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

3
(No Transcript)
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
Role of allocator

• 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

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/generosi
  ty
• Availability of resources
• IndCol too global and non-specific?

7
Allocator not recipient studies Fischer
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 lt .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 lt .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

16
(No Transcript)
17
How to explain these differences?

• Importance of cultural, economic, and
  organizational variables

18
Survey measures

• Organizational success alpha gt .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 ? R² .19
• Private sector ß .15, p lt .01
• Economic culture ß .09, p .08
• Egalitarian culture ß .41, p lt .001
• Nation level variables ? R² .02 ns.

21
Predicting reliance on equality

• Organization level variables ? R² .22
• Egalitarian culture ß .47, p lt .001
• Nation level variables ? R² .01 ns.

22
Predicting reliance on need

• Organization level variables ? R² .01
• Nation level variables ? R² .03
• East Germany ß -.12, p lt .05
• Mediators Conservation Hierarchy (? R²
  .02)
• Mediators Unemployment rate ß -.16, p lt .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 lt ?²
  15 15.85 .92 lt GFI lt .98 .91 lt CFI lt 1.00)
• Justice shortened Niehoff and Moorman (1993)
  scale general perceptions of organizational
  justice (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman Taylor,
  2000) LISREL analysis (?² (28) 31.60, n.s.
  CFI 1.00, GFI .98)
• Schwartz Value Survey (1992) 44 values, alphas gt
  .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!!!!