Justice across cultures

1. Justice across cultures Ron Fischer Psyc338

2. Reward Allocation and Justice • Perceptions of justice • Distributive Justice & Reward Allocation • Contextual model of reward allocation • Review of research related to this model • Some generalizations to organizations • Procedural Justice (Perceptions of decisions made by authorities) • Importance of cultural values • Justice in a broader context

4. Contextual Model of Reward Allocation (Leung, 1997) • Culture interacts with situational variables • Goal-directed view of allocation behaviour • Interaction goals act as mediators between culture and allocation preferences • Two important situational factors: • Role of recipient • Role of allocator

5. Allocator is recipient (dual role) Importance of the role of the recipient In-group/Out-group differentiation in more collectivistic cultures Harmony motive when allocating to in-group members Allocator not recipient (supervisory role) Allocator not tied to recipients in zero-sum situation Allocation norm reflects situational goal (e.g., productivity in work setting) No cultural differences Role of allocator

6. ‘Allocator is recipient’ studies • Some support for cultural differences • Hui et al. (1990): • IndCol can explain cultural differences for the unlimited resource condition, but not for the limited resource condition • Problems: • Equality – self-serving vs. other-serving/generosity • Availability of resources • IndCol too global and non-specific?

7. ‘Allocator not recipient’ studiesFischer & Smith (2003) • Meta-analysis of previous studies • Goal: Quantitative review of cross-cultural studies investigating differences in the use of reward allocation principles • 20 usable studies with 25 comparisons (23 independent experiments) • 4646 participants from 14 countries • Questions: • Are there cross-cultural differences? • If yes, do the effect sizes found co-vary with cultural dimensions?

8. Method • Experimental studies: scenario/laboratory studies • Contrast analysis (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1985) to calculate effect size r (Rosenthal, 1992; 1994)

9. Analysis • Potentially important variables: • Students versus employees • Study design • Cultural characteristics

10. Results • Descriptive results • r = .07; p < .05 • Students prefer different allocation principles than do employees • Students’ r = .15 • Employees’ r = -.49 • Correlation with Culture • GINI index: r = .46, p = .05 • Hierarchy: r = .67, p < .01

11. Conclusions • There are reliable, although small differences across nations • Experiments with students not representative of employees • Cultural dimensions covary with effect sizes • Hierarchical differentiation is associated with more equitable allocations • Individualism not or only weakly related to cross-cultural differences • Future studies need to include both variables!

12. Problems with previous studies • Scenario studies (artificial, no real-life consequences) • Student samples • Organization level variables (sector, organizational culture, organizational performance) neglected (Fischer, 2004) • Narrow focus on countries studied (Child et al., 2000) • Ecological fallacies

13. What is happening in the ‘real’ world?Fischer, Smith & Richey (in review); Fischer (2004) Focus on full-time employees Justice perceptions of allocation norms used in a company when various decisions (pay raise, promotion, dismissal) are made

14. Allocation norms • Equity (performance) • Need • Equality (Deutsch, 1975) • Seniority • How often used when company gave pay raises, promotions, asked employees to leave the organisation

15. Allocations in European organizations(Fischer, 2004) • Equity more important in British organizations • Need more important in British organizations • Important sector differences (public versus private): equity, need, equality, seniority

17. How to explain these differences? • Importance of cultural, economic, and organizational variables

18. Survey measures • Organizational success: alpha > .72 (exc. UK: .65) • Organizational culture: economic and egalitarian culture (alphas above .60) • Cultural values: Hierarchy (ICC = .16), Conservatism (ICC = .13) • Average unemployment rate (International Labor Organization)

19. General results • Differences across samples in reported use of allocation principles • Organizational variables explain differences (mediators) (in the case of equity and equality), national values have little effect • National values and socio-economic indicators (average unemployment rate) operate as mediators (in the case of need), organization level variables have little effect

20. Predicting reliance on equity • Organization level variables: Δ R² = .19** • Private sector: β = .15, p < .01 • Economic culture: β = .09, p = .08 • Egalitarian culture: β = .41, p < .001 • Nation level variables: Δ R² = .02 ns.

21. Predicting reliance on equality • Organization level variables: Δ R² = .22** • Egalitarian culture: β = .47, p < .001 • Nation level variables: Δ R² = .01 ns.

22. Predicting reliance on need • Organization level variables: Δ R² = .01 • Nation level variables: Δ R² = .03** • East Germany: β = -.12, p < .05 • Mediators: Conservation & Hierarchy (Δ R² = .02**) • Mediators: Unemployment rate: β = -.16, p < .01

23. Theory-driven multi-level research (Fischer, 2003; Fischer et al., 2004) Cultural variables Economic variables Organizational Practices, Culture and Structure Reward Allocations

24. How do people react?Fischer & Smith (2004) • What is seen as fair? • Smith et al. (1989) • How do employees react when their manager uses certain allocation principles? • Focus on values as standards to guide the selection or evaluation of behaviour, people and events

25. Values as moderators Decision-Maker Is this fair ??? Use of allocation principles Equity & Seniority Values

26. Schwartz Value Survey (1992)

27. Sample • East German (N = 184) and British (N = 120) full-time employees • Equity & seniority: LISREL analysis (49.50 < χ² [15] 15.85; .92 < GFI < .98; .91 < CFI < 1.00) • Justice: shortened Niehoff and Moorman (1993) scale; general perceptions of organizational justice (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman & Taylor, 2000); LISREL analysis (χ² (28) = 31.60, n.s.; CFI = 1.00, GFI = .98) • Schwartz Value Survey (1992): 44 values, alphas > .75

28. Interaction between self-enhancement (high) versus self-transcendence (low) values and consideration of work performance on justice

29. Interaction between self-enhancement (high) versus self-transcendence (low) values and consideration of seniority on justice

30. Conclusions • Values influence how we perceive organizational events (moderation effects) • Ethnic and cultural diversity in the workforce create challenges, because value differences will lead to different perceptions of the same event • Managers need to build consensus to ensure harmonious and productive work atmosphere

31. Updated summary Socio-economic condition Cultural values Organizational culture Sector & Industry HR Decisions Work attitudes & behavior

32. A broader perspective • Justice important social constructions • Issues of accountability and social justice • Mikula & Wenzel (2000): • Injustices can elicit or invoke social conflicts (trigger function) • Justice as a rhetorical function • Justice as a conflict resolution principle

33. Take home message • There are differences in what people people perceive as fair (importance of values) • Both socio-cultural (power distance), economic (unemployment rate) and organizational factors (organizational culture, sector) are important for understanding justice • We need to get a better understanding of the social, cultural and temporal processes going on • Issues of justice are important!!!!