed t o compl i ance
aft er r e s ponde nt charact eri st i cs wer e cont r ol l ed, and (b) per cept i ons of i nt er per -
sonal fairness wer e.
Fr om i nt ervi ews wi t h nume r ous empl oyees i nvol ved in conflict wi t h t hei r su-
pervi sors For t a do (1992) concl uded t hat it was c ommonl y bel i eved t hat t he expres-
si on of gri evance woul d resul t in a per s on bei ng l abel ed a " t r oubl emaker . " The y
f ur t her bel i eved t hat this woul d make t he m likely t arget s f or r et r i but i on by super -
visors. Even whe n assurances of pr ot ect i on wer e of f er ed by organi zat i ons, di scon-
t e nt e d empl oyees s el dom vi ewed t hese assurances as credi bl e. Thus, it s eems t hat
t he f ear of speaki ng out and t he appar ent mi st r ust t hat s ur r ounds t he us e of f or mal
gri evance pr oc e dur e s l eads empl oyees t o per cei ve t he f r e e dom t o exercise pr ocess
cont r ol as bei ng of quest i onabl e val ue. Thi s may explain why t he pr oc e dur e s di-
mensi on, whi ch was compr i sed of two i t ems meas ur i ng process cont rol , s howed no
r el at i onshi p t o OCB wh e n r e s ponde nt charact eri st i cs wer e cont rol l ed.
Mor e specifically, t he r es pondent s in this sampl e, like t hose in For t ado' s st udy,
may have associ at ed t he expressi on of gri evances wi t h negat i ve out comes . He n c e
t he positive affect and per cept i ons of fairness t hat I t hought mi ght be el i ci t ed by
bei ng al l owed t o express voi ce failed t o mat eri al i ze. I n fact, it may be t hat whe n
expressi ng voi ce is consi der ed pot ent i al l y danger ous, it pr oduces feel i ngs of frus-
t r at i on a mong empl oyees. Thi s frust rat i on can l ead t o t he per f or mance of dysfunc-
t i onal acts l i ke as absent eei sm, t ardi ness, t heft , or i ndust ri al sabot age.
Al t hough i ncr eased process cont r ol may not p r o mo t e compl i ance, t hi s was
not t he case wi t h r egar d t o i nt er per sonal fairness. Agai n, t he results of For t ado' s
(1992) st udy pr ovi de i nsi ght i nt o why t he positive r el at i onshi p bet ween per cept i ons
of i nt er per sonal fai rness and compl i ance was s uppor t ed. For t a do f ound t ha t dur i ng
t he pr oces s of scr ut i ni zi ng super vi sor s' behavi or , empl oyees assi gned f avor abl e
me a ni ng t o obser vat i ons of egal i t ari an t r e a t me nt of subor di nat es. Thi s coul d i ncl ude
t r eat i ng t h e m wi t h honest y, dignity, respect , and on t he basis of mer i t r a t he r t ha n
social status. It can be s een t hat t hese el ement s of t he super vi sor - subor di nat e re-
l at i on coi nci de wi t h our earl i er concept i on of i nt er per sonal fairness. Thus, I pr opos e
t hat t he f avor abl e meani ngs assi gned t o egal i t ari an t r e a t me nt e v o k e d a posi t i ve
mo o d st at e a mong r es pondent s (e.g., Li den & Parsons, 1986), whi ch t he n ha d a
posi t i ve effect on compl i ance. But why wer e per cept i ons of i nt er per sonal fai rness
not also r el at ed t o al t rui sm?
One expl anat i on is t hat t he al t rui sm di mens i on is f ur t her r e move d f r om t he
cogni t i on- at t i t ude l i nk a r ound whi ch per cept i ons of i nt er per sonal fai rness f or m.
Si nce al t rui sm refers t o acts di r ect ed t owar d ot her s, who may or may not be one ' s
Procedural Justice, Pay Inequity, and OCB 31
immediate supervisor, its performance may be less dependent on how a person is
treated by his supervisor. In the case of altruism, individual differences rather t han
interpersonal t reat ment or patterns of reward may be the strongest predictors of
behavior. Indeed, the marginally significant relationship between age and altruism
provides some support for this hypothesis.
Interestingly, compliance was negatively associated with job tenure. This find-
ing may reflect the fact that t he longer an employee remains with the organization
t he more freedom he is allowed in the way he conducts himself at work. On t he
ot her hand, age was positively associated with compliance. This provides additional
support for the argument that individual characteristics may explain differences in
the performance of OCB.
Although most of t he significant zero-order correlations between the justice
perceptions and citizenship were not supported once respondent characteristics
were controlled, the nature of the data cautions against our unequivocally rejecting
these hypotheses. It is highly plausible that the relatively small sample size in this
study limited the statistical power of the tests used to assess the significance of the
regression weights. Moreover, intercorrelations among t he justice measures may
have produced unstable estimates of these weights. Taking into consideration these
weaknesses in the data, I propose that future research is needed to confirm or
disconfirm t he findings report ed here. These studies should not use larger samples
and should also try to develop more orthogonal measures of distributive and pro-
cedural justice.
The finding that interpersonal fairness was the strongest predictor of compli-
ance is an intriguing one and should be explored. Also, future research should ex-
ami ne t he conditions under which process control would effectively serve t he
function position by the group value model (Lind & Tyler, 1988); namely, that of
an employees' status and value within the group. We might also consider how t he
grievance process, which is an important component of procedural justice, may act
as a catalyst for organizational innovation. Here we might consider whether certain
types of organizational structures or cultures are more open to allowing employee
input than others. Lastly, with regard to interpersonal fairness, we should seek to
learn how managers to whom grievances are directed will construct that grievance.
That is, how might the attributes of the griever, the history of his interaction with
supervisors, and t he nat ure of the grievance itself shape the meaning assigned to
it by key decision makers.
REFERENCES
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz, L (Ed.) Advances in Experimental
Psychology, Vol. 2, 267-299. New York: Academic Press.
Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational
behavior. Social Justice Research, L 177-198.
Barrett-Howard, E., & Tyler, T. R. (1986). Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation decisions.
Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 50, 296-304.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between
affect and employee "citizenship". Academy of Management Journa~ 26, 587-595.
32 Aquino
Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1966). The Social Construction of RealiO:: A Treatise on the Sociology of
Knowledge. New York: Doubleday.
Berkowitz, L, & Walster, E. (1976). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 9. New York:
Academic Press.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In Lewicki,
R., Sheppard, B., & Bazerman, M. (Eds.). Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 43-53.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L (1987). lnteractional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts.
Social Justice Research, 1, 199-218.
Brickman, P. (1975). Adaptation-level determinants of pay satisfaction with equal and unequal outcome
distributions in skill and chance situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 191-198.
Crosby, F. (1982). Relative Deprivation and Working Women. New York: Oxford University Press.
Davis, J. A. (1959). A formal interpretation of the theory of relative deprivation. Sociometry, 22, 280-296.
Deutsch, M. (1986). Distributive Justice: A Social Psychological Perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Fol ger, R., & Bies, R. J. (1989). Managerial responsibilities and procedural justice. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Jouma~ 2, 79-90.
Folger, R. & Konovsky, M. A., (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay
raise decisions. Academy of Management Jouma~ 32, 115-130.
Folger, R., & Martin, C. (1986). Relative deprivation and referent cognitions: Distributive and procedural
justice effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 531-546.
Folger, R., Rosenfield, D., & Robinson, T. (1983). Relative deprivation and procedural justifications.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 268-273.
Fortado, B. (1992). Subordinate views in supervisory conflict situations: Peering into the subcultural
chasm. Human Relations, 45(11), 1141-1167.
Fryxell, G. E., & Gordon, M. E. (1989). Workplace justice and job satisfaction as predictors of
satisfaction with union and management. Academy o f Management Jouma~ 32, 851-866.
Graham, J. W. (1986). Organizational citizenship informed by political theory. Paper presented at
Academy of Management meetings, Chicago, I L
Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 16, 191-196.
Greenberg, J. (1987a). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review,
12, 9-22.
Greenberg, J. (198713). Using diaries to promote procedural justice in performance appraisals. Social
J, tstice Research, 1, 219-234.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management,
16, 399-432.
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131-133.
Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). The perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a
predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698-707.
Leventhal, G. S. (1976). Fairness in social relationships. In Thibaut, J. W., Spence, J. T., Carson, R. C.
(Eds.) Altruism and Helping Behavior, 213-232. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Frey, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences.
In Mikula, G. (Ed.), Justice and Social Interaction. New York: Springer-Vedag.
Liden, R. C., & Parsons, (2. K. (1986). A field study of j ob applicant interview perceptions, alternation
opportunities, and demographic characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 39, 109-122.
Lind, E. A., & Lissak, R. L (1985). Apparent impropriety and procedural fairness judgments. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 19-29J
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.
Motowidlo, S. J. (1984). Does job satisfaction lead to consideration and personal sensitivity? Academy
o f Management Journa~ 27, 910-915.
O'Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. A. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The
effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71, 492-499.
Organ, D. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior. The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA:
Lexington.
Paese, P. W., Lind, E. A., & Kanfer, R. (1988). Procedural fairness and work group responses to
performance evaluation systems. Social Justice Research, 2, 193-206.
Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noneompliant behavior, and work performance among
commission salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 615-621.
Procedural Justi ce, Pay Inequity, and OCB 33
Schol l , R. W. , Cooper , E. A. , & McKenna, J. F. (1987). Ref er ent sel ect i on in det er mi ni ng equi t y
per cept i ons: Di f f er ent i al effect s on behavi or al and at t i t udi nal out comes. Personnel Psychology, 40,
113-124.
Schrot h, H. A. (1992). Fai r ness and j ust i ce: A review of r ecent psychological research. Wor ki ng paper .
Uni ver si t y of Cal i forni a, Sant a Bar bar a.
Smi t h, C., Or gan, D. , & Near , J. (1983). Organi zat i onal citizenship behavi or: I t s nat ur e and ant ecedent s.
Journal of Applied PsycholoD,, 68(4), 653-663.
St ouffer, S. A. , Suchman, E. A. , DeVi nney, L C., St ar, S. A. , & Wi l l i ams, R. M. (1949). The American
Soldier: Adjustment during Army Life, Vol . 1. Pri ncet on, NJ: Pr i ncet on Uni versi t y Press.
Thi baut , J. W. , & Wal ker , L (1975). Procedural Justice: A PsychologicaIAna~ysis. Hi l l sdal e, N J: Er l baum.
Tyl er, T. R. (1988). Wha t is pr ocedur al j ust i ce? Cr i t er i a used by citizens t o assess t he fairness of l egal
pr ocedur es. Law and SocietY Review, 22, 103-135.
Tyl er, T. R. , & McGr aw, K. (1986). I deol ogy and i nt er pr et at i on of per sonal experi ence: Pr ocedur al
j us t i ce and pol i t i cal quiescence. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 115-128.
Wei ck, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Readi ng, MA: Addi son- Wesl ey.