«THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE, TRUST, AND ROLE BREADTH SELF-EFFICACY Gary J. Ruder Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the ...»
THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE,
TRUST, AND ROLE BREADTH SELF-EFFICACY
Gary J. Ruder
Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Albert Wiswell, Chair Gabriella Belli Marcie Boucouvalas Norman Endlich Linda Morris March, 2003 Falls Church, Virginia Key Words: Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Interactional Justice, Proactive Behavior
THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE,
TRUST, AND ROLE BREADTH SELF-EFFICACYGary J. Ruder Committee Chairperson: Albert K. Wiswell Human Development (Abstract) The purpose of this study was to examine whether organizational practices—fairness (also known as organizational justice) and trust—contribute to the enhancement of role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE), a form of proactive behavior. The sample consisted of 226 white-collar professionals in large and small organizations. Approximately 70% held a college degree.
An a priori path model based on theoretical literature was generated to represent causal relationships among the variables. Two paths were explored: a) the relationship among procedural justice, trust in organization, and RBSE; and b) the relationship among interactional justice, trust in supervisor, and RBSE.
Findings indicated a statistically significant relationship between procedural justice and trust in organization. The relationships between procedural justice and RBSE and trust in organization and RBSE were not significant. Interactional justice had a statistically significant relationship with trust in supervisor, but not with RBSE. The relationship between trust in supervisor and RBSE was not significant. Respondents expressed a strong trust in their organization, and a stronger trust in their immediate supervisor.
The most important discovery in this study was the statistically significant relationship between education and RBSE. Individuals with graduate degrees reported the highest level of RBSE, followed by people with Bachelor’s degrees. Globalization and technology are fueling demands for ever-increasing employee skills and higher levels of education. Organizations need highly educated, proactive individuals in order to be successful. Future research should continue to investigate variables and constructs that may enhance RBSE in the workplace.
TABLE OF CONTENTSCHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
Role Breadth Self- Efficacy (RBSE)
Social Exchange Theory, Norm of Reciprocity and RBSE
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Scope and Delimitations
Definition of Terms
Organization of this Manuscript
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Proactive Behavior Constructs
Context Specific Proactive Behaviors
Proactive Feedback Seeking
Coping With Stress
Other Proactive Behaviors
Social Cognition and Self- Efficacy
Zand’s Spiral Model of Trust
Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman’s Proposed Model of Trust
Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, and Werner’s Exchange Framework of Initiating Managerial Trustworthy Behavior
Organizational Justice Meta-Analyses
CHAPTER III: METHOD
Distributive Justice Index
Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice Measures
Role Breadth Self- Efficacy (RBSE)
Data Collection Procedures
Predictor, Criterion, and Control Variables
iv Path Analysis Variables
CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH FINDINGS
Demographic Profile of the Sample
Relationships Between Constructs
Comments From Study Respondents
CHAPTER V. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS
Summary of Methods
Summary of Findings
Implication of Findings
Recommendations for Practice
Recommendations for Future Research
1.1 Hypothesized Relationship Among Procedural Justice, Trust in Organization, and RBSE
1.2 Hypothesized Relationship Among Interactional Justice, Trust in Supervisor, v and RBSE
1.3 Hypothesized Path Model of the Relationship Among Organizational Justice, Trust, and RBSE
2.1 An Integrative Model of Antecedents and Consequences of Proactive Behavior..... 15
2.2 A Spiral Model of Trust
2.3 Proposed Model of Trust
2.4 Exchange Framework of Initiating Managerial Trustworthy Behavior
2.5 Justice in Orga nizations
3.1 An a priori Path Analysis Model of the Relationship Among Organizational Justice, Trust, and RBSE
3.2 Path One of the Hypothesized Path Model
3.3 Path Two of the Hypothesized Path Model
4.1 Hypothesized Path Model
4.2 Number of Male and Female Participants in This Study
4.3 Distribution of Responses to RBSE Measure With Outliers
4.4 Distribution of Responses to RBSE Measure Without Outliers
4.5 Path Coefficients of Hypothesized Model
5.1 An a priori Path Analysis Model of the Relationship Among Organizational Justice, Trust, and RBSE
5.2 Path One of the Hypothesized Relationships Among Procedural Justice, Trust in Organization, and RBSE
5.3 Path Two of the Hypothesized Relationships Among Interactional Justice, Trust in Supervisor, and RBSE
1.1 Proactive Behavior Constructs
1.2 Three Organizational Justice Dimensions
3.1 List of Measures in This Study
3.2 List of Variables for Regression Analysis
3.3 List of Variables for Path Analysis
3.4 Numerical Coding of Demographic Variables in This Study
3.5 Summary of Data Analysis Procedures Using SPSS 11.0 for Windows
4.1 Frequency Distribution for Type of Occupation
4.2 Frequency Distribution for Employee Experienc e in Current Job
4.3 Frequency Distribution for Employee Length of Relationship With Immediate Supervisor
4.4 Education Level of Sample
4.5 Comparison of Means, 5% Trimmed Means, and Medians of Samples With Outliers (N – 226) and Without Outliers (N = 205)
4.6 Descriptive Statistics for the Study Sample
4.7 Correlations for the Study Sample
4.8 Correlations and Alphas of the Control, Predictor, and Criterion Variables (N = 223)
4.9 Correlations of the Demographic Variables and RBSE (N = 22)
4.10 Analysis of Variance for Predictor, Criterion, and Gender Variables
4.11 New Categories for Occupation Following Recoding
4.12 Analysis of Variance for Predictor, Criterion, and Occupation Variables.............. 70
4.13 Bonferroni Post Hoc Pairwise Comparison of Occupation With RBSE................. 71
4.14 New Categories for Education Following Recoding
4.15 Analysis of Variance for Predictor, Criterion, and Education Variables................. 73
4.16 Bonferroni Post Hoc Pairwise Comparison of Education With RBSE
4.17 Bonferroni Post Hoc Pairwise Comparison of Education With Interactional Justice
4.18 Bonferroni Post Hoc Pairwise Comparison of Education With Trust in Supervisor
4.19 New Categories for Experience in Current Job Following Recoding
4.20 Analysis of Variance for Predictor, Criterion, and Experience in Current Job Variables
4.21 Analysis of Variance for Predictor, Criterion, and Length of Relationship With Immediate Supervisor Variables
vii APPENDICES A Instrument
B Flyer: Working More Effectively With the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing.............. 113 C Histogram and Scatterplots
D Data Transformations
E Hierarchical Regression Analyses
F Scatterplots With 5.0 RBSE Removed
G Effect Size
INTRODUCTIONImportant changes in organizational structures and practices have been taking place over the past several decades that are having a profound effect in the workplace. According to the U. S. Department of Labor (Herman, 1999), globalization continues to expand, bringing new opportunities to some segments of the American economy while decreasing opportunities in other segments. Employee diversity is becoming commonplace with minority and immigrant workers occupying a larger percentage of the workforce. Hierarchical management is being replaced by flatter work arrangements in which workers have greater autonomy and authority over their work. Self-directed work teams are being established to deal with work on a projectby-project basis. Team member composition changes are based on project goals and competencies needed for achieving optimal results on each project. Individual employees are expected to address and solve problems on their own that in the past were handled either by management or by personnel with special training. Alternative work arrangements in which organizations utilize independent contractors, part-time employees, subcontractors, and teleworking are increasing (U.S. Department of Labor, 1999).
Rapidly advancing technology is also generating sweeping changes in organizations, and the effects are far-reaching. “The rapid computerization and networking of American businesses, industries, and homes is a microprocessor revolution that is fundamentally transforming the way—and the speed with which—people think, connect,... make transitions—in short do business” (Herman, 1999a, p. 60).
In concert with these changes, organizations have increasingly greater expectations for workers to become self-regulating and self-managing (Bassi, 1998; Boyett & Conn, 1992;
Carnevale, Gainer & Meltzer, 1990; Lawler, 1994; Locke & Latham, 1994; Luthans & Davis, 1979; Naisbitt & Aburdene, 1990).
According to Kegan (1994), today’s workers are expected:
a) to invent their own work; b) to be self-initiating, self-correcting, self-evaluating; and c) to take responsibility for what happens to them at work (Kegan 1994). Lawler (1994) states: “In a rapidly changing environment... individuals need to rapidly change what they are doing and in some cases, to change the skills that they have in order to perform in new and different ways” (Lawler, 1994, p. 5). In response to these increased demands, employees need to be more proactive in the workplace.
Proactive Behavior According to Crant (2000), there are four broad constructs to conceptualize proactive behavior in the workplace—proactive personality, personal initiative, taking charge, and role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE). The four constructs overlap conceptually in that they are characterized by employees’ initiation of action in a variety of situations to improve things in the workplace. “Employees can engage in proactive activities as part of their in-role behavior in which they fulfill basic job requirements. Extra-role behaviors can also be proactive, such as efforts to redefine one’s role in the organization” (Crant, 2000, p. 436).
Proactive personality and personal initiative describe behavioral dispositions, while taking charge and RBSE describe context dependent behavior (Table 1.1). Dispositional behavior is characterized by stability in which behavior is stable across varying situations.
Context dependent behavior, on the other hand, varies depending upon contextual situations.
However “both dispositional and situational approaches share the perspective that people can alter the situations in which they find themselves” (Crant, 2000, p.456).
Table 1.1 Proactive Behavior Constructs
The distinction between dispositional behavior and behavior that varies with contextual situations is important. The stability of dispositional behavior across varying situations makes it less likely to be influenced by external factors. Behavior that varies by context, on the other hand, is susceptible to influence by external factors. The constructs in this study are contextual.
Therefore, proactive personality and personal initiative are eliminated from consideration.
RBSE and taking charge were both considered for this study. Taking charge is changeoriented and aimed at improvement. However, “it entails behavior that deviates from prescribed roles and, consequently, may be viewed as threatening by peers or supervisors. Thus, an employee who is trying to bring about improvement may actually incite disharmony and tensions that will detract from performance” (Morrison & Phelps, 1999, p. 416). The potential adverse effect of taking charge eliminates this construct from consideration in this study.
Parker (1998) recently introduced RBSE, a construct defined as “the extent to which people feel confident that they are able to carry out a broader and more proactive role, beyond traditional prescribed technical requirements” (p. 835). She found that RBSE can be shaped and changed by environmental and organizational experiences. The contextual nature of RBSE allows for an examination of variables that may enhance its development.