The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1741-0401.htm

Is performance evaluation Performance

evaluation and
gendered for gender
stereotype
behavioural dimension?
Rachana Chattopadhyay 489
International Management Institute - Kolkata, Kolkata, India
Received 12 March 2019
Revised 5 November 2019
Abstract Accepted 15 February 2020
Purpose – Researches have already pointed out the linkage between pro-male bias and performance
evaluation system. The main aim of this study is to understand how far different dimensions of performance
measures are susceptible to gender stereotype.
Design/methodology/approach – Two separate experimental researches were designed to understand
whether the performance assessment is purely based on objective criteria or it is governed by the gender
stereotype. Two different performance dimensions of assessment were considered in this study as follows:
interactional (behavioural) and procedural. 129 customer care managers from four metro cities of India
voluntarily participated in this experimental research and played the role of performance evaluator. These
managers were placed in different experimental conditions related to different combinations of gender and
justice variations (interactional or procedural).
Findings – This study reveals that in violation of behaviour-based performance norm (interactional justice
norm), female employees were rated less favourably than male employee both in terms of performance rating
and reward recommendation by the managers, but it is not in case of procedural justice violation.
Originality/value – This article has experimentally proved how gender stereotype can distort the
performance evaluation of behavioural dimension.
Keywords Interactional justice, Procedural justice, Gender stereotype, Performance rating, Reward
recommendation
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Decades of enquiries on performance evaluation system confirm the linkage between
performance appraisal and gender bias (Davison and Bruke, 2000; Dobbins et al., 1988;
Gunderson et al., 1996; Martell et al., 1996; Maurer and Taylor, 1994; Mobley, 1982; Pazy, 1986;
Robbins and DeNisi, 1993). According to Nieva and Gutek (1980), a pro-male bias–related
performance evaluation occurs when male employees are treated more favourably than
female employees eventhough both show similar performance outcome. To understand the
reason behind pro-male bias in performance evaluation system, social psychology
researchers have pointed out the impact of social-cognitive variables like stereotype,
prejudice etc. Studies have already pointed out how traditional women stereotype is
responsible for pro-male bias.
Gender stereotype can be viewed from two aspects as follows; descriptive and prescriptive
(Heilman, 2001). Descriptive gender stereotype refers to the belief about how men and women
would be, whereas prescriptive gender stereotype denotes the expected behaviour from men
and women (Biernat, 2003; Eagly and Karau, 2002; Heilman, 2001; Prentice and Carranza,
2002; Rudman, 1998). According to Heilman (2012), some common attributes are associated
with prescriptive gender stereotype. Women should demonstrate socially and interpersonally
sensitive behaviour that incorporates concern for others, whereas male behaviour should be International Journal of
Productivity and Performance
associated with independence, assertiveness, achievement orientation etc. Departure from Management
gender prescriptive behaviour is considered as violation of gender norm. Researches also Vol. 70 No. 3, 2021
pp. 489-506
pointed out that certain behaviours result in negative consequences for women, for © Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0401
example; adoption of autocratic leadership (Eagly et al., 1992), self- promotion (Amanatullah DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-02-2019-0094
IJPPM and Morris, 2010; Rudman, 1998, 2010), power-seeking behaviours (Okimoto and Brescoll,
70,3 2010) and assertive and dominant communication (Brescoll, 2012; Carli, 2001) etc.
While evaluating the performance of customer care executives, managers are mainly
concerned about the behavioural dimension and the procedural knowledge of the employee to
solve the customer problems. More specifically, they judge the interactional justice and
procedural justice made by the executive for the client. Here, in this research; our main
objective is to understand that while performance is assessed in terms of interpersonal
490 behaviour and procedure followed by the employee, whether assessments are only based on
performance criteria or they are accompanied with gender prescriptive norm. More clearly,
we need to understand is whether there is any discriminatory treatment between men and
women when both of them fail in two specific performance parameters; first one is the ability
to perform interactional justice with the customer and the second one is the procedural
understanding of the employee in resolving customer issues. To fulfil these two purposes, we
have deliberately conducted this study on customer care executives, where both interactional
justice (interpersonal treatment made by the executives with the customer) and procedural
justice (procedure followed by the executives to solve the customer issues) are considered as
the significant parameters of performance evaluation.

1.1 Rules of organizational justice

Justice in organizational context is considered through the perspectives of employees who
make the judgement about their leader’s action or behaviour. (Cropanzano and Greenberg,
1997; Folger et al., 1983; Greenberg, 1990). There is no absolute sense in justice perception;
what might be perceived as justified action by an individual may be perceived as unjustified
by others. Anyway, concept of justice is socially constructed. Therefore, coherent, long-
standing groups normally develop a shared vision regarding a group of behaviour which can
be considered as justice (Bies, 1987, 2015; Colquitt and Rodell, 2015; Lind and Tyler, 1988;
Tyler and Lind, 1992; Tyler and Smith, 1999). However, this shared vision regarding justice is
limited to the group members and may create the conflict with the justice perception of other
group members.
Through decades of inquiries, scholars have identified three different rules of organizational
justice that facilitate an individual to assess the fairness in the system. These three forms of
organizational justice are distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice.
Distributive justice refers to the perception of equity related to resource distribution and
perception of fairness (Blau, 1968; Lind and Tyler, 1988; Blader and Tyler, 2003). Procedural
justice emphasizes the fairness of procedure (Thibault and Walker, 1975). Interactional justice as
defined by Folger and Cropanzano (1998) refers to the quality of interpersonal treatment
provided to subordinates both before and after decision-making. They differentiated
interpersonal justice into two subparts as follows: interpersonal sensitivity (the belief that
fair treatment is respectful) and social account (excuses and justification). Folger and
Cropanzano emphasizes the social account in their research and gave less attention to
interpersonal sensitivity. In late 1980s, researchers such as Bies (1987), Lind and Tyler (1988),
Tyler and Lind (1992) and Tyler and Smith (1999) tended to emphasize on interpersonal relations
and preferred to consider interactional justice as a distinct category of organizational justice.

1.2 Gender stereotype in organizational context

Perspective of gender stereotypes create expectations for what men women should be like,
dictating which attributes and behaviours are acceptable and which are “off limits”. According
to these perspectives, women are expected to be kind, sympathetic and interpersonally
sensitive, whereas men are expected to be independent, ambitious and task-oriented
(Prentice and Carranza, 2002). Various researches pointed out similar conclusions about
gender stereotypes on employee evaluation (Brescoll, 2012; Eagly and Karau, 2002; Scott et al., Performance
2009; Heilman, 2001; Livingstone et al., 2012; Rudman, 1998), and they tend to rely on the evaluation and
assumption that gender stereotypes operate as social norm (Cialdini and Trost, 1988). Based on
this view, researchers have pointed out that a deviation from prescriptive norm results in
gender
penalties, censure and social disapproval (Heilman, 2001). stereotype
Heilman (2001, 2012) has reported on social disapproval of female employees who behave
in counter-stereotypical manner. Rudman (1998) described that women face backlash when
they “behave like men”. These adverse gender norm violations tend to produce unfavourable 491
outcome like negative performance evaluation or unfavourable reward recommendations
(Heliman and Chen, 2005; Scott et al., 2009). In one study, Heilman and Chen (2005) found that
women who refused to help co-workers were perceived negatively and also incurred the
penalty which was not provided to the male counterparts.
Researches also pointed out that adoption of autocratic leadership (Eagly et al., 1992), self-
promotion (Amanatullah and Morris, 2010; Rudman, 1998, 2010), power-seeking behaviours
(Okimoto and Brescoll, 2010) and assertive and dominant communication (Brescoll, 2012;
Carli, 2001; Livingstone et al., 2012) result in penalties for female but not for male counterparts.
As this study is based on Indian organizational set-up, therefore, considering Indian
context in terms of gender issues are very important. In India, gender is the most powerful
stereotype. According to Sharma (1981), in Indian society, attitude towards sex difference is
the first and foremost stereotype followed by caste, religion and class. According to
Chaudhury (2006), gender stereotyping in Indian families occurs in two forms, first form is
projecting of discriminatory behaviour between male and female child, and the second form is
differentiation in role allocation. Women are seen as nurturer, emotional caretaker, whereas
men are the provider of economic support to the family. Rao (1969) pointed out that identity of
Indian women is outlined only on the basis of their interpersonal skills such as: an obedient
daughter, a faithful wife, a nurturing mother etc. A male employee who has a child is
perceived as male; a female employee with a child is perceived as a mother. According to
Sandhu (2018), the contemporary Indian family is in a transition process. Though there is a
change in family structure, from joint to nuclear family, it is not fully accompanied with
psychological changes. They wish to live in small family structure along with traditional
family values. In case of dual earning family, where both husband and wife work full time
outside; there are conflicts on role expectations. Women in these families are expected to play
the role of both traditional and modern Indians (Kaushik et al., 2014).

1.3 Organizational justice, gender stereotyping and performance evaluation

According to social cognitive theory, when the justice perception of appraiser is governed by
gender stereotypical behaviour, assessment regarding performance is not limited to
performance criteria only, it is also considered as a failure to act as per gender norm (Bem,
1981; Bowles and Gelfand, 2010; Del Boca et al., 1986; Fishbein and Azen, 1975; Swim and
Sanna, 1996). Del Boca and Ashmore (1980) added that a certain set of behaviour is associated
with male and a different set of behaviour is associated with female. According to them,
positively valued characteristics for male stereotype include competence, rationality and
assertion; whereas the positively valued female characteristics incorporate warmth and
expressiveness. According to Fiske (1998), “the typical woman is seen as nice but incompetent,
the typical man as competent but may be not so nice”.
According to Heilman (2012), deviation gender prescriptive norms may incite further
censure and disapproval which would adversely affect the evaluation of performance.
Biernat et al. (2003) pointed out that people may have different sex-wise judging criteria that
overlap with the content of gender stereotypes. Thus, when the exhibited behaviour deviates
from their own judging criteria, it may be considered especially egregious for supervisor’s sex
IJPPM relative norm. This perceived feeling of egregiousness may be reflected in differential
70,3 performance evaluation for men and women (Eagly and Karau, 2002; Sessko and Bienat,
2010). Bies and Moag (1986) pointed out that when women employees fail to perform in
interactionally sensitive way, judgement is not only based on the performance failure, but
also as a failure to act as a woman should be. In support of our research objective, we found a
study conducted by Caleo (2016). In this study, two forms of organizational justice were
considered – interactional and procedural – and the study was conducted on US university
492 students. Findings of this study indicate that women were rated less favourably than men
when there is a violation of interactional justice, but this is not true in case of procedural
justice violation. There is no question of less acceptance for female as compared to male, in
terms of procedural injustice.

2. Research objectives
Here in our research, we are specifically considering customer care managers who have real
time experience in conducting performance evaluation for customer care executives. These
managers were placed under different experimental treatments, and they were asked to rate
the performance evaluation report given by the immediate supervisor of the customer care
executives and recommend them for the suitable rewards. To understand whether
differential treatment takes place between male and female customer care executives;
while evaluating them on the basis of performed interactional or procedural justice, we have
conducted two experimental studies. Study 1 deals with performance evaluation of
performed interactional justice made by the customer care executives and study 2 deals with
the performance evaluation of performed procedural justice made by the customer care
executives in solving the customer problems.

3. Study 1
Following hypotheses are formulated in this study:
H1a. Irrespective of employee’s gender, customer care executives will receive highly
favourable performance rating and reward recommendation in case of interactional
justice adherence.
H1b. Irrespective of employee’s gender, customer care executives will receive
unfavourable performance rating and reward recommendation in case of
interactional justice violation.
H1c. Irrespective of gender, customer care executives will receive lower performance
rating and reward recommendation (as compared to the rating under interactional
justice adherence) in case of no information about the interactional justice adherence
or violation.

3.1 Methods
3.1.1 Participants and design. 129 customer care managers of different corporates voluntarily
participated in this study. These managers were working in four cities (Delhi, Mumbai,
Kolkata and Bangalore) of India. 71.31% of them were male, 28.68% were female, their ages
ranged between 35 and 45 years and they have minimum 3 years of managerial experience.
Each group of participants was randomly assigned to one condition of a 2 x (category: male/
female) x 3 (interactional justice condition: violation of interactional justice / adherence of
interactional justice/ no justice information). Data were collected through physical
distribution of questionnaire.
 3.1.2 Materials and procedure. Participants were provided a performance appraisal report Performance
for each target employee, which contains two sections. Section one (1) contains employee’s evaluation and
information sheet, includes the information about employee’s name with surname, gender
(male/female), date of birth, current position and responsibilities. All employees’ designations
gender
were provided as customer care executives. Section two (2) contains feedback of the target stereotype
employee provided by the immediate supervisor. Participants were provided with feedback
rating form filled up by the immediate supervisor of the target employee. First page of the
form contained an assessment of employees’ work-related skill sets, and the second part is an 493
open- ended report related to employees’ work-related behaviour. After reviewing the above-
stated materials, one performance rating scale and one reward recommendation scale (scale
descriptions are provided in measure section) were provided to the participants to give their
response regarding target employee.

3.1.3 Experimental manipulation

Gender of the target employee: Gender of the target employee was manipulated by varying
the target’s first name and the gender-related pronouns that were used in describing the
behaviour of the target employee. Beside this, in the employee information sheet, gender of
the target employee was explicitly indicated.
Interactional justice: This is the second section of the material which contains the feedback
about the target employee; it deals with the following three conditions of interactional justice:
In interactional justice adherence condition, target employee was described by his/her
immediate supervisor as an individual with high interpersonal skills. Following factors were
considered for describing the target employee:
(1) Works very well with clients as well as all staff members.
(2) Has a very warm rapport with everyone she comes in contact with.
(3) Follows up with clients to ensure no one feels forgotten or lost in the process.
(4) Consistently answers the phone with a smile and a friendly hello.
(5) Receives ongoing positive feedback from clients – both verbally and in writing.
(6) Deals with challenging customers without becoming aggressive.
(7) Has developed a loyal customer base and a high rate of repeat business.
In interactional justice violation condition, target employee was described by the immediate
supervisor as an individual with a low interpersonal ability to deal with the customer. Below-
mentioned factors were incorporated in describing the employee:
(1) Receives ongoing substandard customer satisfaction scores.
(2) Does not manage customer expectations by explaining reasons for delays.
(3) Refers too many customer queries to management for final resolution.
(4) Has received numerous customer complaints for failing to follow up as promised.
(5) Cannot yet demonstrate sufficient knowledge of company products.
(6) Argues and uses inflammatory language with customers.
(7) Becomes frustrated when customers ask too many questions.
In no information about interactional justice condition, no feedback regarding interactional
quality of the target employee is provided in section two.
IJPPM 3.2 Measures
70,3 Performance Rating: Performance rating was measured using a composite scale (Caleo, 2016)
of the following items:
(1) Overall, how would you rate the employees’ performance over the past years?
(2) Give your assessment of individual’s likelihood of success.
494 (3) In your opinion, how likely is that this employee will advance in the company?
(4) To what extent do you think this employee is a valuable asset to the company?
Each item was measured using a seven-point rating scale ranging from 1 (poor) to 7
(excellent). For the first item, the scale was 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely) and for the
second and third items scaling was 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). The measures were found to
be internally consistent (α 5 0.83).
Reward recommendations: Reward recommendation scale was adapted from Allen and
Rush (1998). This scale measured the extent to which participants would recommend the
employee for a series of organizational rewards. Organizational rewards mentioned in this
scale are as follows:
(1) Bonus pay.
(2) Salary increase.
(3) High profile project.
(4) Promotion.
A seven-point scale was provided with reward recommendation where 1 signifies “would
definitely not recommended” and 7 signifies “would definitely recommended”.
Fairness perception (used for checking the manipulation)
To ensure that manipulation on interactional justice worked properly, a measure of overall
fairness perception was obtained by aggregating responses to two 7-point bipolar adjective
items (fair–unfair) –one in which participants were asked to describe the target employee’s
behaviour in the episodes and another in which participants were asked to described the
behaviour of the employee in general. Apart from this, a three bipolar-item measure
(disrespectful–respectful, inconsiderate–considerate, impolite–polite) of interactional
fairness was developed by using 7-point rating scale; on which participants described the
target employee’s behaviour in the episode section. Below-mentioned Table I depicts the
mean, SD and correlation of measurement variables of study 1.

3.3 Analysis
3.3.1 Manipulation check. Prior to proceeding with the main analysis, we have checked
whether manipulation on interactional justice occurred properly. Initial analysis suggests
that manipulations were successful. Participants were correctly reported target employee’s
name, gender and types of performed interactional justice (adherence/violation/ no
information). ANOVA was conducted on interactional fairness and overall fairness

Table I. Variable M SD 1 2 3
Mean, standard
deviation and 1. Performance rating 5.47 0.45 – 0.83** 0.74**
correlation among 2. Reward recommendation 5.56 0.51 – 0.71**
measurement variables 3. Fairness perception 5.12 0.42 –
for study 1 Note(s): **p < 0.01
measures. Participants rated target employees’ interactional justice violation condition Performance
(M 5 2.89) as less interactionally fair than adherence (M 5 6.53) and no information (4.09) evaluation and
condition, (F 5 2, 123) 5 26.54 p < 0.001, η2p 5 0.71.
3.3.2 Common method bias. To assess the degree of common method bias, we have used
gender
the approach suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003). We have performed a separate partial least stereotype
square (PLS) analysis by incorporating a common method construct whose indicators
included all the principal constructs’ indicators. Then we calculated each indicator’s
variances explained by the corresponding principal construct and by the common method 495
construct. The results indicated that the average variance explained by the principal
constructs and by the common method construct were 0.51 and 0.03, respectively. We also
assessed factors of each indicator on the corresponding principal construct and on the
common method construct. The results demonstrated that most indicators loaded highly on
the corresponding principal construct, and the loadings on the common method constructs
were not significant. Thus, we concluded that common bias was unlikely to be a serious
problem in this research.
3.3.3 Analysis of control variable. Before testing the proposed hypothesis, analysis was
performed to test the impact of control variables on performance evaluation. Age and tenure
with the organization were considered as the control variables of this study. PLS analysis
reveals that there is no impact of age (b 5 0.14, t 5 0.31 n.s.) and tenure with the organization
(b 5 0.07, t 5 0.49 n.s.) on performance rating.
3.3.4 Structural model. Figure 1 depicts the standardize path coefficient (b) and t-values
obtained from PLS analysis. We have tested each proposed hypothesis by interpreting its
respective path coefficient and significance.
Prior to move for testing the proposed hypothesis, first of all we have tested the impact of
performance rating on reward recommendation. We have observed that there is a
significant positive impact of performance rating on reward recommendation (b 5 0.86,
t 5 9.48, p < 0.05).

Control Variable

Age Tenure with the organizaon

b = 0.14, t = 0.31, n.s. b = 0.07, t = 0.49, n.s.

H1a

Interaconal Jusce Adherence

b = 0.67, t = 12.66*

H1b

Interaconal jusce Violaon Performance Rang

Reward
b = 0.15, t = 0.23, n.s. Figure 1.
b = 0.86, t = 9.48* Recommendaon
Structural equation
model on performance
rating and reward
H1c
recommendation based
No Informaon about performed jusce on interactional justice
made by male and
b = 0.63, t = 10.29* female customer care
executives
Note(s): Significant at: *0.05 level
IJPPM H1a proposed that irrespective of employee gender, justice adherence by the employee will
70,3 have positive impact on performance rating and reward recommendation. As per our
analysis, H1a was supported (b 5 0.67, t 5 12.66, p < 0.05), which indicates justice adherence
has positive impact on performance evaluation irrespective of gender bias. According to H1b
of this study, irrespective of employee’s gender, justice violation by the employee will have
negative impact on performance rating and reward recommendation. Analysis reveals that
H1b was not supported (b 5 0.15, t 5 0.23, n.s.); there was a significant gender effect on
496 performance evaluation in case of justice violation. In case of H1c, it was proposed that
irrespective of gender, no information about performed justice than adherence condition will
have lower rating on employee performance and reward recommendation. In our study, we
found the support of H1c (b 5 0.63, t 5 10.29, p < 0.05), as there was no gender impact
observed.
3.3.5 Analysis of variance. To understand the above-stated structure more from gender
directional perspective, we have conducted univariate two ANOVAs on each dependent
variable (performance rating and reward recommendation) separately; considering target
executive’s gender and three types of interactional justice conditions as independent
variables. Results are as follows:
A univariate ANOVA on performance rating revealed a significant main effect of target
employee’s gender (male/female) F (1, 123) 5 9.93, p < 0.001, η2p 5 0.54 and a significant main
effect of interactional justice conditions, F (2, 123) 5 36.80, p < 0.001, η2p 5 0.43. As predicted,
employees who violated interactional justice rules were rated more negatively than
employees who adhered to interactional justice rules and the employees about whom no
information about justice behaviour was provided. There was also a significant interaction
between gender of target employee and interactional justice, F (2, 123) 5 19.79, p < 0.001,
η2p 5 0.57. But, no significant difference between adherence and control conditions was
observed in terms of gender. It has been clearly observed that in case of interactional justice
violation, female employees were rated more negatively in terms of performance rating than
male employees. Figure 2 depicts the impact of employee gender and performed interactional
justice on employee’s performance rating.
Reward recommendations were also tested through two-way ANOVA. Results revealed a
significant main effect gender, F (1, 123) 5 18.25, p < 0.001, η2p 5 0.67 and a significant main
effect of interactional justice conditions, F (2, 123) 5 34.81, p < 0.001, η2p 5 0.59. As per our
prediction, employees who violated interactional justice were recommended for less rewards
compared to those who adhered and those for whom no information of justice were provided.
Simple effect test reveals the same pattern of interaction between gender of the target
employee and interactional justice, as observed in case of performance rating
(F (2, 123) 5 24.45, p < 0.001, η2p 5 0.63). Again, it has also been observed that there was

9
8 6.47
6.41
Performance Rating

7
6
4.12 4.08
5
3.34
4 2.41 Male
Figure 2. 3 Female
Impact of employee
2
gender and performed
interactional justice on 1
employee performance 0
rating Interactional Justice Interactional Justice No information
Violation Adherence
no significant difference between justice adherence and control condition in terms of gender. Performance
Female employees received less favourable reward recommendations than the male evaluation and
employees in interactional justice violation condition. Figure 3 depicts the impact of
employee gender and performed interactional justice on reward recommendation
gender
stereotype
4. Study 2
Following hypotheses are formulated in this study: 497
H2a. Irrespective of employee’s gender, customer care executives will receive highly
favourable performance rating and reward recommendation in case of procedural
justice adherence.
H2b. Irrespective of employee’s gender, customer care executives will receive
unfavourable performance rating and reward recommendation in case of
procedural justice violation.
H2c. Irrespective of gender, customer care executives will receive lower performance
rating and reward recommendation (as compared to the rating under procedural
justice adherence) in case of no information about the procedural justice adherence
or violation.

4.1 Method
4.1.1 Participants and design. This study was conducted on same 129 customer care
managers who were the participants of study 1. Here, they have evaluated the procedural
performance customer care executives. Each group of participants were randomly assigned
to one condition of a 2 3 (category: Male/Female) 3 3 (procedural justice condition as follows:
violation of procedural justice / adherence of procedural justice/ no justice information). Data
were collected through physical distribution of questionnaire.
4.1.2 Materials and procedure. In study 2, we have followed the same procedure as in case
of study 1. Here, we have made certain changes in the materials. In study 2, Section 1 of the
materials (employee’s information sheet) remains same as in case of study 1. Changes are
made in Section 2. Here, instead of describing target employees’ behaviour in the feedback
section, we have given the description about how the employee had performed the task.
4.1.3 Experimental manipulation. Gender of the target employee: Like study 1, gender of
the target employee was manipulated by varying the target’s first name and the gender-
related pronouns that were used in describing the action pattern of the target employee in
solving the customer problems. Beside this, in the employee information sheet gender of the
target employee was explicitly indicated.

9
8 6.62 6.56
Reward Recommendation

7
6
4.15 4.17
5 3.47
4 2.52 Male

3 Female Figure 3.
Impact of employee
2
gender and performed
1 interactional justice on
0 employee reward
Interactional Justice Interactional Justice No information recommendation
Violation Adherence
IJPPM Procedural Justice: Next section of the material which contains the feedback about the target
70,3 employee (related to the working style) deals with following three conditions of procedural
justice:
In procedural justice adherence condition, target employee was described on the basis of
following parameters:
(1) Identified and recorded the problem properly.
498 (2) Did logical sequencing in the problem
(3) Solved the problem by following the proper procedure.
(4) Guided the customer step by step who seeks the advice from the executives.
(5) Solve almost all the problems within the stipulated time span.
(6) Follow up actions were taken and recorded before closing the issues.
In procedural justice violation condition, target employee was described on the basis of the
following parameters:
(1) Problem in understanding of customer’s issues.
(2) Tried to solve the problem but in disorderly manner.
(3) Care is not given to the stipulated time frame of problem-solving. Most of the time it
exceeds the stipulated time span.
(4) Most of the cases, no follow up actions were taken before closing the issues.
In no information about procedural justice condition, no feedback regarding working pattern
of the target employee is provided in section two.

4.2 Measure
Same measures were used in study 2 in case of performance rating and reward
recommendation. But, in case of fairness perception (used for checking manipulation),
following measures were taken:
Fairness perception (used for checking manipulation)
To measure whether the manipulation worked properly, two items were developed along
with 7-point rating scale (fair-unfair) to measure the overall fairness perception. First item
deals with the rating of working style of the target employee as described in the episode.
Second item deals with the meticulousness of the target employee in general. Apart from that,
following three bipolar item measures (professional–unprofessional, orderly–nonorderly,
time bounded–non-time-bounded) of procedural fairness were constructed along with 7- point
rating scales. Below-mentioned Table II depicts the mean, SD and correlation of measurement
variables of study 2.

4.3 Analysis
4.3.1 Manipulation check. Before conducting the main analysis, we have tested whether
manipulation on procedural justice worked properly. Preliminary analysis suggests that
manipulations were successful. Participants correctly reported target employee’s name,
gender and types of performed procedural justice (adherence/violation/ no information).
ANOVA was conducted on procedural fairness and overall fairness measures. Participants
perceived target employee’s procedural justice violation condition (M 5 3.16) as less
procedurally fairer than adherence (M 5 6.48) and no information (M 5 4.21) condition,
(F 5 2, 123) 5 32.16 p < 0.001, η2p 5 0.61.
 4.3.2 Common method bias. To test the degree of common method bias, we have used the Performance
approach suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003). Specifically, we performed an additional evaluation and
PLS analysis with the inclusion of a common method construct whose indicators included
all the constructs of principal indicators. We then calculated the variances of each
gender
indicator explained by the corresponding principal construct and by the common method stereotype
construct. The results indicated that the average variance explained by the principal
constructs and by the common method construct were 0.55 and 0.09, respectively. We also
assessed factor loading of each indicator on corresponding principal construct and on the 499
common method construct. The results depicted that most indicators loaded highly on
corresponding principal construct, and the loadings on the common method constructs
were not significant. Therefore, we inferred that common method bias was unlikely to be
an issue in this study.
4.3.3 Analysis of control variable. First, analysis was performed to test the impact of
control variables on performance rating. Through PLS, it has been observed that there is no
impact of age (b 5 0.08, t 5 0.11, n.s.) and tenure with the organization (b 5 0.19, t 5 0.37) on
performance rating.
4.3.4 Structural model. Again, Figure 4 depicts the standardized path coefficient and
standardized t-values obtained from PLS analysis. Like previous structural model, here also
we have tested the impact of performance rating on reward recommendation and found a
significant positive impact (b 5 0.71, t 5 6.64).
As per our analysis, H2a was supported (b 5 0.82, t 5 10.14*), which indicates procedural
justice adherence has positive impact on performance evaluation, irrespective of gender bias.
Again, H2b is also supported in our findings (b 5 0.73, t 5 9.63*), which clearly states that
irrespective of gender, employee who has violated the procedural justice norms received
unfavourable performance evaluation. H2c was also supported in this analysis (b 5 0.77,
t 5 13.37*); therefore, it may be stated that irrespective of gender bias, no information about
performed procedural justice will have lower rating on performance evaluation as compared
to procedural justice adherence condition.
4.3.5 Analysis of variance. Like study 1, here also we have performed ANOVA analysis for
both performance rating and reward recommendation.
A univariate two-way ANOVA on performance rating revealed a significant main effect of
target employee’s gender (F 5 1, 123) 5 14.56, p < 0.001, η2p 5 0. 63 and a significant main
effect of procedural justice condition (F 5 2, 123) 5 21.45 p < 0.001, η2p 5 0.74. As per our
prediction, executives who adhere to procedural justice rule were rated much higher than who
had violated or whose information regarding procedural justice were not provided to the
evaluator. In terms of gender, no significant difference was observed in case of three above
stated conditions. Figure 5 depicts the impact of employee gender and performed procedural
justice on employee’s performance rating.
In the same way, we have conducted two-way ANOVA analysis on reward
recommendation. Again, the results revealed a significant main effect of target employee’s
gender (F 5 1, 123) 5 23.18, p < 0.001, η2p 5 0.57 and a significant main effect of procedural
justice condition (F 5 2, 123) 5 38.13 p < 0.001, η2p 5 0.73. No significant difference gender
effect was observed in the following three conditions: procedural justice adherence, violation

Variable M SD 1 2 3 Table II.

Mean, standard
1. Performance rating 5.08 0.34 – 0.87** 0.72** deviation and
2. Reward recommendation 5.17 0.49 – 0.77** correlation among
3. Fairness perception 5.02 0.51 – measurement variables
Note(s): **p < 0.01 for study 2
IJPPM and no information. Figure 6 depicts the impact of employee gender and performed
70,3 procedural justice on reward recommendation.

5. Discussion
The current research was conducted with the aim to understand whether there is pro-male
bias in performance evaluation system. Here in this research, we have considered
500 performance evaluation mainly based on two major performance criteria – behaviour and
procedure, followed by the employee in dealing with the customer. Considering
organizational justice perspective, behaviour or interpersonal skill to deal with the
customer can be considered as the interactional justice made by the employee to the
customer. Again, by what means the employee is solving the issues of the customer can be
viewed from procedural justice perspective – how procedurally correct the employee is in
solving the customer issues. Therefore, from the organizational justice perspectives, if we

Control Variable

Age Tenure with the organizaon

b = 0.08, t = 0.11, n.s. b = 0.19, t = 0.37, n.s.

H2a

Procedural Jusce Adherence

b = 0.82, t = 10.14*

H2b

Procedural jusce Violaon Performance Rating

Reward
Figure 4. b = 0.73, t = 9.63, n.s. b = 0.71, t = 6.64* Recommendaon
Structural equation
model on performance
rating and reward
H2c
recommendation based
on procedural justice No Informaon about procedural jusce
made by male and
female customer care b = 0.77, t = 13.37*
executives
Note(s): Significant at: *0.05 level

8 6.3 6.21
7
Performance Rating

6
5 3.32 3.19
4 2.54 2.67
3
Figure 5. 2
Impact of employee 1
gender and performed 0
procedural justice on Procedural Justice Violation Procedural Justice No Information
employee performance Adherence
rating
Male Female
consider the performance evaluation of customer care executives, we will get major two forms Performance
of justice as follows: interactional and procedural. evaluation and
Going by the literature of performance evaluation, linkage between performance appraisal
and pro-male bias is a well-established fact. Here in this research, we have tried to identify
gender
whether this pro-male bias is associated with all types of performance evaluation dimensions. stereotype
In this research, we have deliberately selected the performance evaluation of customer care
executives where two main dimensions of performance evaluations are involved –
interactional and procedural. 501
Results of this research depicted an interesting pattern. We have observed that gender
linked stereotype exists within the managers in case of evaluating the interactional justice
made by the employees in dealing with the customer. But, this stereotype is not visible within
the manager in evaluating the employees in terms of procedural justice made by them towards
the customer. Furthermore, we have observed that this stereotype does not exist when
employees are adhering to the interactional justice norm. In case of violation of interactional
justice, female employees were rated less favourably than male employees, both in terms of
performance rating and reward recommendation by the managers. Again, in our research,
there is no evidence of gender stereotype, in case of violation of procedural justice norm.
As we know, many researchers like Tyler and Lind (1992) and Tayler and Smith (1999)
were in favour of giving a distinct consideration to interactional justice because this concept
is somehow associated with gender stereotyping. Here in our findings also, we have observed
the contaminated effect of gender stereotyping while evaluating the act of interactional
justice violation. This stereotyping is not so prevalent in case of procedural justice. Our
findings support the research findings of Bies and Moag (1986) as well as those of Caleo
(2016); interactional justice violation by the women not only be considered as injustice but
also as a deviation from gender prescriptive norm. Henceforth, women who show
interactional justice violation will not only be penalized for justice violation, their penalties
also incorporate gender norm violation.

6. Practical implications
The main aim of performance evaluation is to assess the performance of the employee in
an objective manner. Normally, performance assessment parameters involve both
behaviour and outcome dimensions, though the weightage on these two parameters
varies based on the nature of the job. Measuring performance based on behavioural
dimension is relatively subjective than outcome dimension. While performance evaluation
of customer care executives is concerned, managers put greater emphasis on behavioural
issues. Extensive researches in the field of interactional justice have already proved that
behavioural issues are influenced by gender prescriptive norms. It has also been observed

8 6.47 6.39
Reward Recommendation

7
6
5 3.63 3.57
4 2.73 2.79
Male
3 Female Figure 6.
2 Impact of employee
gender and performed
1 procedural justice on
0 employee reward
Procedural Justice Procedural Justice No information recommendation
Violation Adherence
IJPPM that if there is a deviation in behavioural issues, penalties are higher in case of female than
70,3 male individuals with same power base. In this study also, we got the same evidence.
When gender identities are disclosed; deviation from expected behaviour leads towards
higher penalties for female executives than male executives, irrespective of evaluator’s
own gender identity. Therefore, we may infer that gender bias is associated with
behavioural dimension, and it is a challenge for the evaluators to overcome this issue.
Instead of assuming performance evaluation system is mostly objective, it is always better
502 to accept the existence of gender stereotype on behavioural dimension. If management can
accept the fact, it is possible to think about better strategies to overcome this issue. One of
the easiest solutions to this problem is to hide the gender identity of the employee from the
evaluators. However, in all the cases, this solution is not feasible, specifically when the
number of employees is less. Therefore, considering the own constraints, organizations
may develop their own strategies to deal with the problem of gender stereotype in
performance evaluation process.

7. Conclusion
In general, society expects kind, sympathetic and interpersonally sensitive behaviour from
women. In our study, we have observed the same phenomena in the organizational context
also. There is a gender bias in behaviour-based performance evaluation. If we look at the
service sector, a large number of employees are female, and their performance evaluation is
mainly based on behavioural dimension. If there is an automatic gender bias towards
behavioural dimension, there will always be a question on the objectivity of performance
evaluation process. Management may try not to disclose the gender identity before the
evaluators, but in all the cases it is not possible. Therefore, it is very crucial for the
management to understand the importance of this problem and accordingly innovate some
improvised strategies for their own organization.

8. Limitations
In the field of performance management, experimental studies are limited. Here, in this
study, we have tried to blend the experimental situations with the realistic scenario by
selecting the participants who have real experience of doing performance evaluation for
customer care executives. We have tried to maintain the homogeneity within the
participants by controlling their age and their experience, as far as possible. Despite all our
efforts, we found there are certain limitations in this research. First of all, as this research
was concentrating upon the performance evaluation of customer care executive, therefore
major focus was given on two performance parameters of organizational justice –
interactional and procedural. As, there was no scope to incorporate distributive justice
as performance evaluation parameter of customer care executives, this dimension is not
taken into consideration. As we are unaware about the impact of gender on distributive
justice, therefore, without testing the gender issues in performance evaluation in relation to
distributive justice in true sense, we may not claim that only behavioural dimension of
performance evaluation is gendered. Hence, further research studies are important in
different service profiles where incorporation of distributive justice as a performance
dimension is possible. A second limitation of this research is that it is fully conducted in
Indian society where gender stereotype is first and most powerful form of stereotype.
Therefore, it is expected that influence of gender prescriptive norm on behaviour-based
performance evaluation will remain much higher as compared to the culture where gender
stereotype is less prevalent. Hence, replication of this research in such cultures can provide
much generalized understanding.
References Performance
Allen, T.D. and Rush, M.C. (1998), “The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance evaluation and
judgments: a field study and a laboratory experiment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83
No. 2, pp. 247-260, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.247.
gender
Amanatullah, E.T. and Morris, M.W. (2010), “Negotiating gender roles: gender differences in assertive
stereotype
negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating
on behalf of others”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 98, pp. 256-267,
doi: 10.1037/a0017094. 503
Bem, S.L. (1981), “Gender schema theory: a cognitive account of sex typing”, Psychological Review,
Vol. 88, pp. 354-364.
Biernat, M. (2003), “Toward a broader view of social stereotyping”, American Psychologist, Vol. 58,
pp. 1019-1027, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.12.1019.
Biernat, M., Kobrynowicz, D. and Weber, D.L. (2003), “Stereotypes and shifting standards: some
paradoxical effects of cognitive load”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 10,
pp. 2060-2079, doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01875.x.
Bies, R.J. (2015), “Interactional justice: looking backward, looking forward”, in Cropanzano, R.S. and
Ambrose, M.L. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Justice in the Workplace, Oxford University
Press, New York, NY, pp. 89-107.
Bies, R.J. (1987), “The predicament of injustice: the management of moral outrage”, in Cummings, L.L.
and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behaviour, JAI Press, Greenwitch, CT, Vol. 9,
pp. 289-319.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.F. (1986), “Interactional justice: cornrnunication criteria of fairness”, in Lewicki,
R.J., Sheppard, B.H. and Bazerman, M.H. (Eds), Research on Negotiations in Organizations,
JAI Press, Greenwich, Vol. 1, pp. 43-55.
Blader, S.L. and Tyler, T.R. (2003), “A four-component model of procedural justice: defining the
meaning of a “fair” process”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 29 No. 6,
pp. 747-758, doi: 10.1177/0146167203029006007.
Blau, P.M. (1968), “Social exchange”, in Sills, D.L. (Ed.), International Encyclopaedia of the Social
Sciences, MacMillan, New York, NY, Vol. 7, pp. 452-458.
Bowles, H.R. and Gelfand, M. (2010), “Status and the evaluation of workplace deviance”, Psychological
Science, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 49-54, doi: 10.1177/0956797609356509.
Brescoll, V.L. (2012), “Who takes the floor and why: gender, power, and volubility in
organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 56, pp. 622-641, doi: 10.1177/
0001839212439994.
Caleo, S. (2016), “Are organizational justice rule gendered? Reactions to men’s and women’s
justice violations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 101, pp. 1422-1435, doi: 10.1037/
apl0000131.
Carli, L.L. (2001), “Assertiveness”, in Worrell, J. (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Women and Gender: Sex
Similarities and Differences and the Impact of Society on Gender, Academic Press, San Diego,
CA, pp. 157-168.
Choudhury, R. (2006), “Understanding family life in India”, in Chowdhury, A., Carson, D.K. and
Carson, C. (Eds), Family Life Education in India: Perspective, Challenges and Applications, Rawat
Publibation, New Delhi, pp. 31-57.
Cialdini, R.B. and Trost, M.R. (1988), “Social influence: social norms, conformity, and compliance”, in
Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T. and Lindzey, G. (Eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed.,
MeGraw-Hill, Boston, MA, Vol. 2, pp. 151-192.
Colquitt, J.A. and Rodell, J.R. (2015), “Measuring justice and fairness”, in Cropanzano, R.S. and
Ambrose, M.L. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Justice in the Workplace, Oxford University
Press, New York NY, pp. 187-202.
IJPPM Cropanzano, R. and Greenberg, J. (1997), “Progress in organizational justice: tunneling through the
maze”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and
70,3 Organizational Psychology, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 317-372.
Davison, H.K. and Burke, M.J. (2000), “Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts:
a meta-analytic investigation”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 225-248,
doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1999.1711.
Del Boca, F.K. and Ashmore, R.D. (1980), “Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theory. II.
504 a trait-inference approach to the assessment of sex stereotypes”, Sex Roles, Vol. 6,
pp. 519-535.
Del Boca, F.K., Ashmore, R.D. and McManus, M.A. (1986), “Gender-related attitudes”, in Ashmore, R.D.
and Del Boca, F.K. (Eds), The Social Psychology of Female–Male Relations: A Critical Analysis of
Central Concepts, Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 121-163.
Dobbins, G.H., Cardy, R.L. and Truxillo, D.M. (1988), “The effects of purpose of appraisal a laboratory
and field study”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 551-558, doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.73.3.551.
Eagly, A.H. and Karau, S.J. (2002), “Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders”,
Psychological Review, Vol. 109, pp. 573-598, doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573.
Eagly, A.H., Makhijani, M. and Klonsky, B.G. (1992), “‘Gender and the evaluation of leaders: a meta-
analysis’: correction to eagly et al”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 112 No. 3, p. 557, doi: 10.1037/
h0090375.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory
and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Fiske, S.T. (1998), “Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination”, in Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T. and
Lindzey, G. (Eds), Handbook of Social Psychology, McGraw-Hill, Cambridge, MA, pp. 357-411.
Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (1998), Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management, Sage,
Thousand Oaks.
Folger, R., Rosenfield, D. and Robinson, T. (1983), “Relative derivation and procedural justifications”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45, pp. 172-184.
Greenberg, J. (1990), “Looking fair vs being fair: managing impressions of organizational justice”, in
Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behaviour, JAI Press,
Greenwitch, CT, Vol. 12, pp. 111-157.
Gunderson, D.E., Tinsley, D.B. and Terpstra, D.E. (1996), “Empirical assessment of impression
management bias: the potential for performance appraisal error”, Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, Vol. 11, pp. 57-76.
Heilman, M.E. (2001), “Description and prescription: how gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent
up the organizational ladder”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 57, pp. 657-674, doi: 10.1111/0022-
4537.00234.
Heilman, M.E. (2012), “Gender stereotype and workplace bias”, Research in Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 32, pp. 113-135, doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003.
Heilman, M.E. and Chen, J.J. (2005), “Same behaviour, different consequences’ reaction to men’s and
women’s altruistic citizenship behaviour”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, pp. 431-441,
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.431.
Kaushik, N., Sharma, A. and Kumar Kaushik, V. (2014), “Equality in the workplace: a study of gender
issues in Indian organisations”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 90-106,
doi: 10.1108/JMD-11-2013-0140.
Lind, E. and Tyler, T. (1988), The Social Psychology of Justice, Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Livingston, R.W., Rosette, A.S. and Wasgington, E.F. (2012), “Can an agentic black woman get ahead?
The impact of race and interpersonal dominance on perceptions of female leaders”,
Psychological Science, Vol. 23, pp. 354-358, doi: 10.1177/0956797611428079.
Martell, R.F., Lane, D.M. and Emrich, C. (1996), “Male-female differences: a computer simulation”, Performance
American Psychologist, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 157-158, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.157.
evaluation and
Maurer, T.J. and Taylor, M.A. (1994), “Is sex by itself enough? An exploration of gender bias issues in
performance appraisal”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 60,
gender
pp. 231-251. stereotype
Mobley, W.H. (1982), “Supervisor and employee race and sex effects on performance appraisals: a field
study of adverse impact and generalizability”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 25,
pp. 598-606. 505
Nieva, V.F. and Gutek, B.A. (1980), “Sex effects on evaluation”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 5, pp. 267-276.
Okimoto, T.G. and Brescoll, V.L. (2010), “The price of power: power seeking and backlash against
female politicians”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 36, pp. 923-936, doi: 10.1177/
0146167210371949.
Pazy, A. (1986), “The persistence of pro-male bias despite identical information regarding causes of
success”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 38, pp. 366-377.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Prentice, D.A. and Carranza, E. (2002), “What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to
be, and don’t have to be: the contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes”, Psychology of Women
Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 269-281, doi: 10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066.
Rao, S.K.R. (1969), Social Institutions Among Hindus, Rao and Raghnwan, Mysore.
Robbins, T.L. and DiNisi, A.S. (1993), “Moderators of sex bias in the performance appraisal process: a
cognitive analysis”, Journal of Management, Vol. 19, pp. 113-126.
Rudman, L.A. (1998), “Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: the costs and benefits of
counterstereotypical impression management”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 74, pp. 629-645, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629.
Rudman, L.A. and Phelan, J.E. (2010), “The effect of priming gender roles on women’s implicit gender
beliefs and career aspiration”, Social Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 192-202, doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/
a000027.
Sandhu, N. (2018), “Preferred image of women on indian television: a move from classic stereotypes”,
Antyajaa: Indian Journal of Women and Social Change, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 119-136, doi: 10.1177/
2455632718778395.
Sharma, A. (1981), “Some aspect of attitude and behaviour of mother”, Indian Psychological Review,
Vol. 20, pp. 30-42.
Scott, B.A., Colquitt, J.A. and Paddock, E.L. (2009), “An actor-focused model of justice rule adherence
and violation. the role of managerial motives and discretion”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 94, pp. 756-769, doi: 10.1037/a0015712.
Sesko, A.K. and Bienat, M. (2010), “Prototype of race and gender: invisibility of Black women”, Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 356-360, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.10.016.
Swim, J.K. and Sanna, L.J. (1996), “He’s skilled, she’s lucky: a meta-analysis of observers’ attributions
for women’s and men’s successes and failures”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Vol. 22, pp. 507-519.
Tyler, T. and Lind, E. (1992), “A relationship model of authority in groups”, in Zanna, M. (Ed.),
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY, Vol. 24,
pp. 115-192.
Tayler, T.R. and Smith, H.J. (1999), “Justice, social identity, and group process”, in Tyler, T.R., Kramer,
R.M. and John, O.P. (Eds), The Psychology of Social Self, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah: NJ, pp. 223-264.
IJPPM Thibaut, J.W. and Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A Psychological Perspective, Lawrence
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
70,3
About the author
Dr Rachana Chattopadhyay has received her doctoral degree in applied psychology from Calcutta
University under the fellowship of Indian Statistical Institute, Calcutta. After receiving her Ph.D.
Degree, she had joined as a visiting fellow in school of social psychology, Australian National University,
506 Canberra for postdoctoral research. She is the recipient of Young Scientist Award from Indian Science
Congress Association in the year 2002 and has received Outstanding Paper Award at Emerald Literati
Network 2013. Rachana Chattopadhyay is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: rachana_
chattopadhyay@yahoo.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.