Leader-member exchange & perceived organizational justice--an empirical investigation.
Kumar, Manish ; Singh, Shailendra
This study explored the relationship between the dimensions of two
social exchange mechanisms of quality of leader-member exchange (LMX)
and perceived organizational justice. Comprehensive multi-dimensional
measures of organizational justice perception and quality of
leader-member exchange relationship were used for the study. In line
with recent and more elaborate measures of organizational justice, the
LMX was also operationalized as dyadic and general environment of
quality of leader-member exchange. The study was a web based survey of
266 Indian working executives from diverse set of industries. The
generalizability of comprehensive measures of multi-dimensional LMX and
organizational justice was supported in the Indian context.
Introduction
Over the years, considerable interest has been devoted to examining
organizational justice. In spite of "fair treatment" being
associated with favourable work attitudes and higher job performance,
practical progress in justice literature has been limited by conceptual
ambiguities on the structure of fairness perceptions (Cropanzano et al.
2002). Similarly, quality of leader-member exchange literature suggests
that LMX quality is related to whether subordinates are satisfied as
productive members of the organization (Erdogan 2002, Gerstner & Day
1997). Most of the earlier conceptualizations has however treated LMX as
a uni-dimensional construct (Bhal, Gulati & Ansari 2008). In a
unidimensional measurement, possibility of including simultaneously
different combinations of aspects of workplace like task focus and
social interaction as in "role theory" (Bales 1958) or for
that matter, material and non-material rewards like advice, workflow,
and friendship as in "social exchange theory" is less.
Particularly LMX scales have been criticized for their reliance on
narrow samples (Dienesch & Liden 1986) and the need for these to be
validated with different samples and organizations has been stressed
(e.g. Liden & Maslyn 1998). The first objective therefore of this
study is to assess the generalizability of multidimensional measures of
Liden and Maslyn's (1998) LMX-MDM scale and Colquitt's (2001)
"organizational justice" scale with the Indian sample. These
two scales on both the constructs by far seem to be the most updated in
terms of coverage of different facets of the two constructs.
As the overall quality of supervisor-subordinate exchange is likely
to have implications for perceptions of fairness (Erdogan 2002)
relationship between these are explored as second objective. Justice
dimensions however have been found to relate differently with different
attitudinal and outcome measures. It is therefore possible that the
dimensions show independent behaviour (it has been found to be the case
in "justice" literature); therefore relationship involving the
sub-dimensions of the two needs to be tested. The present study
therefore is likely to add incrementally to the knowhow of the two
constructs. In recent years, many studies have tested the relationship
between some of the dimensions or in general between the two constructs,
but we did not come across any study which has tested the relationship
between the sub-dimensions of the two comprehensive measures.
Organizational Justice
Initially works on justice research focused on decision outcomes,
termed as distributive justice (Adams 1965, Deutsch 1975, Homans 1961,
Leventhal 1976). It pertains to consistency of outcomes with implicit
norms for allocation, such as equity or equality. This was followed by
works on the justice of the processes that lead to decision outcomes,
termed as procedural justice (Leventhal 1980, Leventhal, Karuza &
Fry 1980, Thibaut & Walker 1975). This in turn was followed by the
introduction of interactional justice, defined as the interpersonal
treatment people receive as procedures are enacted (Bies & Moag
1986). It emphasizes on the importance of truthfulness, respect,
propriety and justification as fairness criteria of interpersonal
communication. In practice these four criteria have been researched
along two dimensions: explanations and sensitivity (e.g. Greenberg
1990).
Particularly in the Indian context, even most of the recently
published studies have concentrated on three dimensional structure of
justice (e.g., Aggarwal-Gupta & Kumar 2010, Bhal & Gulati 2006,
2007, Aryee, Budhwar & Chen 2002). Therefore, testing for and
finding support or otherwise for the four dimensional operationalization
of justice is likely to lead to further development of organizational
justice literature in Indian context.
Research Question 1: Does Colquitt's (2001) four dimensional
measure of organizational justice empirically hold true for Indian
sample?
Quality of Leader-Member Exchange
Traditionally, LMX has been treated as a global or uni-dimensional
construct that represents a measure of the general quality of the
exchange relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate (Graen
& Scandura 1987). Dienesch and Liden (1986) argued that there is no
clear theoretical or empirical justification for the traditional
conceptualization of LMX as a uni-dimensional construct (also see Bhal
& Gulati 2006). Rather, these researchers maintained that the
theoretical underpinnings of LMX theory (e.g. role theory, social
exchange theory) are more consistent with a multidimensional
perspective. Liden and Maslyn (1998) based on a call by Dienesch and
Liden (1986), developed a multidimensional scale (the LMX-MDM) designed
to measure subordinate LMX perceptions including four different exchange
'currencies': perceived contribution to the exchange
(contribution), expressions of public support (loyalty), mutual
affection (affect), and professional respect.
Specifically in the Indian context, studies have not yet
capitalized on recent advances on LMX theory. Typical lines of research
in Indian context are by Bhal and Ansari (1996) and Bhal and Gulati
(2006,2007). Exception is by Van Dyne, Kamdar and Joireman (2008). Even
Van Dyne et al. (2008) study does not consider the differential effects
of sub-dimensions. Going a step further from Liden & Maslyn's
(1998) model, we have operationalized LMX as perception of LMX at dyadic
level and at general level in the organization, more in line with logic
of justice directed at two levels. A detailed discussion on the same is
not in the scope of this work. The proposed factor structure for LMX
therefore is that of two levels of latent factors, dimension of dyadic
exchange perceptions consisting of affect and loyalty dimension and
dimension of general exchange perception consisting of perceived
contribution and professional respect dimension.
Research Question 2: Do Liden & Maslyn's (1998) as well as
modified version of their four dimensional measure of quality of LMX
empirically hold true for Indian sample?
LMX quality may influence perceived procedural justice as
organizational processes (e.g. performance appraisal) occur within the
context of an ongoing relationship between the leader and the member.
High LMX employees tend to perceive higher decision influence in general
(Scandura, Graen & Novak 1986) on account of better dynamics in
terms of trust, respect, affect, and openness with the supervisors.
Those high in perceived LMX quality therefore may feel that they have
more control over procedures because of their exchange quality (Erdogan
2002). Therefore, LMX may be thought of as an antecedent of procedural
justice perceptions (Erdogan 2002).
LMX quality is also likely to influence interactional justice
perceptions. In high-quality relationships, leaders are less likely to
behave in an authoritarian manner and use their formal authority
(Fairhurst & Chandler 1989). As a result, if overall exchange
quality is high, subordinates may feel that they are being treated
fairly and respectfully during the organizational processes because the
supervisors may behave more sensitively. LMX quality is likely to
increase the expectations of employees from their supervisors. They for
example, expect to hear the news regarding decisions affecting them
directly from their leaders (Mansour-Cole & Scott 1998). Therefore,
high LMX employees may be more sensitive to their rating level and in
turn to the notion of distributive justice as low ratings may disturb
them more than low LMX employees (Erdogan 2002).
However justice dimensions have been found to relate differently
with different attitudinal and outcome measures. For example,
interactional justice has been found to affect individual level or agent
variables (e.g. leader-member exchange perceptions, satisfaction with
supervisor, and supervisor ratings of performance) more than procedural
justice. In contrast, procedural justice has a greater effect on a
system variable (e.g. trust in management) (Moye, Masterson & Bartol
1997). Similarly, distributive justice predicts less variation in
performance and broader organizational perceptions (Konovsky &
Cropanzano 1991, Robbins, Summers & Miller 2000, Sweeney &
McFarlin 1993). Also, the two dimensions of interactional justice have
been shown to have effects independent of one another (e.g. Bies,
Shapiro & Cummings 1988, Greenberg, 1993, 1994, Shapiro, Buttner
& Barry 1994). Therefore it is expected that the four dimensions of
justice will relate differently to different phenomena.
Research Question 3: Do the different dimensions of Liden &
Maslyn's (1998) measure of quality of LMX empirically relate
similarly to the dimensions of justice perception?
Sample & Procedure
A convenience sample of working people was used through a web based
survey. A total of 1000 e-mail based requests for completing the survey
were sent to the targets. The purpose of the study along with the
approximate time needed to complete the survey was communicated in the
introduction. The respondents were requested in bold letters to take the
survey only when they had some spare time in their hands. A total of 275
respondents filled in the items on quality of LMX and justice
perception. Out of this, a total of 266 completed responses were
considered for analysis.
Measures
Leader Member Exchange: Liden & Maslyn's (1998) measure of
multidimensional LMX has been considered to measure leader-member
exchange quality. Dimensions of affect, loyalty, contribution and
professional respect included a total of 12 items. The items of
contribution and professional respect dimensions were modified to
reflect the generalized perception of LMX quality and not dyadic.
Therefore this study included both interpersonal and organizational
level perceived quality of exchange measures. Only subordinates'
responses were collected.
Justice Perception: This study measured justice perception based on
Colquitt (2001) scale. Based on earlier seminal works, Colquitt (2001)
developed a 20 item scale of organizational justice. The measure
contained 7 items on procedural justice, 4 items on distributive
justice, 4 items on interpersonal justice, and 5 items on informational
justice.
Demographics: Demographic variables of age, gender, education
level, tenure, and total work-experience have been considered as control
variables for the purpose of this study.
Descriptive Statistics & Correlations of Variables
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and zero-order
correlations of all key variables. All the dimensions of LMX are
significantly and positively correlated among themselves. Similar is the
case for the dimensions of justice. Additionally the dimensions of two
constructs are also significantly and positively correlated.
Discriminant Validity
We began by conducting a series of CFAs using AMOS 18.0 to examine
the distinctiveness of the multi-item variables for LMX and Justice in
our model. For LMX model, the distinctiveness of the four suggested
constructs was tested by contrasting a nested model in which factors of
affect and loyalty loaded onto interpersonal LMX dimensions while
factors of contribution and professional respect loaded onto General LMX
dimension; the two higher order dimensions in turn loading on latent
factor of LMX against four, three, two and one factor alternative
models. The overall model's chi-square, the GFI (Joreskog &
Sorbom 1984), the CFI (Bentler 1990), the TLI (Tucker & Lewis 1973),
and the RMSEA (Browne & Cudeck 1993) were used to assess model fit.
As shown in Table 2, the fit indexes revealed that the hypothesized
model fit the data well, /2/DF = 1.746, p < .01 (GFI = .952, NFI =
.958, CFI =.981, TLI = .975, RMSEA = .053), and considerably better than
the alternative models. The 4 factor alternative model was constructed
by each dimension of affect, loyalty, contribution and respect coming
from a latent LMX factor. The 3 factor model was constructed by
including items of affect and loyalty dimensions directly on a single
factor and items of contribution and respect dimensions on two separate
dimensions leading to a three dimensional structure. The 2 factor model
was constructed by including items of affect and loyalty dimensions
directly on a single factor and items of contribution and respect
dimensions directly on another single factor. The one factor model
included all items of four factors directly on a single factor. The fit
indexes of the alternate models established the superiority of
hypothesized model. Even the four factor model had satisfactory indices
on most of the fit measures. Overall, the comparative test for
dimensions of LMX lent support to Liden and Maslyn's (1998) and
proposed structure.
Similarly for "Justice" model, the hypothesized four
factor model was contrasted against competing models. As shown in the
Table 3, the fit indexes revealed that the hypothesized model fit the
data well, /2/DF = 2.304, p < .01 (GFI = .875, NFI = .916, CFI =
.951, TLI = .944, RMSEA = .070), and considerably better than the
alternative models. The 3 factor alternative model was constructed by
putting items of interpersonal justice and informational justice onto a
single factor and distributive and procedural justice as two separate
factors. The 2 factor model was constructed by including items of
procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice as one dimension
and distributive justice as another dimension. The one factor model
included all items of four factors directly on a single factor. The fit
indexes of the alternate models established the superiority of
hypothesized model. Overall, the comparative test for dimensions of
"Justice" lent support to Colquitt's (2001) proposed
structure.
To test our third research question, we conducted a two-step
hierarchical multiple regression analysis. First, the control variables
were entered into the regression equation followed by dimensions of LMX
in the second step. Table 4 presents results of the hierarchical
regression analyses. Regarding relationship of procedural justice with
dimensions of LMX, affect ([beta] = .25, p < .01, Model 2),
contribution ([beta] = 13, p < .05, Model 2), and professional
respect ([beta] = .21, p < .01, Model 2) dimensions are significantly
and positively related with procedural justice. Affect ([beta] = .23, p
< .01, Model 4) and professional respect ([beta] = .17, p < .05,
Model 4) dimensions are significantly and positively related to
distributive justice. The relationships of interactional and
informational justice dimensions of interpersonal justice with the
dimensions of LMX were tested separately. Affect ([beta] = .23, p <
.01, Model 6), loyalty ([beta] = .18, p < .05, Model 6), and
professional respect ([beta] = .19, p < .01, Model 6) dimensions are
significantly and positively related to interactional justice. Affect
([beta] = .30, p < .01, Model 8), loyalty ([beta] = A6, p < .05,
Model 8), contribution ([beta] = .11, p < .1, Model 8) and
professional respect (P = .13, p < .05, Model 8) dimensions are
significantly and positively related to informational justice. Thus in
response to research question 3, the results of the study show that the
individual dimensions of LMX are differently related with individual
dimensions of justice.
Discussion
This study tested the factor structures of four dimensional nested
constructs of LMX and "justice". Comparative models for both
the structures found support from the data. The dimensions of LMX were
found to relate differently with the individual dimensions of justice.
Procedural justice did not relate significantly with loyalty dimension.
Distributive justice as has been the case in general in literature was
expected to relate less with the dimensions of LMX too. Perhaps for the
same reason, the four dimensions cumulatively could explain only 17% of
variance in distributive justice, the lowest figure among the four
dimensions of justice (the figures are 26%, 22%, and 27% for procedural
justice, interactional justice, and informational justice respectively)
explained by four dimensions of LMX. It however related significantly
with affect and professional respect dimensions of LMX. Inter actional
justice did not relate significantly with contribution dimension (the
relationship was practically non-existent and surprisingly in negative
direction). Informational justice related significantly with all the
four justice dimensions; the relationship with contribution dimension
however was small.
Contribution dimension of LMX did not relate significantly with
distributive and interactional justice. The result was all the more
surprising given earlier finding in the Indian context wherein
"perceived contribution" was related with interactional
justice (Bhal 2005). Perhaps it is on account of slight ambiguity in the
structure of interpersonal justice, as its position (issues of overlap
with procedural justice dimension) has been on slightly shaky empirical
foundation and the expected weak relationship in general with
distributive justice that the two results were nonsignificant. In
addition, Loyalty dimension of LMX had non-significant relationship with
procedural and distributive justice. Loyalty dimension is more in line
with individual support from the supervisor whereas affect dimension
talks of liking, perceived contribution in terms of one's
contribution to task related activities, and professional respect in
terms of knowledge and skill on tasks. As procedural and distributive
justice pertain to aspects of system whereas comparatively interactional
and informational justice perceptions talk more in terms of
interpersonal justice, it is likely that with changes in perception of
support, there may be change in perceived interpersonal justice but
system level justice perception may be insensitive to such changes.
Implications for Research
In the last couple of years, increasing number of empirical studies
involving both LMX and justice has been undertaken. Some of them have
been in the Indian context too (e.g., Bhal 2005, 2006, 2007). However,
we did not come across any study which tested the differential effects
of dimensions of LMX on different dimensions of justice. Particularly,
we did not come across any study which included in its design as
comprehensive a model of factor structures of the two constructs as in
this study. The differential results for different dimensions point
towards the need to consider individual dimensions in interpretation of
results in studies. Researchers therefore, need to move beyond the more
simplistic usage of one-dimensional scales. In the use of
multi-dimensional scale, researchers also need to take into
consideration the nuances of individual dimensions apart from concluding
outcomes from the aggregated results of multi-dimensional constructs.
Implications for Practice
As a leader generally has limited time and energy at his/her
disposal, he/she is unable to give equal attention to all followers. The
satisfying tendency of the leader in terms of connecting more with a few
subordinates has possibly negative consequences for organizations in
terms of issues of in-group and out-group. Constructs like justice in
such situations may play a pivotal role in moulding the perception of
individual employees. Those members who are in out-group of leaders but
have a high sense of fairness may give more of organizationally
desirable outcomes than those who perceive less sense of fairness. In
the light of the same argument, it is likely to be relevant and helpful
for managers to not only ensure that the members are high on perception
regarding different dimensions of LMX but also perceive sense of
fairness in organizational and managerial practices.
Limitations
The operationalization of LMX could have been done by measuring the
four dimensions each directed at both individuals and the organization
instead of the two directed at individuals and two at the organization.
In addition, the "measure" did not take the supervisor
perspective on quality of exchange. Also, the issues of common method
variance (CMV) need to be taken care of. It however needs to be noted
that CMV was not a concern in this study as observed through factor
structure (not reported in the text).
Future Scope
More research needs to be taken to test the generalizability of the
results. Not only the kind of relationship between the dimensions of the
two constructs, but their interaction in the presence of personality,
attitudinal, and outcome variables needs to be explored. Particularly,
the unexpected result for contribution dimension not relating
significantly with interactional justice needs to be clarified through
further research on the same. Study of designs involving perceptions of
dyadic and global LMX as well as supervisors' and
subordinates' perceptions of the relationship (for exception see
Varma, Srinivas & Stroh 2005) needs to be explored. Organizations
need to ensure that managers are trained to be sensitive to feelings of
subordinates and how to make systems and processes in the organization
more sensitive to sense of fairness at both system and interpersonal
levels.
References
Adams, J. S. (1965), "Inequity in Social Exchange", in L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 2:
267-99. New York: Academic Press.
Aggarwal-Gupta, M. & Kumar, R. (2010), "Look Who's
Talking! Impact of Communication Relationship Satisfaction on Justice
Perceptions, Vikalpa, 35(3): 55-65.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S. & Chen, Z. X. (2002), "Trust as
a Mediator of the Relationship between Organizational Justice and Work
Outcomes: Test of a Social Exchange Model", Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 23: 267-85.
Bentler, P. M. (1990), "Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural
Models", Psychological Bulletin, 107: 238-46
Bhal, K. T. (2005), LMX-Citizenship Behaviour Relationship: Justice
as a Mediator", Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
27(2): 106-17'.
Bhal, K. T. & Ansari, M. A. (1996), "Measuring Quality of
Interaction between Leaders and Members", Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 26: 945-72
Bhal, K. T. & Gulati, N. (2006), "Predicting Turnover
Intentions: Incorporating the Role of Organization and Work-Group Level
Variables", Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management,
7(3&4): 41-50.
Bhal, K. T. & Gulati, N. (2007), "Pay Satisfaction of
Software Professionals in India", Vikalpa, 32(3): 9-21.
Bhal, K. T, Gulati, N. & Ansari, M. A. (2008),
"Leader-Member Exchange and Subordinate Outcomes: Test of a
Mediation Model", Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 30(2): 106-25.
Bies, R. J. & Moag, J. S. (1986), "Interactional Justice:
Communication Criteria of Fairness", in R. J. Lewicki, B. H.
Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on Negotiation in
Organizations, (Volume 1: 4355), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bies, R. J., Shapiro, D. L. & Cummings, L. L. (1988),
"Causal Accounts and Managing Organizational Conflict: Is It Enough
to Say it's Not My Fault?" Communication Research, 15(4):
381-99.
Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993), "Alternative Ways of
Assessing Model Fit", in K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.),
Testing Structural Equation Models: 136-62, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001), "On the Dimensionality of
Organizational Justice: A Construct Validation of a Measure",
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3): 386-400.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A. & Chen, P. Y. (2002), "Using
Social Exchange Theory to Distinguish Procedural from Interactional
Justice", Group & Organizational Management, 27: 324-51.
Deutsch, M. (1975), "Equity, Equality, and Need: What
determines which Value Will Be Used as the Basis of Distributive
Justice?" Journal of Social Issues, 31:137-50.
Dienesch, R. M. & Liden, R. C. (1986), "Leader-Member
Exchange Model of Leadership: A Critique and Further Development",
Academy of Management Review, 11:618-34.
Erdogan, B. (2002), "Antecedents and Consequences of Justice
Perceptions in Performance Appraisals", Human Resource Management
Review, 12: 555-78
Fairhurst, G. T. & Chandler, T. A. (1989), "Social
Structure in Leader-Member Interaction", Communication Monographs,
56: 215-39
Gerstner, C.R. & Day, D.V. (1997), "Meta-Analytic Review
of Leader-Member Exchange Theory: Correlates and Construct Issues,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6): 827-44.
Graen, G B. & Scandura, T. A. (1987), "Toward a Psychology
of Dyadic Organizing", in L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),
Research in Organizational Behaviour, (Vol. 9: 175-208), The
Netherlands: JAI Press.
Greenberg, J. (1990), "Employee Theft as a Reaction to
Underpayment Inequity: The Hidden Cost of Pay Cuts", Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75: 561-68.
Greenberg, J. (1993), "The Social Side of Fairness:
Interpersonal and Informational Classes of Organizational Justice",
in R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness
in Human Resource Management: 79-103, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Greenberg, J. (1994), "Using Socially Fair Treatment to
Promote Acceptance of a Work Site Smoking Ban", Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79: 288-97
Homans, G C. (1961), Social Behaviour: Its Elementary Forms, New
York: Harcourt Brace.
Konovsky, M. A. & Cropanzano, R. (1991), "Perceived
Fairness of Employee Drug Testing as a Predictor of Employee Attitudes
and Job Performance", Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 698-707.
Leventhal, G C. (1976), "The Distribution of Rewards and
Resources in Groups and Organizations", in L. Berkowitz & W.
Walster (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, New York:
Academic Press.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980), "What Should be Done with Equity
Theory? New Approaches to the Study of Fairness in Social
Relationships", in K. Gergen, M. Greenberg & R. Willis (Eds.),
Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research: 27-55. New York:
Plenu.
Leventhal, G. S. Karuza, J. & Fry, W. R. (1980), "Beyond
Fairness: A Theory of Allocation Preferences", in G Mikula (Ed.),
Justice and Social Interaction : 167-218. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Liden, R. C. & Maslyn, J. M. (1998), "Multidimensionality
of Leader-Member Exchange: An Empirical Assessment through Scale
Development", Journal of Management, 24: 43-72.
Mansour-Cole, D. M. & Scott, S. G. (1998), "Hearing it
through the Grapevine: The Influence of Source, Leader Relations and
Legitimacy on Survivors' Fairness Perceptions", Personnel
Psychology, 51: 25-54.
Moye, N. A., Masterson, S. S. & Bartol, K. M. (1997),
"Differentiating Antecedents and Consequences of Procedural and
Interactional Justice: Empirical Evidence in Support of Separate
Constructs", Paper presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the
National Academy of Management, Boston, MA
Robbins, T. L., Summers, T. P. & Miller, J. L. (2000), Using
the Group-Value Model to Explain the Role of Non-instrumental Justice in
Distinguishing the Effects of Distributive and Procedural Justice",
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73: 511-18.
Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B. & Novak, M. A. (1986), "When
Managers Decide Not to Decide Autocratically: An Investigation of
Leader-Member Exchange and Decision Influence", Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71: 579-84.
Shapiro, D. L., Buttner, E. H. & Barry, B. (1994),
"Explanations: What Factors Enhance Their Perceived Adequacy?"
Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 58:346-68.
Sweeney, P. D. & McFarlin, D. B. (1993), "Workers'
Evaluations of the "Ends" and the "Means": An
Examination of Four Models of Distributive and Procedural Justice",
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55: 23-40.
Thibaut, J. & Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A
Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Tucker, L. R. & Lewis, C. A. (1973), "A Reliability
Coefficient for Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis", Psychometrika,
38: 1-10
van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D. & Joireman, J. (2008), "In-Role
Perceptions Buffer the Negative Impact of Low LMX on Helping and Enhance
the Positive Impact of High LMX on Voice", Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(6): 1195-1207.
Varma, A., Srinivas, E. S. & Stroh, L. K. (2005), "A
Comparative Study of the Impact of Leader-Member Exchange in US and
Indian Samples", Cross Cultural Management, 12(1): 84-95.
Manish Kumar is Visiting Assistant Professor(OB & HRM Group),
IIM Kozhikode 673 570. E-Mail: manish@iimk.ac.in. Shailendra Singh is
Professor (HRM Group), IIM Lucknow, 226013. Email: shailfajiiml.ac.in
Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Variable 1 2 3 4
l Age (a)
2 Gender (b) -0.04
3 Marital .47 ** .l
Status (c)
4 Education 0.10 0.05 0.05
Level (d)
5 Tenure (c) .66 ** 0.01 .30 ** -0.01
6 Total .89 ** -0.05 .45 ** .03
Work
Experience
7 Affect .17 ** -.14 * 0.00 -.03
LMX
8 Loyalty .14 * -.14 * 0.06 -.02
LMX
9 Contribution 0.06 -0.01 -.00 -.07
LMX
10 Respect 0.01 -.12 * -.1 .05
LMX
11 PJ 0.01 -0.05 -0.04 -.13 *
12 DJ .14 * -0.05 -0.02 -.08
13 IJ 0.09 -0.02 0.04 .06
14 InfoJust 0.05 -0.01 -0.04 -.04
15 M 27.92 1.23 1.27 3.59
16 S.D. 5.13 0.42 0.44 .64
Variable 5 6 7 8
l Age (a)
2 Gender (b)
3 Marital
Status (c)
4 Education
Level (d)
5 Tenure (c)
6 Total .77 **
Work
Experience
7 Affect .19 ** .20 ** (.92)
LMX
8 Loyalty .15 * .20 ** .67 ** (.87)
LMX
9 Contribution .01 .07 .17 ** .19 **
LMX
10 Respect -.06 -.01 .33 ** .36 **
LMX
11 PJ .05 .12 .41 ** .38 *
12 DJ .04 .16 ** .33 ** .30 **
13 IJ .03 .13 * .39 ** .40 **
14 InfoJust -.01 .07 .44 ** .42 **
15 M 31.77 54.14 9.82 9.94
16 S.D. 40.70 57.54 3.45 3.22
Variable 9 10 11 12
l Age (a)
2 Gender (b)
3 Marital
Status (c)
4 Education
Level (d)
5 Tenure (c)
6 Total
Work
Experience
7 Affect
LMX
8 Loyalty
LMX
9 Contribution (.84)
LMX
10 Respect .49 ** (.78)
LMX
11 PJ .31 ** .39 ** (.88)
12 DJ .22 ** .31 ** .65 ** (.96)
13 IJ .17 ** .32 ** .42 ** .34 **
14 InfoJust .25 ** .33 ** .69 ** .53 **
15 M 10.18 10.83 20.54 11.79
16 S.D. 2.97 2.49 6.93 5.46
Variable 13 14
l Age (a)
2 Gender (b)
3 Marital
Status (c)
4 Education
Level (d)
5 Tenure (c)
6 Total
Work
Experience
7 Affect
LMX
8 Loyalty
LMX
9 Contribution
LMX
10 Respect
LMX
11 PJ
12 DJ
13 IJ (.93)
14 InfoJust .61 ** (.90)
15 M 16.01 15.88
16 S.D. 4.40 5.87
Note: N = 266 The Cronbach's alpha internal consistency reliability
estimates are on the diagonals.
(a.) Age: 1 = below 25; 2 = 25 to below 30; 3 = 30 and above.
(b.) Gender: 1 = male; 2 = female.
(c.) Marital Status: 1 = single; 2 = married.
(d.) Education: 1 = intermediate and below; 2 = 3 years bachelors;
3 = 4 years bachelors; 4 = post graduate; 5 = Ph. D.
(e.) Tenure & Total Work Ex. : 1 = less than a year; 2 = less than
two years; 3 = less than three years; 4 = less than 4 years;
5 = 4 years or more
* p <.05. ** p < .01.
Table 2 Model Fit Statistics of Comparative Models of Leader-Member
Exchange Quality (LMX)
SI. No. Model CMIN/DF (a) GFI (b) NFI (c)
l. LMX 4 Factors Model-- 1.746 .952 .958
Nested (Hypothesized)
2. LMX 4 Factors Model 2.663 .928 .934
3. LMX 3 Factors Model 5.112 .871 .840
4. LMX 2 Factors Model 9.196 .750 .759
5. LMX 1 Factor Model 16.746 .594 .554
SI. No. Model TLI (d) CFI (e) RMSEA (f)
l. LMX 4 Factors Model-- .975 .981 .053
Nested (Hypothesized)
2. LMX 4 Factors Model .944 .958 .079
3. LMX 3 Factors Model .862 .893 .125
4. LMX 2 Factors Model .724 .778 .176
5. LMX 1 Factor Model .470 .566 .244
Note: (a.) CMIN/DF = Chi-square per degree of freedom
(b.) GFI = Goodness of Fit Index
(c.) NFI = Normed Fit Index
(d.) TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index
(e.) CFI = Comparative Fit Index
(f.) RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
Table 3 Model Fit Statistics of Comparative Models of Justice
SI. No. No. Model CMIN/DP (a) GFI (b) NFI (c)
l. Justice 4 factor Model-- 2.304 .875 .916
Nested (Hypothesized)
2. Justice 3 factors Model 5.613 .795 .662
3. Justice 2 factors Model 7.733 .715 .615
4. Justice 1 factor Model 12.187 .483 .547
SI. No. No. Model TLI (d) CFI (e) RMSEA (f)
l. Justice 4 factor Model-- .944 .951 .070
Nested (Hypothesized)
2. Justice 3 factors Model .800 .824 .132
3. Justice 2 factors Model .708 .741 .159
4. Justice 1 factor Model .516 .567 .205
Note: (a.) CMIN/DF = Chi-square per degree of freedom
(b.) GFI = Goodness of Fit Index
(c.) NFI = Normed Fit Index
(d.) TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index
(e.) CFI = Comparative Fit Index
(f.) RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
Table 4 Regression Analyses of Justice Dimensions on Dimensions
of Exchange Quality
Procedural Distributive
Justice Justice
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Control
Variables
Age .03 .05 .11
Gender -.03 .05 -.03
Marital -.06 -.04 -.02
Status
Educational -.13 ** -.13 ** -.12 *
Level
Tenure -.07 -.10 -.18 **
Total Work .08 .04 -.00
Experience
Independent
Variables
Affect .25 ***
Loyalty .12
Contribution .13 **
Professional
Respect .21 **
[R.sup.2] .03 .29 .04
F 1.13 10.44 1.88
"[R.sup.2] .03 .26 ** .04 *
"F 1.13 23.45 1.88
Interactional Informational
Justice Justice
Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8
Control
Variables
Age .12 -.04 -.04 .05 .07
Gender .03 .01 .09 .01 .09
Marital .00 -.00 .00 -.06 -.05
Status
Educational -.12 ** .06 .06 -.05 -.05
Level
Tenure -.21 ** -.13 * -.16 ** -.12 * -.16 **
Total Work -.03 .21 ** .20 *** .04 .02
Experience
Independent
Variables
Affect .23 *** .23 *** .30 ***
Loyalty .08 .18 ** .16 **
Contribution .10 -.01 .11 *
Professional
Respect .17 ** .19 *** .13 **
[R.sup.2] .22 .03 .25 .02 .29
F 7.03 1.33 8.51 0.66 10.30
"[R.sup.2] .17 *** .03 .22 *** .02 .27 ***
"F 14.18 1.33 18.73 0.66 24.41
Note: * p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01.
