J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:583–592
DOI 10.1007/s10869-009-9151-z
Work Status Congruence’s Relation to Employee Attitudes
and Behaviors: The Moderating Role of Procedural Justice
Jon C. Carr • Brian T. Gregory • Stanley G. Harris
Published online: 7 January 2010
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore procedural
justice as a boundary condition of work status congruence’s
(WSC) relationships with organizational commitment and
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). WSC is defined
as the degree to which an employee’s schedule, shift, full-
time or part-time status, and number of working hours, match
his or her preferences (Holtom et al. in J Appl Psychol 86:80–
93, 2002). This exploration is grounded in the outcome
favorability–procedural justice interaction literature (e.g.,
Brockner in Acad Manag Rev 27:58–76, 2002).
Design/Methodology/Approach Data were obtained from
209 supervisor–subordinate dyads from three large material
processing and distribution facilities in the Southeastern
United States. Hierarchical regression was used to test
hypotheses.
Findings The positive relationship between WSC and
organizational commitment as well as the positive rela-
tionship between WSC and coworker directed OCB is
attenuated in the presence of procedural justice.
J. C. Carr (&)
Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University,
P.O. Box 298530, Fort Worth, TX 76129, USA
e-mail: jon.carr@tcu.edu
B. T. Gregory
The W. A. Franke College of Business, Northern Arizona
University, P.O. Box 15066, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA
e-mail: brian.gregory@nau.edu
S. G. Harris
Management Department, Auburn University, Auburn,
AL 36849, USA
e-mail: harris@auburn.edu
Implications Study findings inform management practice
by suggesting that organizations maintain high levels of
procedural justice to reduce the attitudinal and behavioral
consequences of employees experiencing unfavorable
outcomes (i.e., low WSC).
Originality/Value First, we add incremental evidence of
the importance of WSC as a factor that influences
employee attitudes and behaviors. Next, the study results
suggest that procedural justice is a boundary condition on
these direct relationships. We also add to the outcome
favorability–procedural justice literature by conceptualiz-
ing WSC in terms of a favorable outcome that individuals
receive from organizations and by suggesting that the
outcome favorability–procedural justice interaction can
predict supervisor-rated citizenship behavior.
Keywords Work status congruence
Procedural justice

Organizational commitment

Organizational citizenship behavior
Workforce scheduling is a formidable challenge for many
managers. To remain competitive and maximize the utility
of their human resources, it is often necessary for an
organization to utilize a variety of different scheduling
arrangements. While the use of different scheduling
arrangements can help an organization meet its objectives,
it also increases the potential that some employees will be
asked to work schedules they dislike.
Work status congruence (WSC) refers to the degree to
which an employee’s working arrangements, including
schedule, shift, full-time or part-time status, and number of
working hours, match his or her preferences (Holtom et al.
2002). While managers typically view employee schedul-
ing as an exercise in minimizing labor costs and
123
584
maximizing the benefits for the firm, research on WSC
begins to suggest that the employee’s evaluation of their
work status will also have an impact on important conse-
quences for the individual employee (Holtom et al. 2002).
As a valued outcome received by the employee from the
organization, WSC influences a variety of employee atti-
tudes and behaviors including organizational commitment,
job satisfaction, retention, in-role performance, and orga-
nizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Holtom et al. 2002).
While social exchange theory posits a straightforward
positive relationship between receiving valued outcomes
from the organization and reciprocation in the form of pro-
organization attitudes and behaviors (Cropanzano et al.
2002; Wayne et al. 2002), recent research has suggested
that the strength of this relationship is moderated by per-
ceptions of the procedural fairness utilized by the organi-
zation. Specifically, Brockner (2002) argues that procedural
fairness/justice perceptions moderate the relationship
between outcomes received from the organization and
employee attitudes about the organization. Research gen-
erally supports Brockner’s contention that the influence of
outcome favorability (the desirability of outcomes an
individual receives from the organization whether positive
or negative in nature) is attenuated in the presence of
procedural justice: the positive relationship between the
favorability of outcomes one receives from the organiza-
tion and one’s attitudes toward the organization is not as
strong as in situations of high procedural justice (e.g., ‘‘the
process was fair so the organization is not as much to
blame for my negative outcome’’ or ‘‘because the process
was fair, I deserve my positive outcome and the organi-
zation does not get as much credit for giving it to me’’).
To date, no research has examined WSC as a valued
outcome an individual receives from the organization uti-
lizing Brockner’s (2002) framework. Therefore, the pur-
pose of this study is to explore the boundary conditions of
WSC’s relationships with organizational commitment and
Procedural Justice
Outcome Favorability
(Work Status
Congruence)
Fig. 1 Impact of outcome favorability (WSC) on organizational commitment and OCB at differing levels of procedural justice
123
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:583–592
OCB, by comparing the strength of these relationships at
differing levels of procedural fairness (see Fig. 1). This
exploration not only contributes to the understanding of
WSC and how it impacts employee behaviors and attitudes,
but it also expands the outcome favorability–procedural
justice interaction literature to include WSC as a concep-
tualization of outcome favorability and by suggesting that
this interaction impacts supervisory-rated citizenship
behavior. In addition to adding to the scholarly literature on
WSC and the outcome favorability–procedural justice lit-
erature, this study also provides insight into how those
companies that may not be able to accommodate all
employees’ work arrangement preferences can attenuate
the negative consequences of low WSC.
Theoretical Framework
WSC and Employee Attitudes and Behaviors
Both discrepancy and social exchange theories have been
used to explain the influence of WSC on important indi-
vidual behavioral and attitudinal outcomes in workplace
settings (Holtom et al. 2002). Discrepancy theory suggests
that when employees receive outcomes from the organi-
zation consistent with their preferences, they will experi-
ence positive emotions and develop positive attributions
about the organization as giver of the outcomes (Lawler
1973; Locke 1969). In contrast, when outcomes are dis-
crepant (different from their preferences), employees will
be dissatisfied and the resultant negative emotions will be
directed toward the organization as the withholder of
desired outcomes. This theoretical perspective argues that
employees who experience high WSC will develop more
positive attitudes about the organization (such as organi-
zational commitment) than employees who experience low
WSC (Holtom et al. 2002).
Organizational
Commitment
Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:583–592
With respect to social exchange theory, the influence of
WSC can be explained as providing information employees
use to evaluate the quality of their transactions and rela-
tionships in the workplace and their need to reciprocate.
Specifically, as individuals receive valued resources such as
WSC through social exchange relationships, they perceive
the need to reciprocate the other party providing the
resource (Blau 1964). When an employee receives some-
thing of value from their organization, the employee
reciprocates by providing the organization with valued
attitudes and behaviors. Holtom et al. (2002) suggest that
WSC is a valuable resource that an organization provides its
employees and that employees will reciprocate with OCB.
The Moderating Effects of Procedural Justice
Procedural fairness (hereafter referred to as procedural
justice) represents the degree to which the processes used
to make a decision are fair (Konovsky 2000). Procedural
justice has been shown to be related to both organizational
commitment (Colquitt et al. 2001) and OCB (Moorman
1991; Masterson et al. 2000; Rupp and Cropanzano 2002;
Tepper and Taylor 2003). Brockner (2002) describes how
procedural justice provides valuable information to the
sensemaking processes through which individuals develop
their attitudinal and behavioral reactions to valued out-
comes (such as WSC) they receive from organizations.
Holtom et al. (2002) conceptualize WSC as an organiza-
tionally derived outcome that the employee may view in a
favorable or unfavorable light, depending on their own
internal work status preferences. Thus, it is likely that
procedural justice perceptions will have an effect on the
sensemaking processes that employees will use to make
attributions regarding their WSC.
Brockner (2002) notes that the interactive effect of
procedural justice and outcome favorability on an indi-
vidual’s support of a decision, decision-maker, or organi-
zation has been replicated at least 40 times. A portion of
these studies specifically examined the procedural justice–
outcome favorability interaction on organizational com-
mitment (e.g., Brockner et al. 1994; Siegel et al. 2005). The
manner in which this interaction affects a criterion is
determined by the underlying sensemaking processes that
describe the individual’s response to the presence or
absence of procedural justice while receiving either
favorable or unfavorable outcomes from the organization
(Brockner 2002).
Procedural justice reduces the impact of unfavorable
outcomes (such as low WSC) on organizational commit-
ment (Brockner 2002). Brockner (2002) explained this
interaction with two mechanisms. First, the interactive
effect can be described through the attribution individuals
make about the organization’s responsibility for unfavorable
585
outcomes. When procedural justice is low and outcomes are
unfavorable, individuals will tend to attribute the unfavor-
able outcome to the organization’s use of unfair procedures
and judge the organization negatively. This scenario is
likely to result in resentment and a negative exchange
relationship, which makes organizational commitment and
OCB unlikely. Referent cognitions theory describes how
unfair procedures lead people to feel like they could have
achieved better outcomes if the procedures had been more
fair (Folger and Cropanzano 1998), which, again, makes
organizational commitment and OCB improbable.
When procedural justice is high, but outcomes are low,
people are less likely to blame the organization for the
outcome because they know that the procedures used to
determine that outcome were fair. The presence of high
procedural justice, then, prevents individuals from devel-
oping feelings of animosity toward the organization and
makes them more likely to accept and support the organi-
zation and its decisions (Brockner 2002). Therefore, when
procedural justice is high, the WSC an individual receives
from the organization should have less of an impact on the
individual’s organizational commitment and OCB.
In addition to the attributional explanation for the
interaction, Brockner (2002) also suggests a judgement of
trustworthiness mechanism. Specifically, high procedural
justice engenders trust in the organization. This trust makes
immediate negative outcomes more bearable as the orga-
nization is trusted to make good in the future. As a result,
the value attached to an immediate outcome is of less
importance in employees’ sensemaking than if trust was
low. As such, the expected positive relationship between
outcome favorability and organizational attitudes is atten-
uated in the presence of trust-enhancing justice.
Applied to the study of WSC, these sensemaking per-
spectives imply that procedural justice will also attenuate
the positive relationships between WSC and organizational
commitment and OCB. The positive relationship between
WSC and both organizational commitment and OCB will be
most pronounced when justice is low: unfavorable outcomes
(i.e., low WSC) are blamed on the organization and favor-
able outcomes (i.e., high WSC) are attributed to special
treatment by the organization. The positive relationship will
be attenuated when justice is high: unfavorable outcomes
(i.e., low WSC) are personally deserved or only short-term
aberrations from a trustworthy organization and favorable
outcomes (i.e., high WSC) are personally deserved and not
the result of special organizational treatment.
Hypothesis 1 Procedural justice will moderate the posi-
tive relationship between outcome favorability (WSC) and
organizational commitment such that the relationship will
be weaker when procedural justice is high and stronger
when it is low.
123
586
Hypothesis 2 Procedural justice will moderate the posi-
tive relationship between outcome favorability (WSC) and
OCB such that relationship will be weaker when proce-
dural justice is high and stronger when it is low.
Method
Sample and Procedures
One thousand and sixty-two supervisors and subordinates
from three large material processing and distribution
facilities in the Southeastern United States were asked to
participate in our study in conjunction with a scheduled
training meeting within each facility. A member of the
research team administered surveys to all participants who
were able to attend the training session, 840 of whom
agreed to participate and completed the questionnaire. This
produced a useable response rate of 79% (840/1062). Each
of the facilities operated on a 24-h production schedule,
with subordinates and supervisors working three overlap-
ping shifts ranging from 8 to 10 h per shift. These training
meetings were conducted over the course of 3 days, with
subordinates and supervisors meeting at different times.
The respondents were not compensated, and were notified
that their responses would be used for development
purposes.
The survey took approximately 15 min to complete for
subordinates, with supervisors needing 20 min to complete
their responses. In addition to items related to individual
attitudes and behaviors, supervisors were asked to identify
their lowest, average, and highest performers regarding
OCB, using the last name of the subordinate; they then
rated these three subordinates on an OCB scale. Ninety
supervisors and their respective subordinates were matched
using existing employee identification numbers, with a
total of 221 supervisor–subordinate dyads generated for
analysis. Missing data within some of the variables yielded
a usable sample of 209 dyads. 81% of subordinates were
male and 92% of the supervisors were male. The median
age for supervisors and subordinates was between 35 and
44 years of age. Both supervisors and subordinates were
more than 80% Caucasian and 89% of the respondents
indicated having a high school degree or higher. Finally,
77.4% of subordinates had been with the organization for
more than 3 years with 65.2% stating that they had been in
their current occupation for more than 3 years.
Measures
Unless otherwise noted, all survey items were rated on a
five-point response scale ranging from 1 = strongly dis-
agree to 5 = strongly agree.
123
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:583–592
Procedural Justice
Subordinates completed a five-item scale adapted from
Moorman (1991) to capture perceptions of procedural
justice in the workplace. Sample items included ‘‘When my
organization makes decisions, it collects accurate and
complete information before making decisions’’ and
‘‘When my organization makes decisions, it makes sure all
sides affected by decisions are represented.’’ Coefficient
alpha reliability for the resulting scale was .89.
Work-Status Congruence
Subordinates completed five of the seven items from
Holtom et al.’s (2002) WSC scale. Example items included
‘‘I generally work my preferred schedule,’’ ‘‘I like the shift
I typically work,’’ and ‘‘I often work a shift that is not
convenient for me’’ (reverse coded). The scale had a
coefficient alpha reliability of .72. One of the original items
from Holtom et al.’s (2002) scale was dropped because it
asked about full-time versus part-time work status and our
sample was comprised exclusively of full-time employees.
The other item that was dropped from the analysis was
removed due to changes in wording that were made at the
request of the organization which resulted in an item that
asked respondents about work–family conflict as opposed
to WSC.
Organizational Commitment
Subordinates completed Mowday et al. (1979) nine-item
short form scale for affective organizational commitment.
Sample items were ‘‘I really care about the fate of this
organization,’’ and ‘‘I am proud to tell others that I am part
of this organization.’’ Coefficient alpha reliability was .89.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Supervisors rated their subordinates’ OCB using 10 items
adapted from Moorman and Blakely’s (1995) 20-item
measure of OCB. These 10 items captured two of the four
dimensions of OCB identified by Graham (1989). Inter-
personal initiative captures the degree to which a person
assists others within their respective workgroup. Loyal
boosterism reflects the degree to which a person empha-
sizes the positive qualities of the organization to outsiders.
Research has used these dimensions of OCB to reflect
organizational (loyal boosterism) versus workgroup
(interpersonal initiative) focused citizenship (Aryee and
Chay 2001; Tepper et al. 2004). Therefore, in this research,
we refer to interpersonal initiative as coworker-directed
OCB, and loyal boosterism as organization-directed OCB.
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:583–592 587

Coworker-directed OCB (a = .86) was assessed with Results

five items used by Moorman and Blakely (1995). Example
items include ‘‘This employee encourages others to try new
and more effective ways of doing things’’ and ‘‘This
employee gives useful suggestions to others on how they
can improve.’’ Organization-directed OCB (a = .91) was
also assessed with five items. Example items include ‘‘This
employee emphasizes the organization’s positive aspects to
those outside it’’ and ‘‘This employee shows pride when
representing the organization to the public.’’
Control Variables
Because it is possible that older, more experienced
employees and those employees with greater tenure might
react differently to the variables in the study, we controlled
for both age and tenure. To protect confidentiality, both
variables were assessed in categorical form. For age, the
categories included codes for ‘‘18–24 years old,’’
‘‘25–34 years old,’’ ‘‘35–44 years old,’’ ‘‘45–54 years old,’’
and ‘‘55–64 years old.’’ Organizational tenure was assessed
with codes ranging for 1 (‘‘\3 months’’) to 5 (‘‘[3 years’’).
Prior to our analyses, we conducted several tests using
LISREL to determine whether our constructs demonstrated
sufficient discriminant validity using confirmatory factor
analysis. Our approach was to compare our proposed five-
factor measurement model in which our items designed to
capture procedural justice, WSC, organizational commit-
ment, coworker-directed OCB, and organization-directed
OCB loaded on different constructs with a competing four-
factor model. Additionally, both the five- and the four-factor
model were compared to a single factor model to further
assess the appropriateness of the proposed constructs.
Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and zero-order cor-
relations for the study variables. Relationships shown in
Table 1 indicate some significant and positive relationships
between subordinate’s procedural justice, work-status
congruence perceptions, organizational commitment,
organization-directed OCB, and coworker-directed OCB.
The results of our confirmatory factor analysis support our
use of a five-factor model. Specifically, the five-factor model
results had a significant Chi-square test v2 (314) = 580.80,
p \ .01, but otherwise exhibited good fit (CFI = .96,
RMSEA = .06; Hu and Bentler 1999). Moreover, the five-
factor model’s standardized loadings were strong and sig-
nificant, ranging from .56 to .88 (all p \ .01). We compared
the hypothesized measurement model to a one-factor model
in which all the items loaded on a common factor [v2
(324) = 3791.53, p \ .01, CFI = .77, RMSEA = .22] and
a four-factor model which was specified the same as the five-
factor model except that the organization-directed and
coworker-directed OCB items loaded on the same factor [v2
(318) = 891.81, p \ .01, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .09]. The
five-factor model fit the data better than the one-factor model
[Dv2 (10]) = 3210.73, p \ .01] and the four-factor model
[Dv2 (4) = 311.01, p \ .01], which suggests that the
hypothesized model fit the data better than the alternatives
(Schumacker and Lomax 1996). These validity tests provide
support for our use of the items as mentioned above, with the
creation of a set of variables representing each construct as a
mean value across each of its’ associated items.
Hierarchical regression was used to test our hypotheses.
Specifically, we ran separate hierarchical analyses for all
three outcomes, organizational commitment (Hypothesis 1)

Table 1 Descriptive statistics, scale reliabilities, and correlations among study variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Procedural justice 2.93 .82 (.89)

2. Work-status congruence 3.53 .64 .27*** (.72)
3. Commitment 3.54 .65 .57*** .28*** (.89)
4. Organization-directed OCB 3.31 .71 .27*** .21** .30*** (.91)
5. Coworker-directed OCB 3.52 .88 .23*** .26*** .21** .64*** (.86)
6. Agea 3.04 1.11 .09 .10 .06 .05 -.05 –
7. Organizational tenureb 4.62 .91 -.14* .11 -.10 .08 .09 .36*** –
Note: n = 209; reliability estimates provided on the diagonal
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001
a
Age is measured on a 6-point scale for ages 18–65?
b
Tenure is measured on a 5-point scale, \3 months to 3 years?

123
588
and co-worker-directed OCB, and organization-directed
OCB (Hypothesis 2). In step 1, the control variables age
and tenure were entered. In step 2, procedural justice and
WSC were entered. Finally, in step 3, a cross-product term
used to capture the moderating effect of procedural justice
and WSC was entered to test for the hypothesized mod-
erating effect. Support for moderation would be demon-
strated by a significant increase in variance explained
through the addition of step 3. Prior to the analysis, all
predictor variables were centered to avoid multicollinearity
in the regressions.
As shown in Table 2 and consistent with Hypothesis 1,
the addition of step 3 (the interaction of procedural justice
and WSC) added significant variance explained in organi-
zational commitment above and beyond the main effects.
Overall, the direct effects of WSC and procedural justice
accounted for 34% of the variance in organizational com-
mitment beyond the 2% explained by age and tenure, while
the moderating effect of procedural justice accounted for
an additional 2% of variance. In addition, as hypothesized,
the direction of the beta weight for the interaction was
negative (b = -.13, p \ .05) indicative of an attenuation
of the main effects. This moderating relationship is
graphically shown in Fig. 2.
As hypothesized, Fig. 2 shows that there was a weaker
(attenuated) relationship between WSC and organizational
commitment when procedural justice was high then when
procedural justice was low. Simple slope tests (Aiken and
West 1991) were conducted to determine the nature of the
moderated relationship found in the regression analyses for
organizational commitment at one standard deviation
above and one standard deviation below the mean. At
higher levels of procedural justice the slope was non-sig-
nificant (B = .04, t = .44, n.s.), suggesting that WSC and
organizational commitment were not strongly related.
Table 2 Multiple regression of study variables on organizational
commitment (n = 209)
Predictors Step Step 2
1
Age .10 .01
Organizational tenure -.14 -.04
Procedural justice .51**
Work status congruence .20**
Procedural justice 9 work status
congruence
DR2 .02 .34**
R2 .02 .36**
Main effect variables are centered, prior to inclusion. Values are
standardized beta weights
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01
123
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:583–592
Fig. 2 Effects of WSC and procedural justice on organizational
commitment
However, at lower levels of procedural justice there was a
significant and positive relationship between WSC and
organizational commitment (B = .33, t = 4.29, p \ .001).
As shown in Table 3, Hypothesis 2 was supported for
coworker-directed OCB (b = -.13, p \ .05) but not
organization-directed OCB. The WSC 9 organizational
justice interaction added significantly to the variance
explained of coworker-directed OCB (DR2 = .02,
p \ .05). While the WSC 9 organizational justice inter-
action did not add significantly to the explanation of
organization-directed OCB, the direction of the interaction
was in the hypothesized direction (b = -.11, n.s.).
For the significant interaction found for coworker-
directed OCB, the moderating relationship is graphically
shown in Fig. 3. Simple slope tests follow a similar pattern
as those found with the interaction of WSC and organiza-
tional commitment. At higher levels of procedural justice,
WSC and coworker-directed OCB were not strongly rela-
ted and the slope was non-significant (B = .12, t = .79,
n.s.). However, at lower levels of procedural justice there
was a significant and positive relationship between these
variables (B = .52, t = 3.95, p \ .001). Consistent with
Hypothesis 2, there was a stronger relationship between
Step 3
WSC and coworker-directed OCB when procedural justice
was low then when procedural justice was high.
-.01
-.04
.50** Discussion
.18**
-.13* The purpose of this study is to explore the boundary con-
ditions of WSC’s relationships with organizational com-
.02* mitment and OCB. The results of this exploration make
.38** several contributions to our understanding of employee
reactions to benefits they receive from their interactions
with organizations. First, we add to the understanding of
the relatively new construct of WSC. The results of our
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:583–592 589

Table 3 Multiple regression of study variables on organization- and coworker-directed OCB (n = 209)
Predictors Organization-directed OCB Coworker-directed OCB
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Age .03 -.02 -.03 -.08 -.14 -.15*

Organizational tenure .06 .11* .12 .12 .15* .16*
Procedural justice .28** .27** .23** .22**
Work status congruence .14* .12 .24** .22**
Procedural justice 9 work status congruence -.11 -.13*
DR2 .01 .12** .01 .02 .14** .02*
Total R2 .01 .12** .13** .02 .16** .17**
Main effect variables are centered, prior to inclusion. Values are standardized beta weights
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01

receive from their organizations. While Holtom et al.

Fig. 3 Effects of WSC and procedural justice on coworker-directed
OCB
study contribute to the WSC literature by adding additional
evidence of its importance for both attitudinal and behav-
ioral outcomes. Like Holtom et al. (2002) we find that, in
terms of its main effects, WSC was positively related to
self reports of organizational commitment and supervisor-
assessed behavior in the form of coworker- and organization-
directed OCB. It should be noted that both organizational
commitment and OCB are critically important variables to
organizations. Specifically, recent meta-analytic results
suggest a significant relationship between organizational
commitment and individual performance (e.g., Riketta
2002), while OCB has been shown to markedly contribute
to organizational effectiveness (e.g., Organ 1988). Clearly,
WSC classifies as an outcome offered by organizations that
is valued and reciprocated by employees.
Second, this study explores an important boundary
condition of WSC’s relationship with behavioral and atti-
tudinal outcomes by examining the moderating role of
procedural justice. In doing so, we also extend the outcome
favorability–procedural justice interaction stream of
research by including WSC as an outcome that individuals
(2002) found that WSC is positively related to both orga-
nizational commitment and OCB, our results suggest that
procedural justice moderates the relationship between
WSC and these outcomes. Specifically, we found that
procedural justice had a suppressive effect on the rela-
tionship between WSC and organizational commitment as
well as coworker-directed OCB. The presence of proce-
dural justice lessens the negative impact of low WSC
congruence on both an employee’s attitudes (organizational
commitment) and workplace behaviors (coworker-directed
OCB). These results are consistent with Brockner’s (2002)
contention that when procedural justice is low, negative
outcomes are likely to be viewed as the fault of the
organization behaving unjustly. This attribution results in
the individual developing resentment for the organization
which is reflected in their behaviors and attitudes.
However, when poor outcomes such as WSC occur in a
context of high procedural justice, individuals are likely to
feel the outcome is fair and they deserved it, or that it is a
short-term aberration and that the organization that they
trust will make amends in the long term. Either way,
organizational commitment and OCB are less likely to
suffer.
Third, we extend the outcome favorability–procedural
justice interaction stream of research (e.g., Brockner et al.
2003), by demonstrating that the outcome favorability–
procedural justice interaction can predict organizational
behaviors (in this case supervisor-rated OCB) indepen-
dently observed by others. Previous research (e.g., Brock-
ner 2002; Brockner and Wiesenfeld 1996) has shown that
this interaction can affect attitudinal outcomes such as
support for the organization, support for the decision,
support for the decision maker, and self-esteem. While
these self-reported attitudinal and state-related outcomes
are important, extending the research to include outcomes
such as supervisor-assessed OCB represents an important
contribution.

123
590
While we found support for the attenuating influence of
justice for coworker-directed OCB, we did not find it for
organization-directed OCB and Hypothesis 2 was only
partially supported. However, the direction of the beta for the
interaction was in the hypothesized direction and approa-
ched significance (p \ .11). Future research should examine
why this might be the case. Perhaps WSC is an outcome
received by employees that is less likely to generate recip-
rocation focused on representing or speaking well of the
global organization as reflected in our measure of organi-
zation-directed OCB. This may reflect the attributions that
individuals make about the party responsible for their WSC.
Fairness heuristic theory (Van den Bos et al. 1999) states that
individuals attempt to make sense of their relationships with
others by gathering information about how procedures are
conducted, and then make attributions as to which party in
the relationship is responsible for the outcome that the
individual receives. The party responsible for WSC is likely
to be the target of behavioral reciprocation. Perhaps, the
source of WSC is less the organization and more the
scheduling supervisor which would make reciprocation in
the form of organization-focused OCB less appropriate.
Also, our sample of manufacturing employees may have less
opportunity to demonstrate meaningful organization-direc-
ted OCB and must therefore focus on their more immediate
contributions in the form of coworker-directed OCB. In fact,
the direct effect of WSC on organization-directed OCB
(b = .14) was much less pronounced than the impact of
WSC on coworker-directed OCB (b = .24).
Implications for Practice
In addition to these contributions to the literature, the
presence of procedural justice as a boundary condition on
the WSC–organizational commitment and WSC–cow-
orker-directed OCB relationships has critical implications
for how work status issues can be managed in the
workplace. For example, Holtom et al. (2002) found that
WSC is positively related to job satisfaction, organiza-
tional commitment, employee retention, in-role perfor-
mance, and OCB. In order to minimize the negative
consequences of low WSC on these important variables,
Holtom et al. (2002) contended that employees should be
selected at least in part based on the fit between their
preferred work status and the actual work status of the
open position. Our study of the boundary conditions of
this relationship adds an additional implication for prac-
tice. While selecting individuals based on the work status
preferences may avoid problems associated with low
WSC, the applicant’s ability to perform the job at a high
level may be a more important hiring criterion. For
instance, there may be circumstances where the best
candidate for a night-shift position would prefer to work
123
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:583–592
the day shift. In this case, our results suggest that ensuring
fair and transparent procedures in determining employees’
shifts will mitigate the negative impact of low WSC on
employees’ work-related attitudes and behaviors. Thus,
organizations using and promoting fair procedures might
minimize the negative consequences of hiring a great
candidate for an undesirable shift until they can be moved
to a shift they prefer.
Future Research
Future research exploring potential boundary conditions of
WSC beyond procedural justice could provide further
mechanisms that would allow an organization to mitigate
the negative consequences of low WSC. While this
research presents procedural justice as one mechanism to
reduce the negative consequences of low WSC, it seems
likely that additional management practices and circum-
stances could serve as attenuating mechanisms as well. We
suggest that circumstances that influence an employees’
sense of volitional choice in work status are prime
candidates.
Following cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger 1957),
the opposing evaluative thoughts and feelings that an
employee with an incongruent work status who otherwise
enjoys their job is likely to experience suggests that this
scenario could result in the employee experiencing cogni-
tive dissonance. Resolving the dissonance that results from
an incongruent work status would require the individual to
pay greater attention to the attractive aspects of the job as
opposed to the inconsistency with their ideal work status.
Such might be the case where a person chooses to work on a
job that has high intrinsic appeal to them but requires a less
than ideal work status. Jobs that are highly enriched relative
to the jobs characteristics model (Hackman and Oldham
1976) might serve as examples. In fact, there may be situ-
ations where the less than ideal work status itself enriches a
job. For instance, nurses who work night shifts experience
greater autonomy due to the decreased presence of managers
and physicians (Claffey 2006). Individuals may also choose
to work non-ideal schedules to be part of an organizational
culture they value, or to help attain a motivating vision
articulated by a transformational leader. Both organizational
culture and transformational leadership are viewed by
employees as resources of a positive value that the organi-
zation grants its employees (Song et al. 2009). In all four of
these cases: intrinsic job appeal, enriched job design, con-
gruence with organizational culture, and transformation
leadership, the influence of WSC on attitudes and behaviors
should be attenuated since the person has essentially traded
off WSC in exchange for something of greater value. In
addition, job market circumstances where jobs are plentiful
and movement relatively easy should also lead to a
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:583–592
reduction in the importance of WSC on employee attitudes
and behavior since they would perceive they were in the
situation by their own choice.
There may also be individual differences that serve to
moderate the influence of WSC on attitudes and behaviors.
The theory underlying the interactive effects of procedural
justice provides insight into individual difference con-
structs that may serve a similar function. Procedural jus-
tice’s effects are theorized to be due to changes in
attribution such that in low-justice situations individuals
attribute outcomes they receive from the organization
(whether negative or positive) to the organization, while in
high-justice situations individuals are more likely to attri-
bute those outcomes to themselves (Brockner 2002).
Therefore, future research should consider other constructs
that might have a similar effect on attributions. For
example, individuals with an internal locus of control
(Rotter and Mulry 1965) may feel that being in a situation
of low WSC is of their own doing, thereby attenuating its
influence on their attitudes and behaviors. Likewise a
person with low core self-evaluation (Judge and Bono
2001) may feel like they are deserving of low WSC and,
therefore, be less likely to develop negative attitudes and
behaviors when their WSC is low.
It may also be fruitful for future research to investigate
the temporal elements associated with individual reactions
to differing levels of WSC. The manner in which an
individual responds to low WSC, for example, may be
affected by the period of time during which the individual
expects the low WSC to last. Individuals may respond
more negatively to low WSC that they expect to continue
in perpetuity than low WSC that they expect to change for
the better in a relatively short period of time. Thus, it may
not be simply current levels of WSC that influence
employee attitudes and behaviors, but expectations about
future WSC may play a role as well.
Finally, an exploration of the subcomponents of WSC
individually may also constitute an important area of future
research. WSC comprises schedule, shift, full-time/part-
time status, and number of working hours. It may be the
case that different subcomponents become more or less
important in different contexts. For example, employees
who work 12-h shifts may be more concerned with their
schedule, as one of the main advantages of 12-h shifts is
that the employee typically works only 3 days per week. In
this type of scenario, the employee may be disproportion-
ately concerned with their schedule so that they can full
take advantage of their 4 days off every week, while
concerns over shift may be tempered by the infrequency
with which the individual works. An employee working
8-h shifts 5 days per week, conversely, may be more
concerned with working their desired shift, since an
undesirable shift would have to be worked more frequently.
591
Limitations and Conclusions
While our study benefits from collecting data from super-
visors and their employees in an actual organization setting,
it does have several limitations that must be considered
when interpreting the results. First, our test of hypothesis 1
may have been influenced by common method variance
since all variables used in that analysis were collected from
employees. However, our initial CFA results suggest that a
single common method factor does not account for all the
relationships between the variables. Second, our study was
not longitudinal and therefore direction of causality cannot
be determined. Future research studies should attempt to
capture the independent and moderating variables in a
longitudinal fashion to help ameliorate the findings of our
study from a causality standpoint. Finally, this study was
performed at a manufacturing plant with 24 h of operation.
Therefore, some individuals were asked to work night
shifts, which may have made WSC a more important out-
come that individuals received from the organization than it
would have been in a context where all employees worked
day shifts only. Replications of this work in different con-
texts could shed light on the generalizability of our findings.
Despite these limitations, this research contributes to the
literature in several ways. First, we add incremental evi-
dence of the importance of WSC as a factor that influences
critical employee attitudes and behaviors. Next, the study
results suggest that procedural justice is a boundary condi-
tion on these direct relationships such that the WSC–orga-
nizational commitment and WSC–coworker-directed OCB
relationships are more pronounced when procedural justice
is low rather than when procedural justice is high. This
interactive effect also adds to the outcome favorability–
procedural justice literature by conceptualizing WSC in
terms of a favorable outcome that individuals receive from
organizations, and by suggesting that the outcome favor-
ability–procedural justice interaction can predict supervisor-
rated citizenship behavior. Taken together, these findings
inform management practice by suggesting that organiza-
tions maintain high levels of procedural justice to reduce the
attitudinal and behavioral consequences of employees
experiencing unfavorable outcomes (i.e., low WSC).
Acknowledgments We would like to thank Dr. Michael Ensley for
his support and assistance in the data collection for this manuscript.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Aryee, S., & Chay, Y. W. (2001). Workplace justice, citizenship
behavior, and turnover intentions in a union context: examining
the mediating role of perceived union support and union
instrumentality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 154–160.
123
592
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York:
Wiley.
Brockner, J. (2002). Making sense of procedural fairness: How high
procedural fairness can reduce or heighten the influence of outcome
favorability. Academy of Management Review, 27, 58–76.
Brockner, J., Heuer, L., Magner, N., Folger, R., Umphress, E., van
den Bos, K., et al. (2003). High procedural fairness heightens the
effect of outcome favorability on self-evaluations: An attribu-
tional analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 91, 51–68.
Brockner, J., Konovsky, M., Cooper-Schneider, R., Folger, R., Martin,
C. L., & Bies, R. J. (1994). The interactive effects of procedural
justice and outcome negativity on the victims and survivors of job
loss. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 397–409.
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework
for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of
outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189–208.
Claffey, C. (2006). Leadership support for night shift. Nursing
Management, 37, 41–44.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, O. L. H., & Ng,
K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review
of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 425–445.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social
exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional
justice. Group & Organization Managemen, 27, 324–351.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL:
Row Peterson.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and
human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Graham, J. W. (1989). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct
redefinition, operationalization, and validation. Unpublished
working paper. Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the
design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior &
Human Performance, 13, 250–279.
Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., & Tidd, S. T. (2002). The relationship
between WSC and work-related attitudes and behaviors. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87, 903–915.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self
evaluations—self-esteem, generalized self efficacy, locus of
control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 80–93.
Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its
impact on business organizations. Journal of Management, 26,
489–511.
Lawler, E. E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Monterey,
CA: Brooks and Cole.
Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309–336.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000).
Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of
123
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:583–592
fair procedures and treatment of work relationships. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 738–748.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice
and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions
influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology,
76, 845–855.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism
as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizen-
ship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127–142.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The
measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 14, 224–247.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good
soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Podsakoff, P., & Organ, D. (1986). Self-reports in organizational
research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12,
531–544.
Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 23, 257–267.
Rotter, J. B., & Mulry, R. C. (1965). Internal versus external control
of reinforcement and decision time. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 2, 598–604.
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). Integrating psychological
contracts and multifocused organizational justice. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925–946.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to
structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Siegel, P. A., Post, C., Brockner, J., Fishman, A. Y., & Garden, C.
(2005). The moderating influence of procedural fairness on the
relationship between work-life conflict and organizational com-
mitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 13–24.
Song, L. J., Tsui, A. S., & Law, K. S. (2009). Unpacking employee
responses to organizational exchange mechanisms: The role of
social and economic exchange perceptions. Journal of Manage-
ment, 35, 56–93.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D. (2004).
Moderators of the relationships between coworkers’ organiza-
tional citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 455–465.
Tepper, B. J., & Taylor, E. C. (2003). Relationships among
supervisors’ and subordinates’ procedural justice perceptions
and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 46, 97–105.
Van den Bos, K., Bruins, J., Wilke, H. A. M., & Dronkert, E. (1999).
Sometimes unfair procedures have nice aspects: On the
psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 77, 324–336.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002).
The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of
organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87, 590–598.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.