You are on page 1of 17

Journal of Applied Psychology 2005, Vol. 90, No.

2, 242–256

Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association 0021-9010/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.242

The Impact of Justice Climate and Justice Orientation on Work Outcomes: A Cross-Level Multifoci Framework
Hui Liao
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Deborah E. Rupp
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign

In this article, which takes a person–situation approach, the authors propose and test a cross-level multifoci model of workplace justice. They crossed 3 types of justice (procedural, informational, and interpersonal) with 2 foci (organization and supervisor) and aggregated to the group level to create 6 distinct justice climate variables. They then tested for the effects of these variables on either organizationdirected or supervisor-directed commitment, satisfaction, and citizenship behavior. The authors also tested justice orientation as a moderator of these relationships. The results, based on 231 employees constituting 44 work groups representing multiple organizations and occupations, revealed that 4 forms of justice climate (organization-focused procedural and informational justice climate and supervisorfocused procedural and interpersonal justice climate) were significantly related to various work outcomes after controlling for corresponding individual-level justice perceptions. In addition, some moderation effects were found. Implications for organizations and future research are discussed.

The study of workplace justice perceptions has proven to be a rich and robust research area over the past several decades (Cropanzano, Rupp, Mohler, & Schminke, 2001). Indeed, most researchers agree that employees make distinct judgments about both the processes that lead to the allocation of outcomes (i.e., procedural justice [PJ]) and the interpersonal treatment given to employees as these procedures are carried out (i.e., interactional justice [IJ]; Colquitt, 2001; Greenberg, 1993). Furthermore, metaanalytic results confirm that such perceptions lead to important workplace outcomes, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Despite these robust findings, there are many unanswered questions regarding the antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions, and these very questions have spawned some new and exciting research streams within this field. First, although a great deal of research has explored different types of justice perceptions (e.g., procedural, informational, and interpersonal), relatively little research has considered the source

Both authors contributed equally to this study; authorship is alphabetical. Portions of this article were presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, August 2003, Seattle, Washington. We thank Tonya Runnels and Kelly Banes for assistance with obtaining organizations for this study, data collection, and data handling. We also thank David Hofmann and John Kammeyer-Mueller for their helpful comments. Last, many thanks go to our research assistants, Silke Holub, Seth Spain, and Amanda Baldwin, for their assistance on various project elements. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Deborah E. Rupp, Department of Psychology and Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 603 East Daniel Street, Champaign, IL 61820, or to Hui Liao, School of Management and Labor Relations, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 209 Janice H. Levin Building, 94 Rockafeller Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854. E-mail: derupp@uiuc.edu or huiliao@smlr.rutgers.edu 242

of justice perceptions (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001). That is, to whom or what are employees attributing unfair procedures and interpersonal treatment? Although preliminary research in this area (termed the multifoci approach to justice) has been promising (Byrne, 1999; Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002; Malatesta & Byrne, 1997; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002), more studies are needed to further explore this issue. Second, virtually all of the research conducted to date in the field of workplace justice has considered the effects of individuallevel justice perceptions on individual-level outcomes (for exceptions, see Colquitt, Noe, & Jackson, 2002; Mossholder, Bennett, & Martin, 1998; Naumann & Bennett, 2000; Simons & Roberson, 2003). There is a great need for multilevel research that explores group- and organization-level justice perceptions (also known as justice climate) on individual-, group-, and organization-level dependent variables. Lastly, workplace justice research has largely taken a situational approach. That is, either elements of the situation are manipulated and justice reactions are measured (i.e., the event paradigm), or individuals are asked to make global evaluations about their work environments and the link between these perceptions and subsequent outcomes is tested (the social entity paradigm; see Cropanzano et al., 2001). An important question that remains is this: What justice-related individual differences moderate the relationship between individuals’ evaluation of their work environments and their subsequent attitudes and behaviors? This question becomes of particular relevance with the rise of fairness theory and the deontological model of justice (Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2003; Folger, 1998, 2001; Folger & Cropanzano, 2001), which propose that justice is important to all individuals and may be closely linked to their values, moral maturity, and sensitivity to fairness (Rupp, 2003; Schmitt & Dorfel, 1999). ¨ In the current study we seek to both further and integrate these new areas of inquiry. First, we test for justice climate variables that have not been tested before (informational and interpersonal jus-

A CROSS-LEVEL MULTIFOCI FRAMEWORK OF JUSTICE

243

tice climate). Second, we incorporate source into the notion of justice climate by considering the justice climate attributed to both the organization and the supervisor. Third, we incorporate an individual-difference (justice orientation) moderator into our model. In the following sections, we review the research relevant to each of these topics. Then we propose our integrative multifoci cross-level moderated model of workplace justice.

Multifoci Justice Research
In the late 1990s, researchers began arguing that in addition to considering different types of employee justice perceptions (e.g., PJ, IJ), it may be beneficial to consider the source of justice (see Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001). Indeed, in the workplace, many sources or foci of justice are possible. An employee could potentially make differential justice perceptions about her or his supervisor, upper management, the organization as a whole, coworkers, subordinates, customers, and so forth. Early research in this area (Malatesta & Byrne, 1997) suggested that policies and procedures are perceived as coming from the organization, and therefore judgments about PJ will be closely linked to attitudes and behaviors directed at the organization. Likewise, interpersonal treatment is seen as coming directly from one’s supervisor, and therefore IJ will be closely linked to attitudes and behaviors directed at one’s supervisor. Subsequent empirical research has confirmed such models. For example, Masterson et al. (2000) found IJ to predict supervisory citizenship behaviors, supervisory satisfaction, and performance (mediated by leader–member exchange) and found PJ to predict organizational citizenship and turnover intentions (mediated by organizational support). Further, Cropanzano et al. (2002) found IJ to predict supervisory satisfaction and job performance (mediated by leader–member exchange) and found performance appraisal PJ to predict performance appraisal satisfaction and trust in management. Other research, however, has extended this multifoci notion by arguing that employees make distinct justice judgments about both the procedures and interpersonal treatment coming from both the supervisor and the organization. Such a model, containing four types of justice (supervisor-focused PJ, supervisor-focused IJ, organization-focused PJ, and organization-focused IJ), has been confirmed in two studies. Byrne (1999) found supervisor-focused PJ and IJ to predict supervisory commitment and supervisory citizenship and found organization-focused PJ and IJ to predict organizational commitment and organizational citizenship. Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) replicated these findings and also found evidence for social exchange relationships as a mediator of these multifoci effects. The messages emerging from these studies are clear: (a) Employees make distinct judgments about the interactional and procedural treatment received from both their supervisor and the organization as a whole, (b) these perceptions predict important attitudes and behaviors relevant to these different entities, and (c) these relationships are at least in part explained by the social exchange relationships that are formed between the employee and each of these entities. An important next step for multifoci justice research to take would be to extend this research beyond individual-level variables (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). That is, can individual-level justice

perceptions emerge to form group-level justice perceptions? Might there exist multifoci group-level justice perceptions, whereby different “justice climates” exist for these different types and sources of justice? Do these group-level justice perceptions impact individual-level attitudes and behaviors above and beyond individual-level multifoci justice perceptions? The current study seeks to provide empirical evidence in response to these questions. Another potentially valuable extension of this research is to incorporate the research showing evidence for the multidimensionality of IJ. That is, research suggests that IJ can be split into interpersonal justice (IPJ; i.e., the fairness of the explanations provided for why and how decisions are made) and information justice (IFJ; i.e., the interpersonal sensitivity by which procedures are carried out; Colquitt, 2001; Greenberg, 1993). However, to date, multifoci justice research has collapsed such items into a single IJ factor. We extend past research by looking at the effects of both individual- and group-level PJ, IFJ, and IPJ perceptions made about both the employee’s supervisor and the organization.

Cross-Level Justice Research
Although no research to date has explored cross-level justice effects from a multifoci perspective, at least four studies have explored the notion of justice climate as mentioned above. Mossholder et al. (1998) were the first to propose a work unit measure of justice. Their field study, which focused only on PJ, found that justice can indeed be conceptualized as a contextual variable and that justice context (the within-work-unit average of justice perceptions assigned to each unit member) predicted individual-level job satisfaction beyond the effects of individual-level PJ perceptions. Second, Naumann and Bennett (2000) expanded the notion of justice context by pulling from the organizational climate literature. These authors found that group cohesion and the visibility of supervisors in demonstrating PJ were powerful antecedents to the formation of PJ climate, which in turn significantly predicted helping behaviors above and beyond the effects of individual-level justice perceptions. Third, the Colquitt et al. (2002) study further added to this research stream by showing that team-level PJ climate significantly predicted team-level outcomes, including performance and absenteeism. Finally, Simons and Roberson (2003) found that department-level PJ and IPJ predicted department-level employee affective commitment, satisfaction with supervision, discretionary service behavior, and intent to remain, which, when aggregated to the business unit level, further predicted businessunit-level customer satisfaction and employee turnover. The implications of these studies are twofold. First, they suggest that workplace justice needs to be studied in its social context, which is characterized by relational phenomena that cannot be understood in terms of individuals independently (Cappelli & Sherer, 1991). For individuals working in organizations, perhaps the most prominent social context is their immediate work group (Hackman, 1992; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Although justice perceptions have their origin at the individual level of analysis, they may form a shared, collective cognition or climate at the group level. This emergence process has been referred to as bottom-up process in multilevel research (see Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Several theories provide the theoretical underpinnings for the emergence of justice climate as a group-level property. Social

244

LIAO AND RUPP

information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) argues that individuals use information gathered from others in their direct social contexts to form judgments about organizational practices, values, and norms. Given that members of the same group are exposed to the same policies, leaders, and other contextual characteristics (Naumann & Bennett, 2000), they will possess shared information and form common perceptions regarding the general justice practices and procedures in the work group. Similarly, research on socialization reveals that coworkers are key agents in the socialization process and that a new employee will come to learn, via interactions with existing members (see Louis, Posner, & Powell, 1983; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992; Trice & Beyer, 1993), the procedures dictating how things are generally carried out and how people are generally treated in their work groups. This type of information exchange takes place most frequently among members in the same work group, thereby fostering the formation of relatively homogeneous justice perceptions in the work group. Furthermore, the notion of contagious justice also emphasizes the social side of justice at work and argues that “the often ambiguous and emotionally charged nature of justice events compels organizational actors to engage in social talk and arrive at a shared, socially constructed interpretation of justice” (Degoey, 2000, p. 51). In addition, the attraction–selection–attrition perspective (Schneider, 1975), which proposes that individuals of similar characteristics are attracted to, selected into, and retained by the same group, also suggests that over time, a work group will consist of individuals of similar justice values and perceptions. Finally, empirical research has shown the influences of these hypothetical processes to operate in the formation of specific climates at the group level such as technical updating climate (e.g., Kozlowski & Hults, 1987), innovation climate (e.g., Anderson & West, 1998), safety climate (e.g., Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996), service climate (e.g., Schneider, 1990), and PJ climate (e.g., Naumann & Bennett, 2000). In sum, the above theories and empirical evidence support the use of work group as an appropriate level to examine the existence of justice climate as shared justice perceptions among group members. Second, these cross-level justice studies demonstrate that justice climate has incremental validity in predicting individual-level attitudes and behavior beyond individual-level justice perceptions (Mossholder et al., 1998; Naumann & Bennett, 2000). In explaining why they expect such impact of justice climate on individual outcomes, Naumann and Bennett (2000) draw on the research by Lind, Kray, and Thompson (1998) and argue that the negative impact of injustice is more salient when all or most of the group members have been treated unfairly as compared with when only one member has been treated unfairly. These authors point out that widespread injustice would enable group members to validate their coworkers’ perceptions of injustice on the basis of their own perceptions of injustice, and vice versa. Therefore, an individual’s attitudes and behavior are influenced not only by his or her own justice experiences but also by the knowledge about how others are treated in the group. As a result, similar to other macrolevel properties that influence and constrain lower level phenomena (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), justice climate, once formed as part of a group-level context, will have top-down influences on members’ attitudes and behaviors.

Justice Orientation
A fourth extension of past justice research taking a multifoci or cross-level perspective is the inclusion of an individual-difference moderator. Recent research has suggested the presence of an individual-difference variable, related to justice, that affects both the formation of justice judgments and individuals’ reactions to unfair treatment (Rupp, Byrne, & Wadlington, 2003; Schmitt & Dorfel, 1999). Fairness theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001) and ¨ its subcomponent, the deontological model (Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2003; Folger, 1998, 2001), purport that justice is a moral virtue held by all individuals that assists in regulating interpersonal behavior. Although evidence supporting this model has been promising (Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1986; Rupp, 2003; Turillo, Folger, Lavelle, Umphress, & Gee, 2002), research has recently argued that individual differences exist in the extent to which this “justice virtue” is held. This construct has been termed justice orientation and has been defined as the extent to which individuals internalize justice as a moral virtue and are attentive to issues of fairness around them. In a recent four-study paper, Rupp, Byrne, and Wadlington (2003) presented construct validity evidence finding that justice orientation moderated the relationship between individual-level justice perceptions (both IJ and PJ) and individual-level outcomes (e.g., commitment, satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion). In the current study we seek to extend these findings by testing whether justice orientation moderates the relationship between multifoci justice climate and individual-level outcomes. Following the deontological model, individuals higher in justice orientation are more likely to notice justice issues surrounding them. As a result, these individuals are more likely to be influenced by justice climate than those lower in justice orientation. Therefore, justice climate effects should be moderated by justice orientation, with justice climate having a stronger effect on attitudes and behaviors of individuals high in justice orientation.

Current Study
Integrating and extending past research, we propose and test a cross-level moderated multifoci framework of workplace justice.1 Our hypotheses are listed in Table 1. To summarize, we hypothesized that after controlling for corresponding individual-level justice perceptions, organization-focused justice climate (PJ, IFJ, and IPJ) would positively predict outcomes directed at the organization (citizenship, satisfaction, and commitment) and that supervisor-focused justice climate (PJ, IFJ, and IPJ) would predict
Note we use the term workplace justice in lieu of the more traditional organizational justice. This is because, owing to developments in multilevel and multifoci justice research, the term organizational justice has become potentially confusing. Whereas one person might understand this term to mean the study of justice in the workplace, another might understand it to mean organization-focused justice perceptions, while still another might understand it to mean organization-level justice perceptions. For this reason, we avoid the term organizational in all cases except those where we are referring to organization-focused justice. We use the term workplace justice to refer to justice perceptions in general or the field of study often referred to as organizational justice. We take the same caution when discussing organizational citizenship behavior.
1

A CROSS-LEVEL MULTIFOCI FRAMEWORK OF JUSTICE

245

Table 1 Study Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: Organization-focused PJ climate will have a significant impact on (a) commitment, (b) satisfaction, and (c) citizenship directed at the organization beyond the effect of individual-level organization-focused PJ perceptions, and these relationships will be moderated by justice orientation. Hypothesis 2: Supervisor-focused PJ climate will have a significant impact on (a) commitment, (b) satisfaction, and (c) citizenship directed at the organization beyond the effect of individual-level supervisor-focused PJ perceptions, and these relationships will be moderated by justice orientation. Hypothesis 3: Organization-focused IFJ climate will have a significant impact on (a) commitment, (b) satisfaction, and (c) citizenship directed at the organization beyond the effect of individual-level organization-focused IFJ perceptions, and these relationships will be moderated by justice orientation. Hypothesis 4: Supervisor-focused IFJ climate will have a significant impact on (a) commitment, (b) satisfaction, and (c) citizenship directed at the organization beyond the effect of individual-level supervisor-focused IFJ perceptions, and these relationships will be moderated by justice orientation. Hypothesis 5: Organization-focused IPJ climate will have a significant impact on (a) commitment, (b) satisfaction, and (c) citizenship directed at the organization beyond the effect of individual-level organization-focused IPJ perceptions, and these relationships will be moderated by justice orientation. Hypothesis 6: Supervisor-focused IPJ climate will have a significant impact on (a) commitment, (b) satisfaction, and (c) citizenship directed at the organization beyond the effect of individual-level supervisor-focused IPJ perceptions, and these relationships will be moderated by justice orientation. Note. PJ procedural justice; IFJ personal justice. informational justice; IPJ inter-

groups was 30.78 years, and the average tenure in each organization was 24.7 months.

Instrumentation
Employees completed scales measuring different facets of justice perceptions, supervisory satisfaction, organizational satisfaction, supervisory commitment, and organizational commitment. Each employee’s supervisor provided ratings of citizenship behaviors directed at both the supervisor and the organization. These measures are described below. Organizational and supervisory justice. Byrne’s (1999) multifoci justice scales were used in this study. Organization-focused PJ (three items) inquires about the policies and systems in place within the organization (e.g., “[The organization’s] procedures and guidelines are very fair”). Organization-focused IFJ (five items) inquires about the extent to which the employee is provided with the explanations for why and how decisions are made (e.g., “I am kept informed, by [the organization], of why things happen the way they do”). Organization-focused IPJ (three items) inquires about the interpersonal sensitivity by which procedures are carried out (e.g., “[The organization] treats me with dignity and respect”). Supervisorfocused PJ, IFJ, and IPJ scales use similar items modified such that the immediate supervisor is the source of justice. Participants responded to each of these statements using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Justice climate. The six justice climate variables were created using the direct-consensus composition approach (Chan, 1999), which involved averaging across individual group members’ own justice perceptions and assigning each group member the average value of his or her group for each type of justice. Although the referent measured was “I” or “me” (i.e., how I was treated), the referent of interest was the group (i.e., how the group was treated). One may argue that this aggregated measure may well tap group-level justice characteristics if everyone in the group reports his or her personal experience or if the respondents are a random, representative sample of the whole group in terms of justice perceptions. We believe that the high response rates we obtained for these groups enabled us to base group-level justice climate on averaged individual respondents’ experience within a group. Colquitt et al. (2002) used similar methods to operationalize their PJ climate construct. We further assessed within-group agreement to examine consensus and justify aggregation. Justice orientation. Justice orientation was measured via the Justice Orientation Scale (Rupp, Byrne, & Wadlington, 2003). The Justice Orientation Scale consists of 16 statements arranged in a Likert format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), designed to measure the extent to which individuals internalize justice as a moral virtue and the extent to which individuals are cognizant of issues of fairness around them (e.g., “I am prone to notice people being treated unfairly in public”). Evidence across four studies has been shown to support the construct validity of this measure, as well as its internal consistency (Rupp, Byrne, & Wadlington, 2003). Commitment. To measure organizational commitment, we used eight items from the Affective Commitment Scale, developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). The eight items were chosen owing to their high factor loadings in confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) (Allen & Meyer, 1990) and because the same set of items has been used successfully in past research (Byrne, 1999). A sample item is “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with [the organization].” To measure supervisory commitment, the Affective Commitment Scale was modified such that the focus of the questions was changed to the supervisor. Satisfaction. Organizational satisfaction was measured using a subset of King’s (1960) About Your Company scale. Although this measure was originally intended to measure more generalized attitudes toward the organization, subsequent studies have found the scale to more precisely measure the particular construct of organizational satisfaction (see Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002; Shore, Newton, & Thornton, 1990). Owing to length

outcomes directed at the supervisor (citizenship, satisfaction, and commitment). Furthermore, we predicted that these main effects would be moderated by justice orientation. We expected all of our hypothesized relationships to be in a positive direction.

Method Participants and Procedure
Our participants consisted of 311 employees constituting 49 work groups. These groups were drawn from nine organizations spanning seven different industries. Following the criteria established by George (1990), we considered employees to be members of a work unit or group when they had a common supervisor and worked together on the same shift. Listwise deletion of individuals with missing information resulted in a final usable sample of 231 individuals from 44 groups. Across organizations used in this study, the average group response rate was 90%, the average individual response rate was 72%, and the average within-group response rate was 81%. Further, across organizations, the subsamples were on average 67% female and 12% of a racial or ethnic minority. The average age across

246
Table 2 Comparison of A Priori Justice Factor Structures
Factor structure

LIAO AND RUPP

2

df 230 229 229 227 224 215

2

/df

IFI .57 .85 .59 .59 .88 .90

CFI .56 .85 .58 .59 .88 .90

RMSEA .26 .12 .26 .26 .11 .09

RMSEA confidence interval (.250, (.110, (.250, (.250, (.100, (.080, .260) .130) .260) .260) .120) .094)

One-factor Two-factor (Org J & Sup J) Two-factor (PJ & IJ) Three-factor (PJ, IFJ, & IPJ) Four-factor (Org PJ, Org IJ, Sup PJ, & Sup IJ) Six-factor (Org PJ, Org IFJ, Org IPJ, Sup PJ, Sup IFJ, & Sup IPJ) Note. N 265. All chi-square values are significant at p error of approximation; Org organization-focused; Sup informational justice; IPJ interpersonal justice.

5,000.52 1,009.71 2,370.89 2,338.51 866.66 740.39

21.74 4.41 10.35 10.30 3.87 3.44

.05. IFI incremental fit index; CFI supervisor-focused; J justice; PJ

comparative fit index; RMSEA root-mean-square procedural justice; IJ interactional justice; IFJ

constraints on our survey packet, we chose 5 of the original 20 items on the basis of the strength of their factor loadings in past research (King, 1960). Response choices on items (e.g., “Considering everything about the organization, I am satisfied with it”) ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). To measure supervisory satisfaction, we used the Immediate Supervisor subscale of the Manager Opinions Scale (Warr & Routledge, 1969), which was adapted from the Job Descriptive Index (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) but incorporates items of particular relevance to supervisors and managers. This measure consists of 13 adjective descriptors (e.g., “reliable”) that respondents rate as characteristic of their supervisor, using a response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Citizenship behavior. As a measure of citizenship behavior beneficial to the organization, each employee’s supervisor completed Williams and Anderson’s (1991) OCBO scale, which consists of six statements (e.g., “Attendance at work is above the norm”). Citizenship behavior beneficial to the supervisor was measured using a scale directly extending from Williams and Anderson’s OCBS scale, developed by Malatesta (1995). Also completed by the supervisor, this measure consists of four statements (e.g., “Helps you when you have a heavy work load”). The supervisor responds to both scales using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).

components. However, because past multifoci studies (e.g., Byrne, 1999; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002) have instead used aggregate measures, we felt it necessary to compare the results of multiple CFAs that divided the justice items in different ways. Results from these analyses are reported in Table 2. Separate CFAs were conducted on (a) a single-factor model consisting of all justice items; (b) a two-factor model dividing items only by source (organization and supervisor); (c) a two-factor model dividing items only by PJ and IJ; (d) a three-factor model dividing items by PJ, IFJ, and IPJ; (e) a four-factor model crossing the two sources with the two justice types (PJ and IJ); (f) a six-factor model crossing the two sources with the three justice types (PJ, IFJ, and IPJ). Comparing the results from these six models showed that the fully crossed, six-factor model represented the significantly best fit to the data (comparative fit index .90, IFI .90, RMSEA .087, for 2 Models 5 and 6, 126.27, p .001). Thus, we continued to test our hypotheses using these six justice types.

Descriptive Statistics
Table 3 presents descriptive statistics, internal-consistency reliabilities, and intercorrelations of all study variables at either the individual or the group level.

Analytical Approach
The cross-level multifoci models of justice to be tested were hierarchical in nature, with the dependent variables (organization- or supervisorfocused citizenship, commitment, and satisfaction) being individual-level constructs and the predictors including both individual- and group-level variables. In addition, employees were nested within groups.2 We therefore conducted random coefficient modeling, which explicitly takes into account this cross-level data structure. We performed the analyses using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) software (HLM 5; Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, & Congdon, 2000). To examine whether the data met the prerequisites for conducting random coefficient modeling analysis, we conducted a series of investigations to justify the creation of our group-level variables and examined whether there were significant between-groups variances in our dependent variables.

Aggregation of Group-Level Variables
Our next step was to check the viability of the six group-level justice climate variables. We computed rwg values using uniform null distribution for these variables and obtained median values of .82 for organization-focused PJ climate, .72 for organizationfocused IFJ climate, .73 for organization-focused IPJ climate, .89 for supervisor-focused PJ climate, .88 for supervisor-focused IFJ
2 Our data include groups from different organizations. To lessen the concern that spurious observed group effects could have emerged due to variance across organizations that was not modeled, we performed threelevel HLM analyses to decompose the variances of the study variables into within-group, between-groups, and between-organizations components. The results revealed that out of the 12 variables examined, only 1 variable (i.e., supervisory citizenship) had significant between-organizations variance. In addition, all study variables demonstrated significant betweengroups variances, which were the focus of our study. Therefore, we conclude that the unmodeled organizational effect does not warrant concern.

Results Testing of the Justice Measurement Model
As was discussed in the introduction, one way in which we sought to extend the research on multifoci justice was to follow the advice of Colquitt (2001) and disaggregate IJ into informational and interpersonal justice (IFJ and IPJ). We were able to do this because our justice measure was designed to assess these separate

A CROSS-LEVEL MULTIFOCI FRAMEWORK OF JUSTICE

247

Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations, Coefficient Alphas, and Intercorrelations for All Study Variables
Variable Individual-level measures 1. Org-focused PJ 2. Sup-focused PJ 3. Org-focused IFJ 4. Sup-focused IFJ 5. Org-focused IPJ 6. Sup-focused IPJ 7. Justice orientation 8. Commitment—organization 9. Commitment—supervisor 10. Satisfaction—organization 11. Satisfaction—supervisor 12. Citizenship—organization 13. Citizenship—supervisor Group-level measures 1. Org-focused PJ climate 2. Sup-focused PJ climate 3. Org-focused IFJ climate 4. Sup-focused IFJ climate 5. Org-focused IPJ climate 6. Sup-focused IPJ climate M 5.18 6.12 4.02 5.37 4.80 6.00 5.01 4.18 4.65 4.65 5.58 4.16 3.62 5.15 6.08 4.05 5.34 4.80 5.92 SD 1.40 1.20 1.50 1.41 1.57 1.34 0.87 1.24 1.34 1.21 1.32 0.69 1.04 0.85 0.87 0.96 0.93 1.03 0.86 1 (.83) .31 .68 .23 .72 .26 .04 .46 .22 .56 .31 .25 .08 — .49 .83 .39 .79 .34 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

(.87) .26 .75 .32 .77 .11 .32 .65 .33 .70 .43 .34 — .47 .88 .52 .82

(.88) .42 .71 .29 .01 .46 .22 .53 .27 .18 .07

(.89) .34 .80 .07 .37 .68 .35 .65 .32 .35

(.83) .36 .04 .56 .33 .59 .31 .22 .12

(.82) .07 .30 .73 .38 .70 .41 .48

(.85) .01 .08 .11 .14 .12 .04

(.82) .52 .52 .28 .18 .13

(.89) .39 .67 .33 .41

(.81) .52 .25 .10

(.93) .41 .24

(.69) .42

(.87)

— .46 .73 .38

— .52 .88

— .50

Note. For individual-level measures, N 231; for group-level measures, N 44. Numbers in parentheses are coefficient alphas. With the exception of bold coefficients, all correlations are significant at p .05. Org organization; Sup supervisor; PJ procedural justice; IFJ informational justice; IPJ interpersonal justice.

climate, and .80 for supervisor-focused IPJ climate. These rwg values were above the conventionally acceptable rwg value of .70 (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1993). However, because rwg values with uniform null distribution tend to overestimate within-group agreement when there is response bias (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984; Kozlowski & Hattrup, 1992; Kozlowski & Hults, 1987), we collected additional evidence regarding the validity of these grouplevel constructs, following the suggestions of Bliese (2000). We first conducted one-way analysis of variance and found between-groups variance for all of these variables significant at either the .01 or the .001 level. We then obtained the following values of the interrater reliability index (ICC1) and the reliability of group mean index (ICC2): organization-focused PJ climate, .10 and .34; organization-focused IFJ climate, .14 and .43; organization-focused IPJ climate, .21 and .54; supervisor-focused PJ climate, .32 and .67; supervisor-focused IFJ climate, .30 and .65; and supervisor-focused IPJ climate, .25 and .59, respectively. All of these values were comparable to the median or recommended ICC values of group-level constructs reported in the literature (see Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998). On the basis of these results, we concluded that aggregation was justified and created our group-level variables.

HLM Null Models
Our hypotheses predicted that both individual- and group-level variables as well the interactions among them would be significantly related to our work outcomes of interest. For these hypotheses to be supported, there must be significant between-groups variances in the outcome variables. Thus, we estimated a series of null models using HLM in which no predictors were specified for either the Level 1 or the Level 2 function to test the significance

level of the between-groups variance in the outcomes by examining the significance level of the Level 2 residual variance of the intercept ( ˆ 00) and ICC1. ICC1 in this case can be interpreted as the proportion of variance in the outcome variable that resided between groups. The analyses revealed the following satisfactory results: For outcomes directed at the organization, citizenship, ˆ 00 .11, p .001, ICC1 .22; commitment, ˆ 00 .33, p .001, ICC1 .21; and satisfaction, ˆ 00 .16, p .01, ICC1 .11. For outcomes directed at the supervisor, citizenship, ˆ 00 .15, p .001, ICC1 .13; commitment, ˆ 00 .55, p .001, ICC1 .30; and satisfaction, ˆ 00 .51, p .001, ICC1 .28. We thus proceeded to test our hypotheses using HLM. For each HLM model estimated (described below), all predictors at Level 1 were grand-mean centered, according to the suggestion of Hofmann and Gavin (1998). In addition, we calculated the proportion of within-group variance explained by the model 2 specification as compared with the null model (Rwithin-group) and the proportion of between-groups variance explained by the model 2 specification as compared with the null model (Rbetween-groups). We also calculated the total variance explained in the outcome variable (R2 ) by using the following formula (Bryk & Raudenbush, total 1992), where ICC1 represents the proportion of variance in the corresponding outcome variable that resided between groups: R2 total 2 2 Rwithin-group (1 ICC1) Rbetween-groups ICC1.

HLM Results for Work Outcomes Directed at the Organization and at the Supervisor
Procedural justice. Table 4 presents the results of the HLM analyses conducted to test our hypotheses regarding the impact of organization-focused PJ climate on organization-directed outcomes (Hypothesis 1) as well as the impact of supervisor-focused

248

Table 4 HLM Results for the Effects of Procedural Justice on Organization and Supervisor-Directed Outcomes
Commitment Organization Variable Level 1 Intercept Org-focused PJ Sup-focused PJ Justice orientation Level 2 Org-focused PJ climate Sup-focused PJ climate Cross Level Org-Focused PJ Climate Sup-Focused PJ Climate Within-group variance Between-groups variance 2 Rwithin-group 2 Rbetween-groups 2 Rtotal a Model 1 2.59** .31** .14* .05 .27* .02 Justice Orientation Justice Orientation .92 .12 .26 .64 .34 Model 2 2.61** .31** .14* .49 .25* .04 .05 .12 .92 .12 .26 .64 .34 Supervisor Model 3 2.89** .03 .56** .01 .02 .31* Model 4 2.90** .03 .58** .51 .06 .33** .18* .23** .80 .07 .38 .87 .53 Satisfaction Organization Model 5 4.43** .43** .14* .10 .04 .07 Model 6 4.23** .43** .14** .89 .01 .07 .12 .07 .86 .06 .34 .61 .37 Supervisor Model 7 4.20** .10* .62** .05 .10 .31* Model 8 4.21** .10* .62** .20 .09 .31* .17** .12** .74 .05 .43 .90 .57 Organization Model 9 4.39** .05 .21** .05 .10* .12 Model 10 4.47** .05 .20** .13 .11* .14* .03 .05 .27 .09** .29 .18 .27 Citizenship Supervisor Model 11 3.49** .02 .32** .04 .09 .05 Model 12 3.46** .03 .32** .12 .10 .05 .03 .05 .84 .08 .12 .45 .16

LIAO AND RUPP

.80 .07 .38 .87 .53

.87 .06 .33 .61 .36

.73 .06 .44 .88 .57

.28 .09** .26 .18 .25

.83 .08 .13 .45 .17

Note. Entries corresponding to the predicting variables are estimations of the fixed effects, s, with robust standard errors. HLM hierarchical linear modeling; Org organization; Sup supervisor; PJ procedural justice. a 2 2 2 Rtotal Rwithin-group (1 ICC1) Rbetween-groups ICC1, where ICC1 represents the proportion of variance in the corresponding outcome variable that resides between groups. ICC1s are as follows: For work outcomes directed at the organization, commitment (.21), satisfaction (.11), and citizenship (.22); for work outcomes directed at the supervisor, commitment (.30), satisfaction (.28), and citizenship (.13). * p .05, one-tailed. ** p .01, one-tailed.

A CROSS-LEVEL MULTIFOCI FRAMEWORK OF JUSTICE

249 Discussion

PJ climate on supervisor-directed outcomes (Hypothesis 2). In all six models we included organization- and supervisor-focused PJ perceptions at both Level 1 and Level 2. For each outcome, we first examined the main effects of Level 1 and Level 2 factors and then added the interaction between PJ climate and justice orientation. For outcomes directed at the organization, organizationfocused PJ climate predicted commitment ( ˆ .27, p .05) and citizenship behavior ( ˆ .10, p .05) beyond the effect of individual-level justice perceptions but did not have significant effect when predicting satisfaction directed at the organization. There was no significant interaction between organization-focused PJ climate and justice orientation when predicting organizationdirected outcomes. For outcomes directed at the supervisor, supervisor-focused PJ climate had a significant effect after controlling for individual justice perceptions when predicting commitment ( ˆ .31, p .05) and satisfaction ( ˆ .31, p .05) but was insignificant when predicting citizenship directed toward the supervisor. Supervisor-focused PJ climate also had a significant interaction with justice orientation when predicting commitment ( ˆ .23, p .01) and when predicting satisfaction ( ˆ .12, p .01) directed at the supervisor. Therefore, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were partially supported. Informational justice. Table 5 presents the HLM results regarding the impact of organization-focused IFJ climate on organization-directed outcomes (Hypothesis 3) as well as the impact of supervisor-focused IFJ climate on supervisor-directed outcomes (Hypothesis 4). For outcomes directed at the organization, organization-focused IFJ climate had a significant relationship with citizenship ( ˆ .22, p .01) but no significant relationship with commitment or satisfaction directed at the organization, after controlling for the effect of individual-level justice perceptions. For outcomes directed at the supervisor, supervisor-focused IFJ climate did not significantly predict any of the outcomes directed toward the supervisor. Contrary to our hypotheses, neither organization-focused nor supervisor-focused IFJ climate had a significant interaction with justice orientation when predicting organization or supervisor-directed outcomes. Therefore, Hypotheses 3 received partial support but Hypothesis 4 was not supported. Interpersonal justice. Table 6 presents the HLM results regarding the impact of organization-focused IPJ climate on organization-directed outcomes (Hypothesis 5), as well as the impact of supervisor-focused IPJ climate on supervisor-directed outcomes (Hypothesis 6). Contrary to Hypothesis 5, organizationfocused IPJ climate did not significantly predict any of the outcomes directed at the organization. It did not have significant interaction with justice orientation when predicting any of the organization-directed outcomes either. For outcomes directed at the supervisor, supervisor-focused IPJ climate had a significant effect after controlling for individual justice perceptions when .22, p .01) and satisfaction ( ˆ predicting commitment ( ˆ .21, p .05) directed at the supervisor but was insignificant when predicting citizenship directed toward the supervisor. However, contrary to our hypothesis, supervisor-focused IPJ climate did not have significant interaction with justice orientation when predict.14, p .05). ing any outcomes directed at the supervisor ( ˆ Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was not supported and Hypothesis 6 received partial support.

In summary, we predicted that organization-focused PJ, IFJ, and IPJ climate would interact with justice orientation to predict organization-directed commitment, satisfaction, and citizenship and that supervisor-focused PJ, IFJ, and IPJ climate would interact with justice orientation to predict supervisor-directed commitment, satisfaction, and citizenship. Although we certainly would have liked to have seen more significant results, given the complexity of our model and the sample size, we feel the significant results we did find are of value to the research and management communities. We first offer some interpretation of our findings and then discuss study limitations as well some implications of our results.

Summary and Interpretation
Several patterns of results emerged from our data that we feel are relevant for research in workplace justice. Differential effects of different justice climate foci and types. First, we found that whereas supervisor-focused PJ and IPJ climate predicted supervisory commitment and satisfaction, supervisorfocused IFJ climate did not have significant relationships with any supervisor-focused outcomes. Conversely, organization-focused PJ climate predicted organizational commitment and citizenship behavior, organization-focused IFJ predicted only citizenship, and organization-focused IPJ did not have significant relationships with any organization-focused outcomes. Such differential effects among the different justice types within each justice focus provide further evidence that these variables, although highly correlated, are in fact distinct constructs. Indeed, within work groups, a distinct climate surrounding the fairness of procedures, information, and interpersonal treatment seems to emerge, and these climates have differential effects on the attitudes and behaviors of people at work. Although more and more justice researchers seem to agree that these types are distinct at the individual level (see Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano et al., 2002; Masterson et al., 2000; Moye, Masterson, & Bartol, 1997; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002; Simons & Roberson, 2003; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), little research has discussed their distinction at the group level. The data presented here provide support for such a notion. An important next step for research in this area to take is to explore why such differential effects occur. Theories are needed that seek to explain how people (sources) and things (processes, treatment, and information) come together to allow justice climates to emerge, and how these justice climates combine to maximize or hinder the attitudes and performance of individuals at work. Second, because we included both supervisor- and organizationfocused justice variables within each HLM model, we were able to look at the cross-foci effects. That is, although it was not hypothesized, we were able to examine the impact of supervisor-focused justice on organization-directed outcomes and the impact of organization-focused justice on supervisor-directed outcomes, at both the individual and the group level of analysis. The resulting coefficients also showed an interesting pattern of results. We found that at the individual level of analysis, supervisor-focused justice predicted organization-directed outcomes more frequently than organization-focused justice predicted supervisor-directed outcomes. Such a finding is consistent with individual-level research that has shown robust effects of employees’ evaluations of their

250

Table 5 HLM Results for the Effects of Informational Justice on Organization and Supervisor-Directed Outcomes
Commitment Organization Variable Level 1 Intercept Org-focused IFJ Sup-focused IFJ Justice orientation Level 2 Org-focused IFJ climate Sup-focused IFJ climate Cross-level Org-Focused IFJ Climate Sup-Focused IFJ Climate Within-group variance Between-groups variance 2 Rwithin-group 2 Rbetween-groups 2 Rtotal a Model 1 2.90** .27** .10 .01 .15 .12 Justice Orientation Justice Orientation .92 .13 .26 .60 .34 Model 2 2.97** .27** .10 .17 .11 .14 .11 .05 .93 .14 .26 .57 .32 Supervisor Model 3 3.48** .12* .63** .03 .18* .08 Model 4 3.39** .12* .63** .34 .18 .10 .01 .06 .78 .12 .40 .78 .51 Satisfaction Organization Model 5 3.98** .36** .10* .12 .03 .10 Model 6 3.96** .36** .10* .05 .03 .10 .10 .04 .92 .04 .29 .74 .34 Supervisor Model 7 4.12** .08* .58** .08 .19* .13 Model 8 4.13** .08* .57** .37 .19* .14 .03 .03 .85 .08 .35 .84 .49 Organization Model 9 4.07** .03 .17** .06 .22** .14* Model 10 4.11** .03 .17** .10 .22** .15* .001 .03 .32 .08** .16 .27 .18 Citizenship Supervisor Model 11 3.48** .12** .32** .05 .18* .10 Model 12 3.47** .12** .33** .13 .19* .11 .10* .10 .84 .10 .12 .31 .15

LIAO AND RUPP

.78 .12 .40 .78 .51

.92 .04 .29 .74 .34

.85 .09 .35 .82 .48

.31 .08** .19 .27 .21

.84 .10 .12 .31 .15

Note. Entries corresponding to the predicting variables are estimations of the fixed effects, s, with robust standard errors. HLM hierarchical linear modeling; Org organization; Sup supervisor; IFJ informational justice. a 2 2 2 Rtotal Rwithin-group (1 ICC1) Rbetween-groups ICC1, where ICC1 represents the proportion of variance in the corresponding outcome variable that resides between groups. ICC1s are as follows: For work outcomes directed at the organization, commitment (.21), satisfaction (.11), and citizenship (.22); for work outcomes directed at the supervisor, commitment (.30), satisfaction (.28), and citizenship (.13). * p .05, one-tailed. ** p .01, one-tailed.

Table 6 HLM Results for the Effects of Interpersonal Justice on Organization and Supervisor-Directed Outcomes
Commitment Organization Variable Level 1 Intercept Org-focused IPJ Sup-focused IPJ Justice orientation Level 2 Org-focused IPJ climate Sup-focused IPJ climate Cross-level Org-Focused IPJ Climate Sup-Focused IPJ Climate Within-group variance Between-groups variance 2 Rwithin-group 2 Rbetween-groups 2 Rtotal a Model 1 3.16** .42** .04 .06 .09 .08 Justice Orientation Justice Orientation .78 .06 .38 .82 .47 Model 2 3.14** .43** .03 .01 .10 .08 .06 .06 .78 .06 .38 .82 .47 Supervisor Model 3 3.25** .10* .58** .001 .02 .22** Model 4 3.15** .10* .58** .82* .01 .23** .01 .13 .67 .04 .48 .93 .62 Satisfaction Organization Model 5 4.64** .40 .16** .10 .03 .02 Model 6 4.64** .40** .16** .32 .01 .01 .06 .02 .84 .04 .35 .74 .40 Supervisor Model 7 4.43** .02 .57** .08 .01 .21* Model 8 4.52** .02 .58** .20 .005 .18 .03 .07 .69 .06 .47 .88 .59 Organization Model 9 4.52** .05 .16** .04 .02 .07 Model 10 4.63** .05 .16** .23 .02 .09 .02 .07 .26 .10 .32 .09 .27 Citizenship A CROSS-LEVEL MULTIFOCI FRAMEWORK OF JUSTICE Supervisor Model 11 3.86** .05 .42** .06 .09 .11 Model 12 3.88** .05 .42** .17 .10 .12 .05 .08 .75 .07 .21 .52 .25

.68 .04 .48 .93 .61

.83 .04 .36 .74 .40

.69 .04 .47 .92 .60

.26 .10 .32 .09 .27

.75 .07 .21 .52 .25

Note. Entries corresponding to the predicting variables are estimations of the fixed effects, s, with robust standard errors. HLM hierarchical linear modeling; Org organization; Sup supervisor; IPJ interpersonal justice. a 2 2 2 Rtotal Rwithin-group (1 ICC1) Rbetween-groups ICC1, where ICC1 represents the proportion of variance in the corresponding outcome variable that resides between groups. ICC1s are as follows: For work outcomes directed at the organization, commitment (.21), satisfaction (.11), and citizenship (.22); for work outcomes directed at the supervisor, commitment (.30), satisfaction (.28), and citizenship (.13). * p .05, one-tailed. ** p .01, one-tailed.

251

252

LIAO AND RUPP

supervisors (e.g., Ambrose, Seabright, & Schminke, 2002; Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Richmond, Bissell, & Beach, 1998; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). However, we found this not to occur at the group level. There were no cross-foci effects for PJ and IPJ climate. IFJ climate did demonstrate some cross-foci effects, but organization-focused IFJ climate predicted all three supervisor-focused outcomes, a reversal of the cross-foci effect discussed in past individual-level research. This is interesting for at least two reasons. First, this shows that individual- and group-level justice perceptions function differently. Second, whereas the supervisor seems to be relevant in predicting cross-foci effects at the individual level, at the group level, the organization seems to drive such effects. This is further evidence that justice climate may in fact be a distinct construct that explains variance in work outcomes over and above the effects of individual justice perceptions. However, as mentioned above, theories are needed that explain why these different climate variables exert differential effects. One model that might be extended for this purpose is the agent–system model (Bies & Moag, 1986). This model makes a distinction between decision-making systems (organizations) and decision-making agents (supervisors). Early conceptualizations of this model purported that PJ influences evaluations of the system, whereas IJ influences evaluations of the agent. However, individual-level multifoci research has shown that both procedures and interpersonal treatment impact evaluations of both systems and agents (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). At the group level, the current study found that people used system-focused PJ climate to decide how to react to the system and used agent-focused PJ climate to decide how to react to the agent. On the other hand, they used system-focused IFJ climate to decide how to react to both the system and the agent. Finally, they used agent-focused IPJ climate to decide how to react to the agent, but not the system. Indeed, the system–agent model, the multifoci model, and other models of organizational justice need to take into account differential and cross-foci justice effects at both the individual and the group level of analysis. Justice climate and commitment. Of all of the dependent variables used in this study, commitment led to the highest number of significant results. This led us to ask, Why was commitment easier to predict with justice climate than the other dependent variables? One possible answer to this question is provided by social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). Contemporary versions of this theory (e.g., Cropanzano, Rupp, et al., 2001) state that employees form either economic (transactional) or social (relational or socioemotional) exchange relationships with their employers. Social exchange relationships often lead employees to be more satisfied with their jobs and perform more citizenship behaviors at work, and such relationships have been found to mediate justice effects on similar outcomes such as satisfaction and citizenship (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). Given that such relationships involve obligations, attachments, and identification, past research suggests that commitment may serve as a proxy measure of social exchange (Bishop & Scott, 2000; Bishop, Scott, & Burroughs, 2002; Cropanzano & Prehar, 2001; Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey, & Toth, 1997; Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, 2003; Decktop, Mangel, & Cirka, 1999; Randall, Cropanzano, Borman, & Birjulin, 1999). If this is true, then commitment may be more proximally related to

justice in the construct space, whereas satisfaction and citizenship may be more distal variables. This could explain why more significant justice climate effects were found for commitment than for satisfaction or citizenship. Indeed, future research might consider testing commitment and other social exchange variables (e.g., trust, relational psychological contracts, perceived support) as mediators of justice climate effects. Future research might also consider whether unit- or group-level exchange relationships might exist. The role of justice orientation. A fourth interesting finding was that of all our hypothesized interactions, justice orientation served as a moderator of supervisor-focused PJ climate effects only when predicting supervisory commitment and satisfaction. This finding provides some support for the extension of the deontological model of workplace justice (Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2003; Rupp, 2003; Rupp, Byrne, & Wadlington, 2003). Whereas the model implies that individual differences may impact justice judgments, we sought to test whether individual differences in justice orientation interacted with justice climate in predicting individual-level outcomes. To find any significant results here should be of great interest to researchers in this area. Perhaps at the group level, organizational injustices and justice judgments made about information and interpersonal treatment are quite obvious and cause people to get upset regardless of their moral or ethical makeup. This could certainly explain the public outcry regarding recent corporate scandals. In addition, because all employees work for an organization, organizational injustices may be more salient because they are talked about and are much more a part of the corporate culture. Conversely, the climate surrounding injustices coming from the supervisor, made about workplace policies, may be subtler. Supervisors and subordinates have oneon-one relationships, so there may be fewer external cues available to make the presence of injustice salient. Therefore, those higher in justice orientation may be more sensitive to supervisor-focused PJ climate than to the other justice climate types. Our analyses also indicated an unhypothesized cross-foci interaction effect between organization-focused IFJ climate and justice orientation in the prediction of supervisor-directed citizenship behavior. In our sample, organization-focused IFJ exerted effects on all three supervisor-directed outcomes. IFJ has received far less research attention than the other justice types, but in our sample, it exerted many interesting effects. Future research should seek to determine whether this interaction replicates, as well as to further understand the construct of IFJ, at both the individual and group levels. Negative effects. Finally, although not related to our specific study hypotheses, we found a few significant cross-foci effects for climate that were in the opposite direction of what we would expect: Organization-focused PJ climate had a negative interaction with justice orientation when predicting supervisory commitment and satisfaction, and supervisor-focused PJ and IFJ climate had a negative main effect on organizational citizenship behavior. We suspect that these significant-but-in-the-wrong-direction estimates were largely due to multicollinearity in the analyses resulting from high intercorrelations among justice perceptions at Level 1, at Level 2, and across levels. We discuss this issue in more detail below. Indeed, when we excluded supervisor-focused PJ climate variables from the function predicting supervisory satisfaction, the coefficient for the interaction between organization-focused PJ

A CROSS-LEVEL MULTIFOCI FRAMEWORK OF JUSTICE

253

climate and justice orientation became insignificant. We found a similar pattern for the other negative effects: They became insignificant when we included justice climate variables from only one source. Thus, we feel these seemingly illogical findings should be interpreted with caution, or not interpreted at all.

Study Limitations
One limitation to our study is our lack of significant findings. Several factors could have attenuated our results. First, our relatively small number of groups constrained our statistical power to detect the hypothesized relationships. Second, whereas HLM is well equipped to handle models with variables at different levels, it does not take into consideration measurement errors of these variables. Thus, unreliability within our measures may have further attenuated the results. Third, the restriction of range on both the outcomes and the justice climate variables (as evidenced by their low to modest amount of between-groups variance) may have limited the capability to identify significant climate and Climate Justice Orientation interaction effects. In addition, we were limited in that, owing to multicollinearity, we were not able to test for the effects of all justice facets simultaneously and hence were unable to control for facet interrelations. The average correlation among justice types within the same focus or source at the individual level was .74. Aggregation to the group level to form various justice climate constructs further increased the average intercorrelations among the three justice types within the same source to .82. Thus, the intercorrelations among the three interaction terms involving justice orientation and three types of justice climate within the same source were also high. Unfortunately, current regression techniques (OLS or HLM) are not able to differentiate the individual effect of factors with such high intercorrelations. This might suggest that we should have collapsed the justice types into two composites reflecting supervisor- and organization-focused justice. But this is less than ideal as well, in that research has clearly shown that although strongly related, the different justice types are empirically distinct and should not be lumped together (e.g., Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano et al., 2002; Masterson et al., 2000; Moye et al., 1997; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002; Simons & Roberson, 2003; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). In fact, Colquitt et al. (2001) have called for a moratorium on research designs that would combine the justices into a single variable. Given these findings, as well as our CFA results, which show the six-factor model to fit the data significantly better than the two-factor model, we did not combine justice types within source so as not to hide true or differential justice effects or risk sending a misleading message about these important constructs (see Bies, 2001; Bobocel & Holmvall, 1999, 2001, for more on this “very similar but different” issue facing many justice researchers). Therefore, as a compromise, we decided to examine each justice type individually but to examine the two justice foci simultaneously. Although less than ideal, we felt this was an acceptable compromise given the meta-analytic research showing that each justice type does in fact contribute uniquely to the creation of fairness perceptions (Colquitt et al., 2001). The third limitation of the current study is its cross-sectional design, which precludes any conclusions about the causal ordering of the variables in our model. Future research should examine how

these relationships develop and unfold over time using longitudinal research designs. Fourth, because many of our individual-level measures were assessed via self-report, the significant relationships found in this study are not immune to inflation due to common method bias. However, the operationalization of the group-level constructs including justice climate involved aggregating individual member perceptions to the group level, thereby mitigating the perception– perception inflation. In addition, method bias should not have been a problem in the relationships between independent variables and employee citizenship behavior, because citizenship was measured via supervisor report. A final concern has to do with the accuracy of the climate measures. In the current study, climate was constructed using the direct consensus approach (Chan, 1999) by aggregating perceptions about individuals’ personal experience. This measure, although based on the answers of most group members, represents an indirect measure of group experience. Future research would benefit from a referent-shift consensus approach (Chan, 1999), which involves first having group members evaluate directly how procedurally, informationally, and interpersonally just the group as a whole is treated, both by the organization and by the supervisor, and then aggregating their responses to the group level.

Future Research
In addition to those already mentioned, there are several avenues on which future researchers might consider embarking. First, the justice community has a new, published, well-validated measure of justice (Colquitt, 2001). Although not multifoci in nature, the Colquitt scales measure procedural, informational, and interactional justice. Future research should consider adapting these scales to make them multifoci in nature. The Colquitt scale also provides a measure of distributive justice, which could be adapted to measure multifoci distributive justice climate in future studies. Furthermore, justice researchers might consider expanding the multifoci model to include additional sources of justice (e.g., peers, subordinates, customers) as well as multiple targets of justice (e.g., the self, the group, another, another group). Second, future research in this area might consider attempting to replicate the results found in this study using more formalized “teams” as opposed to work groups in general. Whereas we were interested in exploring the pervasiveness of a general justice climate within work units, it would be interesting to see whether such a justice climate forms within cross-functional teams, new product development teams, and other types of temporary teams that come together for a specific and shorter term purpose. Such research would be highly relevant given the rise of team-based organizations (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Third, whereas we examined the impact of individual justice perceptions, justice climate, and justice orientation on individuallevel work outcomes including satisfaction, commitment, and citizenship, future research might investigate their influences on other important work outcomes, such as performance, withdrawal, absenteeism, and turnover at multiple levels. Lastly, although a couple of studies have examined the antecedents of justice climate, including group size, group diversity, group collectivism, and supervisor’s visibility (Colquitt et al., 2002; Naumann & Bennett, 2000), these studies have examined only one

254

LIAO AND RUPP

type of justice climate (i.e., PJ climate). Our study received some support that justice climate differs in terms of both type (i.e., PJ vs. IFJ vs. IPJ) and source (i.e., organization vs. supervisor) and that these different forms of justice climate operate differently when predicting work outcomes. Therefore, it might be the case that these different justice climate variables have different antecedents or different relationships with the same antecedent. Future research should develop a comprehensive framework regarding relevant group and organizational factors that engender various forms of justice climate.

Implications for Practice
In addition to providing many avenues for future research in the area of workplace justice, our results present several implications for practice. That is, the incremental effects of the six justice climate variables measured in this study suggest that it is not enough for organizations to be concerned only about the consequences resulting from individual employees being treated unfairly. Indeed, injustice affects more than simply the target of such acts. Our data and the data of others (Colquitt et al., 2002; Mossholder et al., 1998; Naumann & Bennett, 2000; Simons & Roberson, 2003) suggest that the existence of injustice (regardless of the target) creates a context or climate of injustice that can significantly impact the attitudes and behaviors of work groups. This suggests that supervisors not only need to pay special attention to those who might be susceptible to bias and other types of unfairness (e.g., women and minorities) but also should make a point that all organizational members are cognizant of fairness efforts. Furthermore, our data suggest that if such efforts are taken, they should involve organizational policies, communication, and interpersonal treatment, coming from both supervisors and the organization as a whole. Past research has shown that managers can be effectively trained to be more procedurally fair. Skarlicki and Latham (1996) based a managerial training program on Leventhal’s (1976, 1980) determinants of PJ and found that the training not only predicted more positive subordinate perceptions of PJ but also led to more citizenship behaviors directed at both the organization and other individuals within the organization. The results of the current study suggest that such justice training could effectively be expanded in many ways. First, just as Skarlicki and Latham did for PJ, training for IFJ and IPJ could be built around theories and research in this area (e.g., Bies & Moag, 1986; Colquitt, 2001; Folger & Bies, 1989; Greenberg, 1993). Second, such training programs could be expanded to include components that train managers to understand that employees evaluate how fairly both they themselves and others are treated and that employees make such evaluations about multiple entities (e.g., both the supervisors and the organization as a whole). In addition, the same taxonomic models of PJ, IFJ, and IPJ, as well as the climate literature, could be drawn from to train managers how to engender just climates and avoid unjust climates. Mossholder et al. (1998) also suggest incorporating elements of impression management and social accounts into training to further this goal, as well as to link fairness behaviors to specific organizational functions, such as compensation, strategy, performance appraisal, and so forth. These types of interventions could utilize a variety of assessment and development techniques, in-

cluding traditional training methods, as well as developmental assessment centers (Rupp, Gibbons, Runnels, Anderson, & Thornton, 2003). In conclusion, this research represents the first known attempt at taking a cross-level, person–situation approach to the study of multifoci justice. The data presented provide a promising pattern of results that will hopefully be explored further by researchers integrating cross-level/multitype/multifoci models. Given the robustness of workplace justice on highly relevant work outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2001), this research continues to have direct implications on how organizations and managers interact with employees and set up policies to govern them.

References
Allen, M. W., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18. Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 947–965. Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235–258. Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89 –118). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 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. Bishop, J. W., & Scott, K. D. (2000). An examination of organizational and team commitment in a self-directed team environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 439 – 450. Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., & Burroughs, S. M. (2002). Support, commitment, and employee outcomes in a team environment. Journal of Management, 26, 1113–1132. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349 –381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bobocel, D. R., & Holmvall, C. (1999, April). Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice: Exploring the nomological network of organizational justice constructs. Paper presented at the 14th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA. Bobocel, D. R., & Holmvall, C. (2001). Are interactional justice and procedural justice different? Framing the debate. In S. Gilliland, D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in management: Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice (pp. 85–110). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Byrne, Z. S. (1999, April). How do procedural and interactional justice influence multiple levels of organizational outcomes? Paper presented at the 14th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA. Cappelli, P., & Sherer, P. D. (1991). The missing role of context in OB: The need for a meso-level approach. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 13, pp. 55–110). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Chan, D. (1999). Functional relations among constructs in the same content

A CROSS-LEVEL MULTIFOCI FRAMEWORK OF JUSTICE domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234 –246. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 356 – 400. 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. Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55, 83–109. Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164 –209. Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2003). Deonic justice: The role of moral principles in workplace fairness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 1019 –1024. Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159 –180. Cropanzano, R., & Prehar, C. (2001). Emerging justice concerns in an era of changing psychological contracts. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace. Vol. II: From theory to practice (pp. 245–269). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group and Organizational Management, 27, 324 –351. Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. (2003). The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 160 – 169. Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., Mohler, C. J., & Schminke, M. (2001). Three roads to organizational justice. In J. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 20, pp. 1–113). New York: JAI Press. Decktop, J. R., Mangel, R., & Cirka, C. C. (1999). Getting more than you pay for: Organizational citizenship behavior and pay-for-performance plans. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 420 – 428. Degoey, P. (2000). Contagious justice: Exploring the social construction of justice in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 51– 102. Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565–573. Folger, R. (1998). Fairness as a moral virtue. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Moral management of people and processes (pp. 13–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Folger, R. (2001). Fairness as deonance. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in management (Vol. 1, pp. 3–33). New York: Information Age Publishing. Folger, R., & Bies, R. J. (1989). Managerial responsibilities and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 79 – 89. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. Folger (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 1–55). Lexington, MA: New Lexington Press. George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 107–116. Gerstner, C., & Day, D. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827– 844. Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.),

255

Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79 –103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 199 –267). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Theoretical and methodological implications for organizational science. Journal of Management, 23, 623– 641. Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1996). A cross-level investigation of factors influencing unsafe behaviors and accidents. Personnel Psychology, 49, 307–339. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306 –309. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1986). Fairness and the assumptions of economics. Journal of Business, 59, 285–300. King, D. C. (1960). A multiplant factor analysis of employees’ attitudes toward their company. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44, 241–243. Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). London: Wiley. Kozlowski, S. W., & Hattrup, K. (1992). A disagreement about withingroup agreement: Disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 161–167. Kozlowski, S. W., & Hults, B. M. (1987). An exploration of climates for technical updating and performance. Personnel Psychology, 40, 539 – 563. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 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. 9 –131). New York: Academic Press. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum Press. Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader–member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 15, pp. 47–119). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. (1998). The social construction of injustice: Fairness judgments in response to own and others’ unfair treatment by authorities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 1–22. Louis, M. R., Posner, B. Z., & Powell, G. N. (1983). The availability and helpfulness of socialization practices. Personnel Psychology, 36, 857– 866. Malatesta, R. M. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of organizational and supervisory commitment using a social exchange framework. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University. Malatesta, R. M., & Byrne, Z. S. (1997, April). The impact of formal and interactional procedures on organizational outcomes. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO. Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000).

256

LIAO AND RUPP approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224 –253. Schmitt, M., & Dorfel, M. (1999). Procedural injustice at work, justice ¨ sensitivity, job satisfaction, and psychosomatic well-being. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 443– 453. Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437– 454. Schneider, B. (1990). The climate for service: An application of the climate construct. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 383– 412). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: Test of a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 150 –163. Shore, L. M., Newton, L. A., & Thornton, G. C., III. (1990). Job and organizational attitudes in relation to employee behavioral intentions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 57– 67. Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: The effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 432– 443. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The rules of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434 – 443. Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1996). Increasing citizenship behavior within a labor union: A test of organizational justice theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 161–169. Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand-McNally. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Turillo, C. J., Folger, R., Lavelle, J. J., Umphress, E. E., & Gee, J. O. (2002). Is virtue its own reward? Self-sacrificial decisions for the sake of fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 839 – 865. Warr, P. B., & Routledge, T. (1969). An opinion scale for the measurement of managers’ job satisfaction. Occupational Psychology, 43, 95–109. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601– 617.

Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738 –748. Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). A multilevel analysis of procedural justice context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 131–141. Moye, N. A., Masterson, S. S., & Bartol, K. M. (1997, August). Differentiating antecedents and consequences of procedural and interactional justice: Empirical evidence in support of separate constructs. Paper presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Management, Boston. Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. (2000). A case for procedural justice climate: Development and test of a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 881– 889. Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learning process: The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849 – 874. Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Borman, C. A., & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 159 –174. Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. (2000). HLM5: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. Richmond, S. M., Bissell, B. L., & Beach, L. R. (1998). Image theory’s compatibility test and evaluations of the status quo. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 39 –53. Rupp, D. E. (2003, April). Testing the moral violations component of fairness theory: The moderating role of value preferences. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL. Rupp, D. E., Byrne, Z. S., & Wadlington, P. (2003, April). Justice orientation and its measurement: Extending the deontological model. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL. Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). Multifoci justice and social exchange relationships. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925–946. Rupp, D. E., Gibbons, A. M., Runnels, T., Anderson, L., & Thornton, G. C., III. (2003, August). What should developmental assessment centers be assessing? Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Seattle, WA. Salancik, G. J., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing

Received March 13, 2003 Revision received December 3, 2003 Accepted February 2, 2004