Academic journal article IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior

Interactional Justice and Job Mobility Preparedness: Mediating Role of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)

Academic journal article IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior

Interactional Justice and Job Mobility Preparedness: Mediating Role of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)

Article excerpt

There is substantial evidence that fairness is an important dimension affecting employees' action within the social milieu of the organization. Researchers have still not adequately examined the mechanism through which fairness perceptions impact the attitude and behavior of the employees (Masterson et al., 2000). Using organizational justice literature, the present study examines the role of fairness perceptions and job mobility preparedness of the employees with the mediating role of supervisor support. Data collected from 186 respondents working in a large manufacturing company based in India provided support to establish partially mediating role of supervisory support in predicting job mobility preparedness. The study emphasizes social exchange relationships at workplace to understand how relationship with supervisor and supervisor's actions affect employee attitude and how those relationships drive employee workplace behavior. The data is analyzed using multiple regression and mediating effects measured using Sobel test. The results of the study could be used by practicing managers and organizations to determine what kind of employees engage in job mobility preparedness and under what circumstances will such behavior occur.

(ProQuest: ... denotes formulae omitted.)


Greenberg (1987) conceptually distinguished two major forms of organizational justice; one focusing on the content-fairness of ends achieved (distributive justice) and the other focusing on the context-fairness of the means used to achieve those ends (procedural justice). Adams (1965) argued that people were not so much concerned with the actual level of outcome compared to whether the outcomes were fair. He used social exchange theory framework to explain that people compared their contribution 'inputs' (e.g., education and experience) to one's outcome and then compare the ratio (of inputs and outputs) with others. Based on fairness heuristics (Konovsky, 2000), the researchers draw upon interactional justice (Brockerand Wiesenfeld, 1996), procedural justice (Folgerand Greenberg, 1985) to study employee attitudes, specifically job mobility preparedness (Kossek eta!., 1998). In doing so, the researchers also explore working relationship with supervisor Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) (Dansereau etal., 1975) in predicting job mobility preparedness (Kossek et a!., 1998). In the subsequent sections of this paper, the researchers explain organizational justice literature, LMX and job mobility preparedness used to build the hypothesis.

Organizational Justice

While Adams (1965) used equity theory to determine fairness, there are other allocation rules that have been studied like equality and need (Leventhal, 1976). Distributive justice focuses on the reaction associated with specific outcomes than with the reaction towards one's supervisor (Folger and Konovsky, 1989). In organizations, consideration of fairness appeals equally to managers and employees who view fairness as a fundamental element binding conflicting parties and creating stable social structures (Konovsky, 2000). According to Lind et al. (1993), fairness heuristic is necessary as it helps distinguish whether a leader's request is legitimate. To reach a conclusion, employees use apparent fairness of the authority to evaluate the legitimacy of the leader's orders. If the leader is perceived to be acting fairly, then the leader's order is deemed legitimate. Once an individual has judged the fairness whether it is based on procedure or outcome, perceived fairness serves as a heuristic that guides the interpretation of subsequent events (Van den et a!., 1997). Fairness judgments seem to matter more to people who are dealing with uncertainty since it seems to help them cope with the uncertainty itself. For example, when individuals experience uncertainty about specific aspects of their organizational life such as appraisal system, reward distribution or promotion, they may maintain a high level of effort if they view the organization or their department as fair. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.