Journal of Business Research 85 (2018) 142–154

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Performance appraisal fairness, leader member exchange and motivation to T

improve performance: A study of US and Mexican employees
⁎
T.T. Selvarajana, Barjinder Singhb, , Stephanie Solanskyc
a
College of Business and Economics, California State University East Bay, California, USA
b
Martha & Spencer Love School of Business, Elon University, Elon, NC, USA
c
McCoy College of Business Administration, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this research, we examine the relationship between three dimensions of performance appraisal fairness
Leader member exchange (distributive, procedural and interactive fairness), leader-member exchange (LMX) and motivation to improve
Performance appraisal fairness performance among a sample of US and Mexico employees. We hypothesized that all the fairness dimensions will
Motivation to improve performance be positively related to LMX and that LMX will be positively related to motivation to improve performance for
Cross-cultural
employees in both countries. Further, we proposed that national culture will moderate these effects such that,
Mexico and US
the relationships between fairness dimensions and LMX, as well as between LMX and motivation to improve
performance will be stronger for the employees in the US. A survey of employees in the US (N = 219) and
Mexico (N = 203) provided support for most of the hypothesized relationships. We discussed implications of this
research and the universality of the relationships between fairness, LMX, and motivation to improve perfor-
mance across the two countries.

1. Introduction LMX quality, which further influences employee motivation to improve

Due to the emphasis on performance management (Buchner, 2007;
Pulakos, 2009), performance appraisal is increasingly regarded as a tool
for effectively managing employee performance. In a review of per-
formance appraisal research, DeNisi and Pritchard (2006) suggest that
the ultimate goal of performance appraisal should be to motivate em-
ployees to improve their performance. However, past appraisal research
has predominantly emphasized on psychometric issues, which has dis-
tracted research away from motivational aspects of how performance
appraisals can be translated into improved performance (Aguinis &
Pierce, 2008; DeNisi & Pritchard, 2006; Rynes, Colbert, & Brown,
2002). From a motivational perspective, a key outcome of performance
appraisal is employee motivation to improve future performance
((Jawahar, 2010; Maurer & Palmer, 1999; Pichler, 2012). Two under-
lying mechanisms that merit attention in regard to the motivation to
improve performance are the perceptions of LMX and fairness (e.g.,
Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000).
First, from a leadership perspective, LMX, defined as the quality of
exchange between supervisors and their subordinates, is suggested to be
an important source of motivation to improve performance (Erdogan,
2002; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Klein & Kim, 1998). Second, it is im-
portant to understand how performance appraisal processes impact the
performance (Erdogan, 2002; Masterson et al., 2000). The dynamics of
a performance appraisal process involves dyadic exchanges between
supervisors and their subordinates, and thus, can potentially influence
the quality of the LMX as subordinates evaluate the fairness of the
process (Elicker, Levy, & Hall, 2006; Erdogan, 2002).
Research on fairness has established that it consists of three distinct
dimensions: distributive, procedural and interactive fairness (Cohen-
Charash & Spector, 2001). Only a handful of studies have examined the
relationship between fairness and LMX (e.g., Haynie, Cullen, Lester,
Winter, & Svyantek, 2014; Tziner, Felea, & Vasiliu, 2015) and research
on this relationship has focused on interactive fairness perceptions
(Erdogan, 2002; Masterson et al., 2000). There has been very little re-
search on the relationship between the other two dimensions of fairness
(distributive and procedural fairness) and LMX in a performance ap-
praisal context. Addressing this research gap is particularly important
given that employees primarily rely on their perceptions of fairness
when evaluating their organizational situation (Hooper & Martin,
2006). Fairness perceptions likely drive much of employee behaviors as
described in the equity theory of motivation (Adams, 1963) which
provides even further reason to include fairness in a model attempted to
determine motivation to improve performance.
This research is positioned to address some of the limitations in

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rajan.selvarajan@csueastbay.edu (T.T. Selvarajan), bsingh3@elon.edu (B. Singh), solanskys@uhv.edu (S. Solansky).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.11.043
Received 25 April 2016; Received in revised form 28 August 2017; Accepted 29 November 2017
Available online 04 January 2018
0148-2963/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
T.T. Selvarajan et al.
PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS CULTURE
LMX
DISTRIBUTIVE FAIRNESS
INTERACTIVE FAIRNESS
Fig. 1. Theoretical model.
current research by examining the role of LMX as a mediator of the
fairness and motivation to improve relationship. Our research con-
tributes to the LMX and performance appraisal empirical and theore-
tical literature in several ways. First, we focus on the relationship be-
tween all dimensions of fairness and LMX. Previous research in the
context of performance appraisal has focused on only interactive fair-
ness. We believe that our focus on all the dimensions make an im-
portant contribution to the literature as procedural and distributive
fairness dimensions are important facets of performance appraisal
process. Second, we expand the criterion domain of LMX by examining
the relationship between LMX and motivation to improve performance.
Although previous studies have extensively examined the relationship
between LMX and job performance (Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson,
2007), there has been very little research conducted on the relationship
between LMX and employee motivation to improve performance (Klein
& Kim, 1998). Several theoretical models have suggested that the
ability to motivate employees is one of the key intermediary outcomes
of LMX (Erdogan, 2002; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997), the current
research extends our knowledge of LMX literature by empirically
evaluating this relationship.
Third, we examine these relationships in two different countries:
Mexico and the US. Organizational researchers have always called for
extending the research domain outside the familiar research grounds of
the US and Europe. The research models developed in the US, which are
characterized by individualism and low power distance, may not be
applicable to other cultural contexts such as Mexico (Aycan et al., 2000;
Fletcher & Perry, 2001; Hofstede, 2001; Miller, Hom, & Gomez-Mejia,
2001). Therefore, it is important to examine the validity of research
models, which are grounded in US work values, in cultural contexts
outside of the US (Chiang & Birtch, 2010). Although, in recent years,
there has been considerable research interest in China and other Asian
countries (e.g., Meng & Wu, 2015), research in the Latin American
contexts is still relatively neglected (Davila & Elvìra, 2007). In a review
of research agenda for Latin America, Vassolo, DeCastro, and Gomez-
Mejia (2011), lamented that empirical research on important manage-
ment processes in the cultural context of Latin America is ‘almost
nonexistent’. This omission is especially glaring considering the fact
that Latin America represents the second most important emerging
economic region in the world (Vassolo et al., 2011). It is especially
important for researchers to look at Latin American countries such as
Mexico when making cross-cultural comparisons with the US. Mexico
and the US not only share a border; they are also major trading part-
ners. It is beneficial for managers to understand both similarities and
differences in what motivates people to improve performance when
considering US and Mexico employees.
Mexico, is an integral part of Latin America (Gwynne & Cristobal,
2014), and being an important trade partner of US under the North
American Free Trade (NAFTA) agreement, is home to numerous US-
based and foreign-based manufacturing firms (Posthuma, Joplin, &
Maertz, 2005). As an important trade partner of US, with US-Mexico
trade totaling an estimated value of $583 Billion in 2015 (Office of the
United States Trade Representative), it is important to understand the
generalizability and applicability of US-based theories and management
constructs in Mexican context. By using country as a proxy, in the ex-
amination of the relationship between fairness, LMX and motivation to
143
Journal of Business Research 85 (2018) 142–154
CULTURE
Motivation to Improve Performance
improve performance, our study enhances the understanding of cross-
cultural differences in important management processes such as lea-
dership and performance appraisal across two countries. Our choice of
using country as a proxy to measure national culture is motivated by
two reasons. First, within the domain of cross-cultural research a vast
majority (79%) of studies have reported to have used country as proxy
to measure national culture (e.g., Richter et al., 2016; Schaffer &
Riordan, 2003). Second, the use of country as proxy is also advanta-
geous, as it is not subject to common method bias, which can creep into
individual reporting of cultural orientations (Spector, Liu, & Sanchez,
2015).
In summary, the current research extends literature on performance
appraisal by addressing important gaps in our understanding of how
fairness and leadership processes can influence employee motivation to
improve performance. By extending this research to Mexican cultural
context, our research also contributes to generalizability of research to
other cultures.
2. Theoretical foundations and literature review
2.1. Theoretical foundations
The theoretical basis for the model shown in Fig. 1 is based on LMX
theory (Graen, Liden, & Hoel, 1982) and cross cultural perspectives
(Hofstede, 2001). LMX theory provides a unique framework in the as-
sessment and evaluation of the impact of supervisor-subordinate re-
lationships (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Wang, Xu, Liu, & Jiang, 2015;
Williams, Scandura, Pissaris, & Woods, 2016). One of the basic premises
of LMX theory is that there are differences in the quality of relationships
the leaders enjoy with their subordinates (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga,
1975; Graen et al., 1982; Liden & Graen, 1980). Consequently, this
relationship quality acts as a chief determinant of outcomes at the in-
dividual, group, and organizational levels (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen
& Uhl-Bien, 1995). Put differently, higher-quality exchange relation-
ships between leaders and followers are associated with more positive
outcomes and fewer work-related problems. Incorporating a relation-
ship-based approach to leadership, LMX theory stresses on the im-
portance of mature and healthy leader-follower relationships and the
impact such relationships can have on employee behavioral and atti-
tudinal outcomes (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991; Wang et al., 2015). Further,
from a self-determination perspective, perceptions of fairness and LMX
can contribute to intrinsic motivation to improve performance as fair-
ness is considered as a fundamental human need and LMX can con-
tribute to better relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Hartmann & Slapničar,
2012). In addition, motivation crowding theory (Frey, 1997; Jacobsen
& Andersen, 2014) also predicts that employees may respond better to
intrinsically motivating factors such as fairness and leader member
exchange for better performance rather than extrinsic rewards.
Within LMX literature there has been a lot research done with re-
spect to antecedents and outcomes of LMX but most of the research is
limited to contiguous US. Also, with respect to the antecedent or cri-
terion side of LMX, in most cases, the influence of dyadic exchange
processes on LMX has be relatively ignored (Henderson, Liden,
Glibkowski, & Chaudhry, 2009). Similarly, with respect to the outcome
side of LMX too there is a dearth of research examining the influence of
T.T. Selvarajan et al.
LMX on individual intentions (Henderson et al., 2009). Building on the
perspective of LMX and by conducting a cross-cultural study with US
and Mexican settings our research attempts to establishes LMX as un-
derlying motivation mechanism between fairness-motivation to im-
prove relationship in dual cultural contexts of USA and Mexico, as il-
lustrated in Fig. 1.
Although we do not explicitly focus on autonomy or self-determi-
nation of individuals, we believe the essence of self-determination
theory can also help explain the relationship between employee's fair-
ness perceptions and motivation to improve performance through LMX.
According to self-determination theory, human motivation is a cogni-
tive and social psychological process that explains the mobilization of
action (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Autonomy is a central premise of self-de-
termination and autonomous motivation involves actions based on the
individual's endorsement of actions at the highest level of reflection
(Gagne & Deci, 2005). More specifically, self-determination theory
suggests that when individuals are genuinely satisfied with a process or
task, they will be more intrinsically motivated (Gagne & Deci, 2005).
For the purposes of our paper, self-determination theory supports that if
the employee is satisfied with performance appraisal through a positive
perception of fairness and LMX, it is likely they will be more in-
trinsically motivated and self-determined to improve performance.
2.2. Performance appraisal fairness and LMX
Research on organizational justice or fairness has established that
interactive, distributive and procedural fairness are related to in-
dividual, group and organizational outcomes (Biswas, Varma, &
Ramaswami, 2013; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Poon,
2012; Williams et al., 2016). Within the realm of organizational lea-
dership, the construct of LMX is of significant importance and is defined
as a form of social exchange that particularly focuses on dyadic re-
lationships between leaders and their followers (Graen et al., 1982).
According to LMX theory, repeated exchanges between leaders and
their followers shape leader-member relationships, whereby, leaders
resort to differential treatment of their followers. Some followers enjoy
a high quality of exchange relationship with their leader which is re-
plete with mutual trust and support, while others experience a more
formal LMX relationship.
The above definition of LMX suggests that fairness perceptions
formed in the course of dyadic exchange can play an important role in
shaping perceptions of LMX. For example, lower-quality exchange re-
lationships might be caused by a sense of unfairness and not being
treated equitably (Deluga, 1994). An important question that arises is
the assessment of the role played by each form of fairness in influencing
LMX. Out of the three forms of fairness, interactional fairness, which is
reminiscent of the quality of interpersonal exchange between em-
ployees and their supervisors, has been found to positively influence the
quality of LMX (Burton, Sablynski, & Sekiguchi, 2008; Moorman,
Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998). When employees are treated with fairness
and dignity in their interactions with their supervisor, the quality of
relationship between the supervisor and the employee improves. But
the remaining two forms of fairness, distributive and procedural, which
represent the exchange between employees and their respective orga-
nizations, are regarded as system or structural level constructs, and are
accordingly have not been previously directly connected to the lea-
dership process (Masterson et al., 2000). However, in the context of
performance appraisal, we believe that distributive and procedural di-
mensions of fairness should also have a bearing on the leadership
process (Erdogan, 2002). Along with structural and system level prop-
erties, procedural and distributive forms of fairness also encompass
supervisory/social level properties and can significantly influence the
leadership process (Blader & Tyler, 2003; Burton et al., 2008). Leaders
strive to develop high quality relationships with the expectation that
their subordinates may reciprocate this favor by exhibiting increased
motivation to improve their performance (Klein & Kim, 1998).
144
Journal of Business Research 85 (2018) 142–154
Procedural fairness requirements make it important for the super-
visors to adhere to the established rules and procedures while ap-
praising their subordinates' performance. We expect employees who
perceive that their managers followed the procedures fairly should have
a positive perception of LMX (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002; Sparr &
Sonnentag, 2008). Research in performance appraisal suggests that
performance ratings can be a source of rater biases such as liking and
political influences (Cardy & Dobbins, 1994). Thus, perceptions of
distributive fairness can be a source for determining the quality of LMX
(DeConinck & Stilwell, 2004; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002; Sparr &
Sonnentag, 2008). Thus we expect that distributive and procedural
forms of fairness will be positively related to perceptions of LMX. Cross
cultural researchers have observed that perceptions of fairness and LMX
as well as norms of reciprocity are important for employees across
cultures and thus the theoretical rationale underlying the research
model based on studies in US context should be applicable to a Mexico
context as well (Aycan et al., 2000; Kim & Leung, 2007; Pillai,
Scandura, & Williams, 1997).
Mexico has been an important setting for cross-cultural research by
many researchers (e.g., Hofstede, 1980; Hernandez-Romero, 2010;
House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Navarro, 2005.
Based on the initial findings by Hofstede (1980), as a country Mexico
had been characterized as a culture that is high on uncertainty avoid-
ance, high on power distance, and with high collectivistic and mascu-
line cultural values. While on one hand, Hofstede's findings about
Mexico have been confirmed by several researchers, at the same time
Hofstede's findings have also been contradicted by researchers like
Rotondo-Fernandez, Carlson, Stepina, and Nicholson (1997) and
Navarro (2005), who report that Mexicans are comfortable with un-
certainty and ambiguity, in other words are low on uncertainty
avoidance.
The competing findings on Mexican cultural values have often been
attributed to the fact that Mexico is undergoing a cultural transforma-
tion; due to globalization, exposure to global trends and NAFTA, cul-
tural values of Mexican are in a state of flux (Ruiz, Wang, & Hamlin,
2013). Also, based on how cultural dimensions are measured (i.e.,
Hofstede's framework vs. GLOBE study), differential findings have been
reported (Brewer & Venaik, 2011). But these contradictions do not
preclude the importance of national culture in impacting individual
behavior. In fact, cross-cultural organizational behavior research has
revealed that differences in national cultural influence individual per-
ceptions regarding organizational phenomena, such as leadership and
organizational fairness (Euwema, Wendt, & van Emmerik, 2007;
Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009).
Although previous research has not considered the relationship
between fairness and LMX in the Mexico context, based on the evidence
from US context, we expect that both forms of fairness will also have a
similar impact on LMX even in the Mexican context.
Hypothesis 1. Procedural fairness is positively related to LMX for the a)
Mexico sample and b) for the US sample.
Hypothesis 2. Interactive fairness is positively related to LMX for the a)
Mexico sample and b) for the US sample.
Hypothesis 3. Distributive fairness is positively related to LMX for the
a) Mexican sample and b) for the US sample.
2.3. LMX and motivation to improve performance
Considerable research has substantiated the influence of leadership
mechanisms such as LMX on individual, group and organizational
outcomes (DeConinck, 2009; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Martin, Guillaume,
Thomas, Lee, & Epitropaki, 2016; Xu, Liu, & Guo, 2014). Therefore,
resultant leader and member attitudes and behaviors are an important
function of the quality of the exchange between the leader and the
subordinate. LMX theory suggests that in positive leader-subordinate
T.T. Selvarajan et al.
relationships there is a sense of obligation created on the part of sub-
ordinates to respond in the same positive manner in which they are
treated by their supervisors (Gerstner & Day, 1997). In the assessment
of LMX quality, subordinates are hardly ever asked to reveal their
leader's expectation of them (Liden et al., 1997). An obligation to re-
ciprocate, which is an important implicit rule in the social exchange
process (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Gouldner, 1960), is responsible
for motivating positive subordinate reciprocation in high quality LMX.
Empirical research has also substantiated the above claims, whereby
high quality LMX has been reported to positively influence subordinate
attitudes and behaviors (DeConinck, 2009; Liden et al., 1997; Xu et al.,
2014). For example, high quality LMX relationships have found to fa-
cilitate better communication, increased subordinate job satisfaction
and performance, and lower turnover intentions (Gerstner & Day,
1997). By the same token, we also believe that high quality LMX is also
associated with employees' motivation to improve performance. In a
high quality LMX, leaders are ready to offer their complete support and
ample growth opportunities to their subordinates, and, together, these
factors contribute significantly to subordinates' motivation to improve
performance. GLOBE research focused on cross cultural leadership
conducted by House and colleagues (e.g., House et al., 2004) estab-
lished that individuals within national cultural clusters have shared
implicit leadership theories regarding their expectations of leadership
behaviors and actions. In this research, some expectations of leadership
behavior and actions are shared across national cultures as best prac-
tices for leaders. Cross-cultural research suggests that reciprocity norms
exist across several cultures (e.g., Pillai et al., 1997; Pillai, Scandura, &
Williams, 1999) and thus we would expect that the positive relationship
between LMX and motivation to improve performance will exist for
both Mexico and US cultures.
a)
Hypothesis 4. LMX is positively related to motivation to improve
performance for the a) Mexico sample and b) US sample.
2.4. LMX as mediator of fairness-motivation to improve performance
relationship
Fairness perceptions influence important employee outcomes
through social exchanges (Masterson et al., 2000; Tekleab, Takeuchi, &
Taylor, 2005). In this research we expect to find that LMX quality
mediates the relationship between interactive, distributive and proce-
dural dimensions of fairness and employee motivation to improve
performance. High quality LMX not only stand for affective bonding
between leaders and their followers but also represent “unstated mutual
expectations of reciprocity” (Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005:
423). If supervisors treat their subordinates with fairness and honesty,
then not only do they earn subordinates' respect but they are also able
to influence superior subordinate behaviors. The meditational role of
LMX is hypothesized on the belief that perceptions of fairness nourish
the development of high quality LMX, which, by creating unstated
mutual expectations of reciprocity, influence employee motivation to
improve performance (Tekleab et al., 2005).
Research on social exchange theory has also shown that based on
leaders' treatment of their followers, social exchange processes, such as
LMX, play a key role in facilitating follower behavior (Burton et al.,
2008; Masterson et al., 2000; Wang et al., 2005). Over a period of time,
individual parties make sufficient investments in exchange relation-
ships, which help in the creation of a global schema of support history.
In the creation of these support histories, it is important for the initial
party (e.g., supervisor) to establish its fairness, which in turn creates an
obligation on the followers' part to reciprocate positively, and together
all the parties in the exchange process facilitate the foundation of
healthy social exchange (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960).
Empirically, it has been found that in the presence of interactional
145
Journal of Business Research 85 (2018) 142–154
fairness, LMX acts as an underlying mechanism that motivates em-
ployee behaviors (Burton et al., 2008; Masterson et al., 2000). Em-
ployees who are treated with respect and dignity tend to be more
motivated to improve their performance because of the better quality of
leader member exchange relationship as predicted by the social ex-
change theory. But prior research has not empirically established LMX
as a mediator of the relationship between procedural and distributive
fairness on one side and employee behaviors on the other. We expect
that LMX mediates the relationship between procedural and dis-
tributive forms of fairness and employee motivation to improve per-
formance (Erdogan, 2002). As mentioned earlier, cross-cultural re-
search suggests that the reciprocity norms underlying social exchange
theory is applicable across cultures (Kim & Leung, 2007; Pillai et al.,
1997, 1999; Wang et al., 2005). Thus, the mediating influence of LMX
on the relationship between fairness and motivation to improve per-
formance is extended to the Mexico context.
Hypothesis 5. LMX mediates the relationships between procedural
fairness and motivation to improve performance for the a) Mexico
sample and b) US sample.
Hypothesis 6. LMX mediates the relationships between interactive
fairness and motivation to improve performance for the a) Mexico
sample and b) US sample.
Hypothesis 7. LMX mediates the relationship between distributive
fairness and motivation to improve performance for the a) Mexico
sample and b) US sample.
2.5. Moderating effect of national culture
National culture is defined as collective characteristics that include
subjective elements such as norms, values and beliefs (Triandis, 1994).
As in current research, national culture has often been used as proxy for
culture and research has shown that employees from various national
cultures differ in the way they view organizational phenomena such as
leadership and organizational fairness (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007).
In several cross-cultural studies, it has been well empirically established
that employees in the US and Mexico contexts differ on several cultural
aspects such as individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance,
power distance, assertiveness and paternalism (Hofstede, 2001; House
et al., 2004). Research has also shown that national culture acts a major
boundary condition that impacts individual-level relationships. Ac-
cording to Smith and colleagues, in a given culture, the way individuals
behave or handle situations is regarded effective only if it is congruent
to the deeply held cultural beliefs (Smith, Peterson, & Thomason,
2011).
Research in cross-cultural organizational behavior suggests that
employees in different cultural contexts may have differing perceptions
of fairness reactions to leadership processes and motivation. That is,
cultural factors can be a potential moderator of the relationship be-
tween fairness, LMX and motivation to improve performance. By using
national culture as a proxy variable for measuring the moderating in-
fluence of Mexican and US samples, our approach is consistent with
several recent cross-cultural studies that have used national culture as a
proxy for assessing the moderating influence of national culture
(Chong, 2008; Euwema et al., 2007; Lu et al., 2010; Ramesh & Gelfand,
2010). In addition, the GLOBE research on cross cultural leadership
conducted by House and colleagues (e.g., House et al., 2004) has es-
tablished that individuals within national cultural clusters have shared
perceptions about leadership, consequently, individuals within a na-
tional cultural agree in their beliefs about leadership dimensions
(House et al., 2004). Building on the above arguments, in current re-
search, by using national culture as proxy, we examine the role played
by cultural values in explaining differences in relationships between
fairness, LMX and motivation to improve performance across Mexico
and US.
T.T. Selvarajan et al.
Employees in individualistic societies are more concerned about
individual outcomes such as performance ratings, and thus, they are
more sensitive to violations of justice, both distributive and procedural
forms of justice (Erdogan & Liden, 2006). In addition, individualistic
societies are often achievement oriented and react more negatively
when they perceive their performance ratings as unfair or the proce-
dures adopted are dishonest. In contrast, in collectivistic societies, such
as Mexico, employees are more concerned about group outcomes and
group harmony, and are less sensitive to individual outcomes, even if
the individual outcomes are somewhat unfair. Cross-cultural research
on individualism-collectivism suggests that individuals in in-
dividualistic cultures are more concerned about fairness while those in
collectivist cultures often keep their individual interests aside and are
more concerned about group interests (Earley & Gibson, 1998).
In the similar vein, in societies that rank high on power distance,
unequal distribution of power is well accepted by the masses (Begley,
Lee, Fang, & Li, 2002). In general, individuals in high power distance
countries are more submissive; prefer superiors who are more auto-
cratic and paternalistic in their approach towards leadership. In high
power distance cultures, individuals do not expect to be a part of the
decision making process as it is regarded to be the prerogative of su-
periors (Begley et al., 2002). Therefore, any violations with respect to
distributive or procedural justice do not hold much importance in high
power distance cultures. Rather, individuals in high power distance
cultures also believe in keeping a safe distance from their superiors. On
the contrary, individuals in low power distance countries have inherent
expectations that their superiors consult them in making important
decisions (Lam, Schaubroeck, & Aryee, 2002). Individuals in high
power distance societies, such as Mexico, out of deference to higher
authorities, are less likely to react negatively to violations of justice
(Begley et al., 2002). But on the contrary, in cultures that have low
power distance, individuals consider themselves as equal to their su-
periors, expect to play an important role in decision making and are
offended by any violations of distributive and/or procedural fairness.
The moderating influence of culture on the relationship between
interactive fairness and LMX can be explained in terms of power dis-
tance and collectivism. We expect that employees in high power dis-
tance societies to react less strongly to interactional fairness than em-
ployees in low power distance societies. In high power distance
societies such as Mexico, managers typically use directive or autocratic
leadership style (Euwema et al., 2007). Previous research suggests that
employees in high power distance cultures react less negatively to
violations of interactional justice by managers compared to employees
in low power distance culture (Lee, Pillutla, & Law, 2000). Thus, em-
ployees in high power distance societies who are used to deference to
authority may not have strong expectations to be treated with dignity
and respect in their interactions with their manager. Thus, lack of in-
teractive fairness low power distance cultures may not elicit strong
negative perception of quality of leader member exchange. In contrast,
employees in low power distance societies often expect their manage-
rs—even when these managers are using a directive leadership style to
treat them with respect and dignity. Thus, a lack of interactive fairness
in a low power distance society may be perceived by employees more
negatively in terms of quality of leader member exchange. Employees in
low power distance societies may also react more favorably to positive
interactional fairness because in a relatively egalitarian cultural en-
vironment because of higher expectations to be treated with dignity and
respect. Further, since employees in individualistic societies are more
concerned about fairness, we can expect that fairness in interactions are
a greater concern for employees in individualistic societies. In contrast,
collectivists may be more concerned about maintaining a harmonious
relationship and thus employees in collectivistic societies may react less
negatively to violation of interactional fairness norms.
Therefore, we expect that the relationship between all forms of
justice and LMX will be stronger for US employees than Mexican em-
ployees as the former is characterized by individualism and lower
146
Journal of Business Research 85 (2018) 142–154
power distance compared to the latter.
Hypothesis 8. The relationship between procedural fairness and LMX
will be stronger for US employees than Mexico employees.
Hypothesis 9. The relationship between interactive fairness and LMX
will be stronger for US employees than Mexico employees.
Hypothesis 10. The relationship between distributive fairness and LMX
will be stronger for US employees than Mexico employees.
2.5.1. Culture as moderator for LMX and motivation to improve
performance
Research in cross-cultural organizational behavior also suggests that
culture may moderate the relationship between leadership processes,
such as LMX and employee outcomes (Gelfand et al., 2007). In in-
dividualistic societies, employees may be more leader-oriented as they
may view leadership as a means to achieve their individual outcomes,
while employees in collectivistic cultures employees are more influ-
enced by group norms (Euwema et al., 2007). Additionally, employee
from collectivistic cultures view their relationship with their managers
as normative while the leader-member relationships for individualists
are governed by principles of social exchange (House et al., 2004).
Consequently, we feel that employees in individualistic societies re-
ciprocate more strongly to LMX in terms of outcomes such as motiva-
tion to improve performance. In addition, employees in high power
distance cultures, such as Mexico respond positively to authoritarian
leadership (Dorfman & Howell, 1997) and may not be as sensitive to the
positive influence of healthy LMX. A relatively more recent study on the
influence of power distance supports the notion that high power dis-
tance may inhibit the leadership effect on employee outcomes
(Vidyarthi, Liden, Anand, Erdogan, & Ghosh, 2010). The authors in this
research suggest that leaders in high power distance society may limit
social proximity and thus may inadvertently reduce the beneficial ef-
fects of leadership process on employee outcomes. Recently, in a meta
analytic research on the antecedents and consequences of LMX,
(Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012) found that power
distance moderated the effects of LMX on outcomes such that the effect
was more pronounced in low power distance cultures. Lee, Scandura,
and Sharif (2014) research in USA and South Korea suggests that the
influence of LMX on employee commitment was more effective in low
power distance cultures such as the USA. Further, since employees in
high power distance societies defer to authority, they are less sensitive
to reciprocal norms of LMX and for them the quality of LMX is less
important in determining employee outcomes such as motivation to
improve performance. Therefore, we offer the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 11. The relationship between LMX and motivation to
improve performance is stronger for the US employees than Mexico
employees.
3. Methods
3.1. Sample characteristics - Mexico sample
Participants in the Mexico sample consisted of 203 full- time em-
ployees employed in several organizations in a large city in Mexico.
These respondents were employed in a wide range of organizations
ranging from large firms with > 5000 employees to smaller firms with
fewer than 100 employees. In our sample, > 90% of the employees
were working in firms with > 100 employees. The average annual sales
revenue of the respondents' organizations was $25.5 million. The par-
ticipants for this study were recruited while attending an executive
education program at a university in a large city in Mexico. In terms of
gender, 63.5% of the respondents were men. The average age of the
respondents was 33.8 years, and their average total work experience
was 11.9 years. The respondents' average work experience in their
T.T. Selvarajan et al. Journal of Business Research 85 (2018) 142–154

Table 1
Descriptives and correlations for Mexican sample.

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. No. of employees 569.90 395.30 1

2. Gender 1.64 0.48 −0.15⁎ 1
3. Age 33.14 9.30 0.09 − 0.20⁎⁎ 1
4. LMX 3.55 1.08 0.08 − 0.06 −0.02 1
5. Procedural fairness 2.68 0.94 0.15⁎ − 0.04 0.08 − 0.1 1
6. Distributive fairness 2.92 0.87 0 0 −0.1 − 0.02 0.28⁎⁎ 1
7. Interactive fairness 3.18 0.87 −0.06 − 0.13 0.03 0.27⁎⁎ 0.21⁎⁎ 0.38⁎⁎ 1
8. Motivation to improve 3.47 1.29 −0.08 − 0.02 0.20 0.23⁎⁎ 0.28⁎⁎ 0.16⁎⁎ 0.18⁎

⁎
p < 0.05.
⁎⁎
p < 0.01.

current organization and in their current position was 8.1 years and
6.5 years respectively. In order to facilitate data collection in Mexico,
the survey instrument was translated into Spanish with back translation
procedure (Brislin, 1970) to ensure the quality of translation into
Spanish.
3.2. Sample characteristics – US samples
Participants in the US sample were a sample of 219 full time em-
ployees recruited from the Amazon mTurk website. Organizational
scholars have previously used sample from the Amazon mTurk and it
has been shown that data quality from the mTurk sample is as valid as
data collected from other sources (Behrend, Sharek, Meade, & Wiebe,
2011; Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). To ensure high quality of
data, we used quality control measures as suggested by Barger & Sinar,
2011). For example, we randomly included several questions that asks
participants to ‘please select agree’ if you are paying attention to the
survey. Participants who failed to provide appropriate answers to these
questions were filtered out as they were not paying attention to the
survey questions. Participants worked in organizations ranging
from > 10,000 employees and fewer than 100 employees with around
70% employees working in firms with a size of at least 100 employees.
The average age of employees is 36.14 years. In terms of gender, 56% of
participants were women. The average work experience for the parti-
cipants was 11.9 years.
3.3. Measures
3.3.2. Appraisal fairness
Employee perceptions of performance appraisal fairness were
measured using the scale developed by Colquitt (2001). Appraisal
fairness consisted of the dimensions: distributional fairness, procedural
fairness and interactive fairness. Distributional fairness consisted of
four items where the participants were asked to rate the fairness of the
appraisal ratings they received during their most recent performance
appraisal. The alpha reliabilities for this subscale for the Mexico and US
sample are 0.90 and 0.93 respectively. For the procedural fairness di-
mension, participants were asked about the fairness of the procedures
used in their performance appraisal decisions. The Cronbach alphas for
the Mexico sample and US sample were 0.86, 0.86 and 0.87 respec-
tively. For interactive fairness, participants were asked to rate their
quality of interaction during the performance appraisal process. The
Cronbach alphas for the Mexcio sample and US sample were 0.86 and
0.87 respectively.
3.3.3. Motivation to improve performance
Motivation to improve performance was measured using a 3- item
scale developed by Fedor, Eder, and Buckley (1989). The participants
were asked to rate the impact of their recent performance appraisal on
their motivation to improve performance in the future. Cronbach alphas
for this scale for the Mexico sample and US sample were 0.83 and 0.93
respectively.
3.3.4. Control variables
Age, gender and number of employees working in the organization
were used as control variables in this research.

For the current research, we used previously validated scales and

the appendix has all the items used in the measures.
3.3.1. Leader member exchange (LMX)
We used the scale developed by Scandura and Graen (1984) and
adapted by Liden, Wayne, and Stillwell (1993) for measuring LMX.
Coefficient alpha reliabilities for the Mexico and US sample were 0.90
and 0.91 respectively.
4. Results
The descriptive statistics and correlations for the Mexico and the US
samples are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The correlation
between distributive fairness and gender is 0 for the Mexico sample and
not for the US sample and this may be because employees in US sample
are more attuned to distributive fairness than Mexico employees. Fur-
ther, the correlation between company size (number of employees) and

Table 2
Descriptives and correlations for US sample.⁎, ⁎⁎

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. No. of employees 2.802 1.57 1

2. Gender 1.56 0.50 − 0.003 1
3. Age 35.11 10.04 − 0.12 − 0.005 1
4. LMX 3.67 0.84 − 0.11 − 0.036 0.042 1
5. Procedural fairness 3.53 0.76 − 0.032 − 0.012 0.063 0.453⁎⁎ 1
6. Distributive fairness 3.73 0.95 0.02 − 0.032 0.078 0.514⁎⁎ 0.473⁎⁎ 1
7. Interactive fairness 3.72 0.84 − 0.01 − 0.048 0.039 0.612⁎⁎ 0.565⁎⁎ 0.592⁎⁎ 1
8. Motivation to improve 3.60 1.00 − 0.10 0.055 0.094 0.547⁎⁎ 0.414⁎⁎ 0.641⁎⁎ 0.54⁎⁎

⁎
p < 0.05.
⁎⁎
p < 0.01.

147
T.T. Selvarajan et al. Journal of Business Research 85 (2018) 142–154

Table 3 4.2. Common method variance

Mediational analysis for the Mexican sample.
Since all the variables were measured using self-reports which could
Model B SE t R-squared
potentially inflate relationships due to common method variance
Predictor variable: Procedural fairness (CMV), we used the Harmon's one factor test for the Mexico and US
First stage model: DV = LMX 0.01 samples. The results indicated that a single factor did not account for
Procedural fairness − 0.01 0.08 − 0.132
majority of variance for both Mexico and US samples. The variance
No employees 0.0002 0.0001 1.2451
Gender − 0.12 0.17 − 0.70 extracted for the two samples were 44% and 33% respectively. Thus,
Age 0.00 0.01 − 0.18 common method variance is not an issue with the samples used in this
Predictor variable: Interactive fairness
research.
First stage model: DV = LMX 0.07⁎⁎
Interactive fairness 0.25 0.07 3.6⁎⁎
4.3. Hypothesis testing
No employees − 0.0003 0.0002 − 1.8091
Gender 0.08 0.20 0.40
Age 0.00 0.01 0.10 For hypothesis testing we used the mediational analysis and the
Predictor variable: Distributive fairness
moderated mediational analysis using the procedures outlined below:
First stage model: DV = LMX 0.01
Distributive fairness − 0.08 0.08 − 1.02
4.3.1. Mediational analysis
No employees 0.00 0.00 1.14
Gender − 0.13 0.17 − 0.80 For the hypotheses relating to mediation of LMX on the relationship
Age − 0.0017 0.009 − 0.1843⁎ between fairness and motivation to improve performance, we used the
SPSS macro developed by Preacher and Hayes (2008) which is based on
⁎
p < 0.05. the nonparametric bootstrapping procedure outlined by Preacher and
⁎⁎
p < 0.01.
Hayes (2004). As outlined by the authors, the mediational analysis is
done in two stages. In the first stage, the mediating variable is regressed
distributive fairness is 0 in the Mexico sample and this may be because onto the predictor and control variables. In the second stage, the out-
performance appraisal systems may not be formalized in Mexico, come variable is regressed onto the mediator, predictor and control
whereas the appraisal process in the US is relatively formalized. variables. Mediational effects are considered significant at p < 0.05
We used previously validated scales for the measures used in this when the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the indirect effect does not
research and thus, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to include zero (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). The results for the meditational
ensure distinctiveness of all the variables used in the two samples in this analysis for the Mexico and US samples are presented in Tables 3 and 4
research. The measurement model indicated that the data fit the model respectively. The summary of mediation effects along with the con-
very well for the US sample (Chi-squared = 376.9, df = 166, fidence intervals is presented in Table 5. Throughout the analyses, we
CFI = 0.95, IFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.04) as well as included the control variables but, for the sake of convenience, we did
Mexico sample (Chi-squared = 208.26, df = 176, CFI = 0.96, not include control variables in the tables.
IFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.03, SRMR = 0.07). Further, each indicator Hypothesis 1a predicted that procedural fairness will be positively
loaded significantly on their respective factors for both Mexico and US related to LMX for the Mexico sample and, as presented in Table 3, this
samples. In addition, for both the Mexico and US samples, we also hypothesis is not supported (B = −0.01; p > 0.05). Hypothesis 1b
tested the fit for alternative measurement models and the results of CFA proposed that procedural fairness will be positively related to LMX for
for these alternative measurement models indicated that the hypothe- the US sample and, as presented in Table 4 this relationship is sig-
sized measurement models for the Mexico and US samples fit the data nificant (B = 0.47, p < 0.01), thus supporting hypothesis 1b. Inter-
significantly better than the alternative measurement models (details active fairness was positively related to LMX for the Mexico sample
on the alternative measurement models are available from the first (B = 0.25, p < 0.01) as indicated in Table 3 and thus hypothesis 2a
author upon request). The above pattern of results provides support for was supported. The results presented in Table 4 also show that
the discriminant validity of measures for both the Mexico and US
samples. Table 4
Mediational analysis for the US sample.

4.1. Convergent and discriminant validity Model B SE t R-squared

In addition, we performed the convergent validity test for the two Predictor variable: Procedural fairness
First stage model: DV = LMX 0.46⁎⁎
samples and the average variance extracted (AVE) for the Mexican Procedural fairness 0.47 0.07 6.84⁎⁎
sample are in the parenthesis: procedural fairness (0.61), interactive No employees − 0.0481 0.0373 − 1.2876
fairness (0.7), distributive fairness (0.66), LMX (0.56) and motivation to Gender 0.1934 0.1148 1.6844
improve performance (0.66). For the USA sample, the AVE values are: Age 0.0042 0.0056 0.7616
procedural fairness (0.56), interactive fairness (0.7), distributive fairness Predictor variable: Interactive fairness
(0.6), LMX (0.65) and motivation to improve performance (0.6). Since all First stage model: DV = LMX 0.39⁎⁎
Interactive fairness 0.64 0.06 10.6
the values are above the cut off of 0.5, the results indicate that the
No employees − 0.0576 0.0334 − 1.726
measurement model had adequate levels of convergent validity. In ad- Gender 0.0143 0.1034 0.1385
dition, we calculated the composite reliability (CR) for the two samples Age 0.0022 0.005 0.4449
and CR values for the variables in the Mexican sample are shown in the Predictor variable: Distributive fairness
parenthesis: procedural fairness (0.93), interactive fairness (0.94), dis- First stage model: DV = LMX 0.28⁎⁎
tributive fairness (0.94), LMX (0.88) and motivation to improve perfor- Distributive fairness − 0.08 0.08 − 1.02
mance (0.93). For the USA sample, the CR values are: procedural fairness No employees − 0.0679 0.0361 − 1.8794
Gender − 0.0246 0.1116 − 0.2206
(0.90), interactive fairness (0.91), distributive fairness (0.91), LMX (0.93)
Age − 0.0018 0.0054 − 0.324⁎
and motivation to improve performance (0.93). Since all the values are
above the cut off of 0.7, the results indicate that the measurement model ⁎
p < 0.05.
⁎⁎
had adequate levels of convergent validity. p < 0.01.

148
T.T. Selvarajan et al. Journal of Business Research 85 (2018) 142–154

Table 5 Table 6
Mediation effects. Moderated mediation model.⁎

Variables Bootstrap indirect effect LLCI ULCI Model B SE t R-squared

Mexico sample Predictor variable: Procedural fairness

Procedural fairness − 0.02 − 0.08 0.0014 First stage model: DV = LMX 0.09⁎⁎
Interactive fairness 0.04 − 0.009 0.14 Procedural fairness 0.21 0.05 4.11⁎⁎
Distributive fairness − 0.05 − 0.12 0.0021 Culture 0.01 0.12 0.11
Procedural fairness × culture 0.52 0.10 5.01⁎⁎
USA sample
Procedural fairness 0.24 0.15 0.37 Predictor variable: Interactive fairness
Interactive fairness 0.24 0.12 0.39 First stage model: DV = LMX 0.20⁎⁎
Distributive fairness 0.17 0.09 0.28 Interactive fairness 0.45 0.05 9.1⁎⁎
Culture − 0.31 0.12 −2.64⁎⁎
Interactive fairness × culture 0.39 0.10 3.89⁎⁎
interactive fairness is also positively related to LMX for the US sample Predictor variable: Distributive fairness
(B = 0.64, p < 0.01), supporting hypothesis 2b. Hypothesis 3a stated First stage model: DV = LMX 0.12⁎⁎
that distributive fairness will be positively related to LMX for the Distributive fairness 0.21 0.05 4.07⁎⁎
Culture − 0.07 0.12 −0.60
Mexico sample and results from Table 3 show that this hypothesis is not
Distributive fairness × culture 0.57 0.10⁎ 5.66⁎⁎
supported (B = − 0.08; p > 0.05). Regarding hypothesis 3b, which
stated that distributive fairness will be positively related to LMX for the ⁎
p < 0.05.
⁎⁎
US sample, results as presented in Table 4 show that this hypothesis was p < 0.01.
supported (B = 0.5; p < 0.01).
Hypothesis 4a stated that LMX will be positively related to moti- outlined by Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007) and Edwards and
vation to improve performance for the Mexico sample and results based Lambert (2007). The authors presented an integrated framework for
on multiple regression analysis showed that (not shown in tables) that testing moderated-mediation. The moderated-mediation model ap-
this hypothesis was supported (B = 0.24, p < 0.05). Similarly, LMX proach proposed by these authors consists of running regression
was positively related to motivation to improve performance for the US equations for first stage and second stage moderation models (Edwards
sample as indicated by the results from Table 4, (B = 0.63, p < 0.05) & Lambert, 2007). In the first stage model, the mediator variable is
and this supports hypothesis 4b. regressed onto the covariates, independent variable and the moderator
Mediational hypothesis 5a proposed that LMX will mediate the re- and in the second stage model, the dependent variable is regressed onto
lationship between procedural fairness and motivation to improve the covariates, independent variables, mediator and the moderator
performance for the Mexico sample, and results from Table 5 indicate variable (Edwards & Lambert, 2007). The results of moderated-media-
that this hypothesis was not supported as the confidence interval (CI) tion model are presented in Table 6. Again, throughout the analyses, we
for the indirect effect includes a zero (indirect effect = − 02; CI = included the control variables but, for the sake of convenience, we did
[−0.08, 0.0014]). However, hypothesis 5b which pertains to mediating not include controls in the tables.
effect of LMX on the relationship between procedural fairness and Hypothesis 8 which stated that the relationship between procedural
motivation to improve performance for the US sample, was supported fairness and LMX will be stronger for the US sample, was supported as
as can be observed from Table 5 (indirect effect = 0.24, CI = [0.15, the results presented in Table 6 indicated that the interaction between
0.37]). Hypotheses 6a and b pertain to the mediating influence of LMX procedural fairness and culture was significant (B = 0.52, p < 0.01).
on the relationship between interactive fairness and motivation to im- To better understand this interaction, we plotted the relationship be-
prove performance for Mexico and US samples respectively. Results tween procedural fairness and LMX for the Mexico and US samples and
from Table 5 indicate that hypothesis 6a was not supported (indirect this relationship is presented in Fig. 2. The graph shows that the re-
effect = 0.04, CI [− 0.009, 0.14]), while hypothesis 6b was supported lationship is stronger for the US sample thus providing support for
(indirect effect = 0.24, CI = [0.12, 0.39]). Hypothesis 7a and 7b relate hypothesis 8.
to the mediating influence of LMX on the relationship between dis- Hypothesis 9 proposed that the relationship between interactive
tributive fairness and motivation to improve performance for Mexico fairness and LMX will be stronger for the US sample and as indicated in
and US samples respectively; and results from Table 5 indicate that this Table 6 this hypothesis was supported as the interaction between in-
hypothesis was not supported for the Mexico sample (indirect ef- teractive fairness and culture was significant (B = 0.39, p < 0.01). To
fect = − 0.05, CI [− 0.12, 0.0021]) but was supported for the US better understand this interaction, we plotted the relationship between
sample (indirect effect = 0.17, CI [0.09, 0.28]). interactive fairness and LMX for the Mexico and US samples and this
relationship is presented in Fig. 3. The graph shows that the relation-
4.3.2. Moderated mediation model ship is stronger for the US sample thus providing support for Hypothesis
To test the moderating effect of culture, we combined the data for 9.
the Mexico and US sample by using nation as the proxy cultural vari- Hypothesis 10 stated that the relationship between distributive
able. The purpose of this hypothesis was to investigate if the relation- fairness and LMX will be stronger for the US sample and as presented in
ship between fairness perceptions and LMX as well as LMX and moti- Table 6, the interaction between interactive fairness and culture was
vation to improve performance is stronger for the US sample when significant (B = 0.57; p < 0.01). To better understand the interaction,
compared to the Mexico sample. For this type of cross-cultural research, we plotted the relationship between distributive fairness and LMX for
the use of national culture as a proxy variable to compare differences in the Mexico and US samples and this relationship is presented in Fig. 4.
relationships across cultures is appropriate (Chong, 2008; Euwema The graph shows that the relationship was stronger for the US sample as
et al., 2007; Lu et al., 2010; Ramesh & Gelfand, 2010). The moderating predicted by Hypothesis 10.
variable ‘culture’ was coded as ‘1 = Mexico’ and ‘2 = US’. Just as the Hypothesis 11 predicted that the relationship between LMX and
studies referenced above, we rely on inferences for these two countries motivation to improve performance will be stronger for the US sample
based on Hofstede's research and those that have followed in his path than the Mexico sample and multiple regression analysis showed that
for establishing the rational for each of the hypotheses related to cul- (the results not shown in the table) this hypothesis was supported on
ture. results from Table 6 (B = 0.0.39, p < 0.01).
We tested the moderated-meditational model using the procedures

149
T.T. Selvarajan et al.
5. Discussion
This research had two primary purposes. The first purpose was to
examine the relationships between interactional, distributive and pro-
cedural fairness, LMX and motivation to improve performance in a
performance appraisal context. Existing research in the area of perfor-
mance appraisal has focused on interactional fairness and neglected to
consider the relationship between distributive and procedural fairness
dimensions, LMX, and motivation to improve performance. The second
purpose was to examine if the above relationships can be generalized to
another culture using a sample of Mexico employees and to investigate
whether the strength of relationships between fairness and LMX, as well
as between LMX and motivation to improve performance differ across
Mexico and US cultures.
Based on the results of the US sample, we found that the fairness
dimensions (interactive, distributive and procedural fairness) were
positively associated with LMX, which in turn was positively associated
with employees' motivation to improve performance. We also found
that LMX mediated the relationship between these fairness dimensions
and motivation to improve performance for the US sample. For the
Mexico sample, LMX was positively related to motivation to improve
performance. LMX did not mediate the relationship between the
150
Journal of Business Research 85 (2018) 142–154
Fig. 2. Interaction between procedural fairness and culture.
fairness dimensions and motivation to improve performance for the
Mexico sample. The moderated-mediation model indicated that the
relationship between the dimensions of fairness and LMX was stronger
for the US culture compared to Mexico culture and further that the
meditational effect of LMX on the relationship between the dimensions
of fairness and motivation to improve performance was stronger for the
sample of US employees when compared to the sample of Mexico em-
ployees.
The research makes several contributions to existing literature on
fairness and LMX in the context of performance appraisal. First, this
study extends existing research by incorporating distributive and pro-
cedural dimensions of fairness in the prediction of LMX. In doing so, our
study, at least in the US context, reinforces the idea that distributive
and procedural forms of fairness can be instrumental in shaping em-
ployees' evaluation of LMX. This is important for two reasons. First, our
study answers the call of extant research by adopting a multi-focus
approach towards fairness research, whereby employees can associate
various dimensions of fairness dimensions to any organizational agent,
as long as the agent can be identified as the source of fairness for the
employees (Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007; Rupp & Cropanzano,
2002). Second, our study strengthens the changing research outlook
towards procedural and distributive forms of fairness by highlighting
Fig. 3. Interaction between interactive fairness and culture.
T.T. Selvarajan et al.
the supervisory/social properties that are embedded in these constructs.
Thus, in the modeling of employees' motivation to perform, our study
opens new doors by empirically establishing the validity of these two
fairness variables.
In the Mexico context, the relationship between distributive fairness
as well as procedural fairness and LMX was not significant. This finding,
along with other insignificant results in the Mexico sample, questions
the generalizability of US-based theories and practices in a country like
Mexico. Available anecdotal evidence in the Mexico context suggests
that imported bureaucracies and business practices, such as perfor-
mance appraisals that are based on the notion of fairness may be im-
portant for highly individualistic societies such as US but may not work
well in collectivistic societies such as Mexico (Davila & Elvìra, 2007).
Clearly, there is a need for more cross-cultural research to understand
the predictors of LMX other than organizational justice. As our results
indicate, in Mexico setting, exchange relationship between employees
and their supervisors, is not a function of distributive and procedural
forms of justice. Since distributive and procedural fairness serve as
extrinsic forms of motivation, it is quite possible that in the determi-
nation of LMX, employees in Mexico cultural context are motivated by
intrinsic factors rather than extrinsic performance ratings. Another
possible explanation could be that in a country like Mexico, where
power distance is very high, employees are naturally more accepting of
directions and orders from their supervisors. Therefore, in Mexico set-
ting, the exchange relationship between employees and their super-
visors might not be function of distributive and procedural fairness
(Hofstede, 2013; Peterson, Puia, & Suess, 2003).
The second contribution of our study is its empirical support for
Erdogan (2002), whereby LMX was found to be significantly related to
employees' motivation to improve performance for both Mexico and US
samples. This pattern of results is important as current research in-
dicates that motivation to improve performance further impacts future
performance (Jawahar, 2010). In addition, by underscoring the role of
the leadership process in impacting employees' motivation to improve
performance, our study further substantiates the importance of orga-
nizational leadership in shaping employees' attitudes and their sub-
sequent behaviors (Walumbwa, Cropanzano, & Hartnell, 2007). Thus,
our results also offer support for social exchange theory as LMX was
found to be an underlying factor behind employees' motivation to im-
prove performance. In addition, our focus on motivation to improve
performance makes an important contribution to current literature
since behavioral intentions such as motivation to improve performance
is considered an important intermediate outcome in both leadership
and performance management. Future research may extend this linkage
151
Journal of Business Research 85 (2018) 142–154
Fig. 4. Interaction between distributive fairness and culture.
to consider the relationship between LMX, motivation to improve per-
formance, and actual performance using a longitudinal design.
This research also suggested that, in the US context, LMX mediated
the relationship between the dimensions of fairness and motivation to
improve performance, and the pattern of results is consistent with a
recent meta-analysis of LMX, which found that LMX played a central
mediating role in explaining the relationship between various organi-
zational antecedents and outcomes (Dulebohn et al., 2012). It is inter-
esting to note from Table 3 that the direct effect of procedural fairness is
also significant, which suggests the presence of another mediator (Zhao,
Lynch Jr, & Chen, 2010) that can be considered in future research.
Procedures related to the performance appraisal system are typically
part of formal organizational policy, and, thus, employees may as-
sociate procedural fairness with another organizational agent in addi-
tion to the manager.
The mediating effect of LMX on the relationship between fairness
and motivation to improve performance in the Mexico context was not
supported. In the Mexico context, distributive fairness may be related to
some other agent such as human resource management or organiza-
tional policies related to merit raises and promotions rather than LMX.
It is also possible that in Mexico culture, where seniority is valued,
performance ratings that do not value seniority may be perceived as less
fair. Similarly, the focus on procedural fairness in the Mexico context
could be an organizational agent such as appraisal policy rather than
LMX. Thus, future research on appraisal in Mexico may use a multi-
focal framework of fairness to relate the dimensions of fairness to
managerial and organizational agents.
Third, the research has made significant contribution to cross-cul-
tural research. As predicted, the relationship between the two dimen-
sions of fairness and LMX was stronger for the US sample compared to
the Mexico sample. The study reinforces the notion that distributive
fairness is more important in the US national culture which is highly
individualistic whereas this aspect of fairness is not as important in the
Mexico culture which is relatively more collectivistic in nature.
Furthermore, the results also support the notion that procedural fair-
ness is more important in the US culture which is rule based and where
individuals have lower tolerance for uncertainty. On the contrary, in
Mexico context, individuals seem to draw less conclusions on fairness
based on procedural norms in the appraisal settings. The results also
indicate that the mediating effects of LMX on the relationship between
the fairness dimensions and motivation to improve performance is
stronger for the US culture compared to that of the Mexico culture. This
pattern of results underscores the importance of leadership process in
transmitting the effect of fairness onto motivation to improve
T.T. Selvarajan et al.
performance in the US culture. In the Mexico culture, which is char-
acterized by paternalism, the mediating effect of LMX is far less pro-
nounced. While the relationship between fairness and motivation to
improve performance is significant for the Mexico culture, the effect
does not seem to be transmitted via LMX. It is possible that other me-
chanisms such as perceived organizational support may be a mediating
influence in the Mexico context.
5.1. Practical implications
Our study also offers contributions to organizational practitioners.
First, by highlighting the role of interactive, distributive and procedural
fairness in shaping LMX, our study forewarns supervisors that in their
evaluation of supervisory fairness, employees are not only concerned
with the interactive fairness component but also regard distributive and
procedural fairness components as imperative. Therefore, rather than
being concerned just with interactional fairness, supervisors need to be
cognizant about distributive and procedural fairness, especially while
conducting performance appraisals. Managers are typically held re-
sponsible for any unfairness of performance ratings due to biases such
as liking and political influences. However, the origin of unfair ap-
praisal ratings may be rooted in performance appraisal policies such as
forced distribution or ranking and the rating method of the appraisal.
Thus, managers may be held responsible for unfair performance ratings
even when such ratings are dictated by formal performance appraisal
policies.
Second, by establishing the importance of LMX as an underlying
mechanism behind employees' motivation to improve performance, our
study necessitates the creation of a supportive leadership climate at
work. Together, the above implications make it important for organi-
zations concerned with employees' performance improvement to plan
interventions aimed at generating supervisory awareness about the
importance of distributive and procedural fairness and the overall im-
portance of healthy LMX in shaping employees' performance.
A third implication for our study relates to the moderating role
played by national culture in differentially impacting fairness-LMX and
LMX-motivation to improve performance relationships. Since organi-
zations today operate in different cultural contexts, they need to be
aware of cultural peculiarities that are unique and specific to distinct
regions of the world. As is evident from our results, national culture
plays an important role in shaping employee expectations with respect
to their organization in general and their leadership in particular and
what works in one cultural context, might be futile in another. In this
research we have shown how Mexico may differ from US culture in
terms of the relationship between performance appraisal fairness, LMX
and motivation to improve performance and this pattern of results
could be instructive for global managers operating in Mexico culture.
For example, in a collectivist-high power distance culture like Mexico,
employees have tight social connections with their organizations and
expect their organizations and superiors to look after them, in exchange
the employees are motivated to perform because of their absolute
loyalty to the organization (Hofstede, 1980). Therefore, managers in a
Mexico context should seriously consider whether performance ap-
praisal processes are necessary to the extent that they are in the U.S.
context. Managers in a Mexico context could focus on more of the in-
trinsic motivating factors such as promoting the family perspective of
the organization and the role of loyalty to the employees to increase
employee motivation to improve. Sophisticated performance appraisals
based on the notion of fairness may be less important in collectivistic
societies such as Mexico (Elvira & Davila, 2005).
5.2. Limitations and directions for future research
There are a few limitations of our study that must be noted. First,
since we collected data from a single source, common method bias
could have been an issue. To check for the common method bias, we
152
Journal of Business Research 85 (2018) 142–154
performed a confirmatory factor analysis, which showed sufficient
discriminant validity across the variables. Moreover, the presence of
significant interactions in this study also suggests that common method
bias is less likely (Wall, Jackson, Mullarkey, & Parker, 1996). In addi-
tion, we also conducted unmeasured method factor analysis as sug-
gested by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) and the
results indicated that common method variance was not a significant
issue. But we do urge future researchers to collect data from multiple
sources to avoid common method bias. The second limitation of our
study is that, the research design is cross- sectional in nature and thus
the established relations between variables may not necessarily indicate
causality. Future researchers may use a longitudinal design to establish
causality among variables. Third, in our study we rely on country to
serve as a proxy for culture. Although our hypotheses development is
based off of previous research regarding these two countries, a study
that actually measured variables such as power distance would be
helpful to confirm the inferences made for each country Finally, the
relationship between fairness and LMX was not significant for the
Mexico sample and future researchers may consider alternative models
such as LMX as a moderator between fairness and motivation to im-
prove performance. It is possible that future research opportunities exist
by considering additional factors and theoretical perspectives to better
understand motivation to improve performance. For example, self-de-
termination theory might serve as an important indicator of employee
motivation to improve performance (Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989).
Further, future researchers may also replicate the research with larger
sample sizes and other cultural settings for generalizability.
Appendix A. Measures
Procedural fairness:
The following items refer to procedures used in the performance
appraisal process.
I have been able to express my views and feelings during those
procedures.
I have had influence over the (outcome) arrived at by those pro-
cedures.
The procedures been applied consistently.
The procedures have been free of bias.
The procedures have been based on accurate information.
I have been able to appeal the outcome arrived at by those proce-
dures.
The procedures upheld ethical and moral standards.
Distribute fairness:
The following items refer to your (outcome).
Outcome reflects the effort you have put into my work.
Outcome appropriate for the work I have completed.
Outcome reflects what I have contributed to the organization.
Outcome is justified, given my performance.
Interpersonal fairness:
The following items refer to (the authority figure who enacted the
procedure).
My manager:
Treated me in a polite manner.
Treated me with dignity.
Treated me with respect.
Refrained from improper remarks or comments.
LMX:
My manager understands your problems and needs.
My manager recognizes my potential.
My manager would be personally inclined to use power to help solve
problems in my work.
My manager would “bail me out” at his/her expense when I really
need it.
My relationship with my manger is effective.
My manager has enough confidence in me that he/she would defend
T.T. Selvarajan et al.
and justify my decisions if I am not present to do so.
I know where I stand with my manager.
Motivation to improve performance:
The feedback makes me want to do better.
The feedback encourages me to improve my performance.
The feedback increases my commitment to do well.
References
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67, 422–436.
Aguinis, H., & Pierce, C. A. (2008). Enhancing the relevance of organizational behavior by
embracing performance management research. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
29(1), 139–145.
Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G., & Kurshid, A.
(2000). Impact of culture on human resource management practices: A 10-country
comparison. Applied Psychology. An International Review, 49, 192–221.
Barger, P. B., & Sinar, E. F. (2011). Psychological data from Amazon.com's MTurk: Rapid and
inexpensive—But high-quality? Poster presented at the 26th Annual Conference for the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL. (April).
Begley, T. M., Lee, C., Fang, Y., & Li, J. (2002). Power distance as a moderator of the
relationship between justice and employee outcomes in a sample of Chinese em-
ployees. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(8), 692–711.
Behrend, T. S., Sharek, D. J., Meade, A. W., & Wiebe, E. N. (2011). The viability of
crowdsourcing for survey research. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 1–14.
Biswas, S., Varma, A., & Ramaswami, A. (2013). Linking distributive and procedural
justice to employee engagement through social exchange: A field study in India.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(8), 1570–1587.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). What constitutes fairness in work settings? A four-
component model of procedural justice. Human Resource Management Review, 13,
107–126.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Brewer, P., & Venaik, S. (2011). Individualism–collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE.
Journal of International Business Studies, 42(3), 436–445.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 1, 185–216.
Buchner, T. W. (2007). Performance management theory: A look from the performer's
perspective with implications for HRD. Human Resource Development International,
10(1), 59–73.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's mechanical turk: A new
source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science,
6, 3–5.
Burton, J., Sablynski, C., & Sekiguchi, T. (2008). Linking justice, performance, and citi-
zenship via leader–member exchange. Journal of Business and Psychology, 23, 51–61.
Cardy, R., & Dobbins, G. (1994). Performance appraisal: Alternative perspectives. Cincinnati,
OH: South-Western.
Chiang, F., & Birtch, T. A. (2010). Appraising performance across borders: An empirical
examination of the purposes and practices of performance appraisal in multi-country
context. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1365–1393.
Chong, E. (2008). Managerial competency appraisal: A cross-cultural study of American
and East Asian managers. Journal of Business Research, 61(3), 191–200.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-
analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct vali-
dation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. H., & Ng, K. (2001). Justice at the
millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G. B., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to
leadership in formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
13, 46–78.
Davila, A., & Elvìra, M. M. (2007). Psychological contracts and performance management
in Mexico. International Journal of Manpower, 28, 384–402.
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organiza-
tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580–590.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human be-
havior. New York: Plenum Press.
DeConinck, J. B. (2009). The effect of leader-member exchange on turnover among retail
buyers. Journal of Business Research, 62(11), 1081–1086. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jbusres.2008.09.011.
DeConinck, J. B., & Stilwell, C. D. (2004). Incorporating organizational justice, role states,
pay satisfaction in a model of turnover intentions. Journal of Business Research, 57,
225–231.
Deluga, R. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67,
315–326.
DeNisi, A. S., & Pritchard, R. D. (2006). Performance appraisal, performance management
and improving individual performance: A motivational framework. Management and
Organization Review, 2, 253–277.
Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1997). Leadership in Western and Asian countries:
Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures. The
Leadership Quarterly, 8, 233–267.
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-
analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating
the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715–1759.
153
Journal of Business Research 85 (2018) 142–154
Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. (1998). Taking stock in our progress on individualism-
collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community. Journal of Management, 24(3),
265–304.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and med-
iation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological
Methods, 12, 1–22.
Elicker, J. D., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). The role of leader-member exchange in the
performance appraisal process. Journal of Management, 32(4), 531–551.
Elvira, M. M., & Davila, A. (2005). Emergent directions for human resource management
research in Latin America. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
16(12), 2265–2282.
Erdogan, B. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance
appraisals. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 555–578.
Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2006). Collectivism as a moderator of responses to organi-
zational justice: Implications for leader-member exchange and ingratiation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 27, 1–17.
Euwema, M. C., Wendt, H., & van Emmerik, H. (2007). Leadership styles and group or-
ganizational citizenship behavior across cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
28, 1035–1057.
Fedor, D. B., Eder, R. W., & Buckley, M. (1989). The contributory effects of supervisor
intentions on subordinate feedback responses. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 44, 396.
Fletcher, C., & Perry, E. L. (2001). Performance appraisal and feedback: A consideration
of national culture and a review of contemporary research and future trends. In N.
Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Vol. Eds.), Personnel psy-
chology: . vol. 1. Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (pp. 127–
144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Frey, B. S. (1997). Not just for the money: An economic theory of personal motivation.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.
Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior.
Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 1–35.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange
theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
Graen, G. B., Liden, R., & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal
process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 868–872.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). The transformation of professionals into self-
managing and partially self-designing contributors: Toward a theory of leadership-
making. Management Department Faculty Publications, 16.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years:
Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6,
219–247.
Gwynne, R. N., & Cristobal, K. A. Y. (2014). Latin America transformed: Globalization and
modernity. Routledge.
Hartmann, F. G. H., & Slapničar, S. (2012). Pay fairness and intrinsic motivation: The role
of pay transparency. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(20),
4283–4300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.664962.
Haynie, J. J., Cullen, K. L., Lester, H. F., Winter, J., & Svyantek, D. J. (2014).
Differentiated leader–member exchange, justice climate, and performance: Main and
interactive effects. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 912–922.
Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Glibkowski, B. C., & Chaudhry, A. (2009). LMX differ-
entiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes. The
Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 517–534.
Hernandez-Romero, E. I. N. (2010). Characteristics of Mexican leaders in complex organi-
zations in Monterrey Mexico: An exploratory study of the perceptions of human resource
executives. Pepperdine University.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply
abroad. Organization Dynamics, Summer42–63.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (2013). Hierarchical power distance in forty countries. In C. J. Lammers, &
D. J. Hickson (Eds.). Organizations alike and unlike (pp. 97–119). London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul, 1979.
Hooper, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Beyond personal LMX quality: The effects of perceived
LMX variability on employee reactions. In A. I. Glendon, B. Myors, & B. M. Thompson
(Eds.). Advances in organizational psychology: An Asia-Pacific perspective. Brisbane:
Australian Academic Press.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. CA: Thousand Oaks.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader–member exchange and citizen-
ship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269–277.
Jacobsen, C. B., & Andersen, L. B. (2014). Performance management for academic re-
searchers. How publication command systems affect individual behavior. Review of
Public Personnel Administration, 34(2), 84–107.
Jawahar, I. M. (2010). The mediating role of appraisal feedback reactions on the re-
lationship between rater feedback-related behaviors and rate performance. Group &
Organization Management, 35(4), 494–526.
Kim, T.-Y., & Leung, K. (2007). Forming and reacting to overall fairness: A cross-cultural
comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 83–95.
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power
distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leadership: A cross-
level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 744–764.
Klein, H. J., & Kim, J. S. (1998). A field study of the influence of situational constraints
leader-member exchange, and goal commitment on performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 41, 88–95.
Lam, S. S., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between organizational
T.T. Selvarajan et al.
justice and employee work outcomes: A cross-national study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23(1), 1–18.
Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study
of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model.
Journal of Management, 33, 841–866.
Lee, C., Pillutla, M., & Law, K. S. (2000). Power-distance, gender and organizational
justice. Journal of Management, 26(4), 685–704.
Lee, K., Scandura, T. A., & Sharif, M. M. (2014). Cultures have consequences: A configural
approach to leadership across two cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 692–710.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.03.003.
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of
leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 451–465.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory:
The past and potential future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,
15, 47–119.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stillwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early de-
velopment of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662–674.
Lu, L., Cooper, C. L., Kao, S.-F., Change, T.–. T., Allen, T. D., ... Spector, P. E. (2010).
Cross-cultural differences on work-to-family conflict and role satisfaction: A
Taiwanese-British comparison. Human Resource Management, 49, 67–85.
Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader–member
exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology,
69(1), 67–121.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. (2000). Integrating justice and
social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work re-
lationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738–748.
Maurer, T. J., & Palmer, J. K. (1999). Management development intentions following
feedback: Role of perceived outcomes, social pressures, and control. Journal of
Management Development, 18, 733–751.
Meng, F., & Wu, J. (2015). Merit pay fairness, leader-member exchange, and job en-
gagement evidence from mainland China. Review of Public Personnel Administration,
35(1), 47–69.
Miller, J. S., Hom, P. W., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2001). The high cost of low wages: Does
maquiladora compensation reduce turnover? Journal of International Business Studies,
32, 585.
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational
support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational ci-
tizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 4, 351–357.
Navarro, D. (2005). The influence of national culture of charismatic leadership perceptions: An
exploratory study of Mexico, Poland, and the United States of America (unpublished
doctoral dissertation)Washington, DC: the George Washington University.
Peterson, D. K., Puia, G. M., & Suess, F. R. (2003). “Yo Tengo La Camiseta (I Have the
Shirt On)”: An exploration of job satisfaction and commitment among workers in
Mexico. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(2), 73–88.
Pichler, S. (2012). The social context of performance appraisal and appraisal reactions: A
meta-analysis. Human Resource Management, 51(5), 709–732.
Pillai, R., Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (1997). Are there universal models of lea-
dership and organizational justice? An investigation of the U.S., Australia, India,
Columbia, and the Middle East. Journal of International Business Studies.
Pillai, R., Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (1999). Leadership and organizational justice:
Similarities and differences across cultures. Journal of International Business Studies,
30(4), 763–779.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. C., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Poon, J. M. (2012). Distributive justice, procedural justice, affective commitment, and
turnover intention: A mediation–moderation Framework 1. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 42(6), 1505–1532.
Posthuma, R. A., Joplin, J. R., & Maertz, C. P. (2005). Comparing the validity of turnover
predictors in the United States and Mexico. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, 5(2), 165–180.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 36, 717–731.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
Methods, 40, 879–891 (Preacher).
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42,
185–227.
Pulakos, E. D. (2009). Performance management: A new approach for driving business results.
Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley Publishing.
Ramesh, A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). Should they stay or should they go: Job embedd-
edness in predicting turnover in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95, 807–823.
Richter, N. F., Hauff, S., Schlaegel, C., Gudergan, S., Ringle, C. M., & Gunkel, M. (2016).
Using cultural archetypes in cross-cultural management studies. Journal of
International Management, 22(1), 63–83.
Rotondo-Fernandez, D., Carlson, D., Stepina, L. P., & Nicholson, J. D. (1997). Hofstede's
country classification 25 years later. Journal of Social Psychology, 137(1), 43–54.
Ruiz, C. E., Wang, J., & Hamlin, R. G. (2013). What makes managers effective in Mexico?
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 34(2), 130–146.
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange re-
lationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925.
Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & Brown, K. G. (2002). HR professionals' beliefs about
154
Journal of Business Research 85 (2018) 142–154
effective human resource practices: Correspondence between research and practice.
Human Resource Management, 41(2), 149–174.
Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member ex-
change status on the effects of a leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69,
428–436.
Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. (2003). A review of cross-cultural methodologies for
organizational research: A best-practices approach. Organizational Research Methods,
6(2), 169–215.
Smith, P. B., Peterson, M. F., & Thomason, S. J. (2011). National culture as a moderator of
the relationship between managers' use of guidance sources and how well work
events are handled. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(6), 1101–1121.
Sparr, J., & Sonnentag, S. (2008). Fairness perceptions of supervisor feedback, LMX, and
employee well-being at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 17(2), 198–225.
Spector, P. E., Liu, C., & Sanchez, J. I. (2015). Methodological and substantive issues in
conducting multinational and cross-cultural research. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 101–131.
Tekleab, A. G., Takeuchi, R., & Taylor, M. (2005). Extending the chain of relationships
among organizational justice, social exchange, and employee reactions: The role of
contract violations. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 146–157.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. US
Census Bureau (2009). Top ten countries with which the US trades. Available from:
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/current/balance.html (accessed July
10, 2013) .
Tziner, A., Felea, M., & Vasiliu, C. (2015). Relating ethical climate, organizational justice
perceptions, and leader-member exchange (LMX) in Romanian organizations. Revista
de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 31(1), 51–57.
Vassolo, R., DeCastro, J., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2011). Managing in Latin America:
Challenges and a future research agenda. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(4),
20–34.
Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., Anand, S., Erdogan, B., & Ghosh, S. (2010). Where do I
stand? Examining the effects of leader–member exchange social comparison on em-
ployee work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 849.
Wall, T. D., Jackson, P. R., Mullarkey, S., & Parker, S. K. (1996). The DC-model of job
strain: A more specific test. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69,
153–166.
Walumbwa, F. O., Cropanzano, R., & Hartnell, C. A. (2007). Organizational justice, vo-
luntary learning behavior, and job performance: A test of the mediating effects of
identification and leader-member exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30,
1103–1126.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member
exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and
followers' performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 48, 420–432.
Wang, Z., Xu, H., Liu, Y., & Jiang, F. (2015). The antecedents and consequences of leader-
member exchange differentiation: A resource perspective. In academy of management
proceedings. vol. 2015, no. 1. In academy of management proceedings (pp. 17424–).
Academy of Management (January).
Williams, E., Scandura, T. A., Pissaris, S., & Woods, J. M. (2016). Justice perceptions,
leader-member exchange, and upward influence tactics. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 37(7).
Xu, J., Liu, Y., & Guo, Y. (2014). The role of subordinate emotional masking in lea-
der–member exchange and outcomes: A two-sample investigation. Journal of Business
Research, 6, 100–107.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and
truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197–206.
Dr. T.T. Selvarajan is an Associate Professor of Management in the College of Business
and Economics at California State University, East Bay. He earned his Ph.D. from Arizona
State University in 2000. Dr. Selvarajan has published in numerous prestigious journals
including the Journal of Business Research, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, and Business
Horizons.
Dr. Barjinder Singh is an Assistant Professor in the Martha and Spencer Love School of
Business Administration at the Elon University. He earned his Ph.D. from the Sheldon B.
Lubar School of Business at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) in 2011. Dr.
Singh's research reflects his commitment to pursuing the highest levels of excellence in
areas of OBHRM and has been published in several leading academic journals including
the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Business Ethics,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Human Resource Management Journal and Negotiation and Conflict Management Research.
Dr. Stephanie Solansky is an Associate Professor of Management at the McCoy College
of Business Administration at Texas State University. Dr. Solansky pursues the following
research interests: leadership, intra- and inter-organizational collaboration, and com-
plexity theory. Dr. Solansky has published her research in leading journals in the field of
management such as, Academy of Management Journal, Human Relation, Journal of
Business Ethics, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Leadership Quarterly, and
Management Learning.