Search

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.11.001 Byline: Joel Brockner (a), David De Cremer (b), Kees van den Bos (c), Ya-Ru Chen (d) Abstract: Various theories have been shown to account for the effects of procedural fairness on people's attitudes and behaviors. We propose that a logical next step for organizational justice researchers is to delineate not whether, but rather when certain explanations are likely to account for people's reactions to procedural fairness information. Accordingly, the present research tested the hypothesis that social psychological explanations would be particularly applicable to people high in interdependent self-construal. As predicted, the results of three studies showed that interdependent self-construal (ISC) moderated the relationship between procedural fairness and a variety of dependent variables (cooperation, positive affect, and desire for future interaction with the other party). In different types of interpersonal encounters (social dilemmas, reward allocations, and negotiations), procedural fairness had more of an influence on participants' reactions among those high rather than low in ISC. Theoretical implications are discussed. Author Affiliation: (a) Columbia Business School, Columbia University, 715 Uris Hall, New York, NY, 10027, USA (b) Department of Economic and Social Psychology, Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands (c) Utrecht University, The Netherlands (d) Rutgers University, USA Article History: Received 6 February 2003 Article Note: (footnote) [star] We are grateful to David Harrison and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. The write-up of the present paper was supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO, Grant No. 016.005.019) awarded to David DeCremer.

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.08.003 Byline: Phyllis A. Siegel (a), Joel Brockner (b) Abstract: Previous research on organizational impression management has focused on verbal accounts proffered by leaders in response to organizational-threatening events. The present studies examined the effectiveness of an anticipatory verbal tactic, claimed handicapping, in which CEOs warn stakeholders of factors that may adversely affect future firm performance. We studied the effect of two types of claimed handicapping on CEO compensation and firm value. One claimed handicap consisted of factors external to the firm whereas the other claimed handicap consisted of factors internal to the firm. In two very different research venues (an experiment and archival study), we found that, under certain conditions, claimed external handicapping had diametrically opposed effects on CEO compensation and firm value. Specifically, when prior firm performance was favorable, external claimed handicaps had a positive effect on CEO pay but a negative impact on firm value. Moreover, the results of both studies highlighted the need to distinguish between external claimed handicaps and internal claimed handicaps, in that all significant effects were produced by external rather than internal claimed handicaps. Contributions to theory and research on organization impression management, self-handicapping, and executive compensation, as well as cross-disciplinary implications, are discussed. Author Affiliation: (a) Rutgers Business School, Rutgers University, 240 Janice Levin Building, 94 Rockafeller Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8054, USA (b) Columbia Business School, Columbia University, 715 Uris Hall, New York, NY 10027, USA Article History: Received 28 March 2003

Organizational leaders employ verbal remediation strategy in organization impression management when they perceive that the reputation of organization is threatened. The effectiveness of this verbal remediation strategy of the leaders when warning stakeholders of the factors that may negatively affect future firm performance is examined.

Regulatory focus theory delineates how people engage in self-regulation, the process of bringing oneself into alignment with one's standards and goals. Regulatory focus theory provides a well-developed framework to better understand the various motives, beliefs and behaviors that eventually dictate whether a given entrepreneurial venture will be successful.

The external validity of the tendency of high procedural fairness to heighten the positive relationship between outcome favorability and people's self-evaluations are evaluated. The attributional explanation of the interactive effect of outcome favorability and procedural fairness on peoples self-evaluations is assessed.

The people overestimate the likelihood of conjunctive events and underestimate the likelihood of disjunctive events. The findings of a study indicate that promotion success, and not prevention success, is positively related to the accuracy of disjunctive probability estimates, whereas, greater promotion success do not lead to more accurate conjunctive probability estimates.

The impact of decision frame and procedural fairness on survivors' reactions to job layoffs is studied. Decision frames were manipulated to enable subjects to assess the criteria used by the organization to keep and terminate employees. Results show that decision frame and procedural fairness affected survivors' confidence in the organization. Low procedural fairness elicited more positive reactions in the keep frame, while high procedural fairness had no influence on reactions.

A brief overview of regulatory focus theory is presented and research is included showing how people's regulatory focus influences emotions at work.

Predictors and consequences linked to managers' reactions to job layoffs were studied.