How Employees Really Feel about Workplace Romances

Topic: Organizational Justice, Sexual Harassment
Publication: Journal of Business and Psychology
Article: Workplace romance: A justice perspective
Authors: N. Cole
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

 Workplace Romances (WRs) are a fact of life.  Some statistics suggest that as many as 40% of employees report having had a WR at some point in their careers.  Though organizations are often concerned about the potential performance and legal ramifications of in-house WRs, general attitudes toward WRs appear to be changing; employees are much less secretive about WRs than they have been in the past. 

Cole (2009) interviewed 100 employees who reported witnessing a WR in their workplace.  In general, study participants reported that the fairest managerial action was to treat WRs as inevitable and take little or no action against the employees.  However, managerial action was considered fair if the WRs have a negative impact on the work environment and/or job performance.  In fact, under these conditions, coworkers may find too little managerial action unfair.

Additionally, employees find managerial action against WRs fair when the parties work in the same department and when the organization has a formal written WR policy.  Although positive effects of WRs are sometimes discussed in the literature, Cole notes that none of the participants mentioned potential positive effects of WRs.  When participants discussed effects on performance and the work environment, they were always negative.  Thus, if positive outcomes are present, coworkers may not perceive them. 

Although organizations may have little control over the existence of WRs, Cole’s results highlight the importance of having formal, written WR policies.  Surprisingly, most organizations do not have written WR policies, but probably should (see review of Pierce & Aguinis, 2009 for WR policy recommendations).  Written policies legitimize managerial action in response to WRs and improve coworker perceptions of such action.  Overall, employees seem accepting of WRs, so long as they do not negatively impact the work environment or performance.

Cole, N. (2009). Workplace romance: A justice perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 363-372.

Explanations Can Leave a Sweet Taste in Job Applicants’ Mouths

Topic: Organizational Justice, Selection
Publication: International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Article: Effects of explanations on applicant reactions: A meta-analytic review
Authors: D.M. Truxillo, T.E. Bodner, M. Bertolino, T.N. Bauer, and C.A. Yonce
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

 Oftentimes, job applicants run a gauntlet of various selection tests, assessments, and interviews and it is important to understand how they affect applicants’ reactions toward the organization.  Providing job applicants with explanations for the various selection procedures is a cost-effective and easily implemented intervention.  Additionally, according to Truxillo and colleagues’ meta-analysis, explanations can positively impact applicants’ reactions toward the employment process and organization as a whole. 

Firstly, Truxillo et al. found that explanations have a positive impact on job applicants’ fairness perceptions (e.g., how fair they perceive the selection process to be) and perceptions of the organization as a whole.  Explanations were also found to have a more favorable impact on the fairness perceptions of personality employment tests as compared to cognitive ability employment tests (although this relationship is still favorable).

Interestingly, explanations have a positive effect on job applicant motivation which positively impacts job applicants’ cognitive ability test scores.  Finally, Truxillo contrasted college student samples with real job applicant samples and found that the relationship between explanations and outcomes tends to be stronger for non-student samples (i.e., “real world” situations). 

Ultimately, there is little doubt that organizations should be concerned with job applicants’ reactions to the employment process. Truxillo and colleagues’ findings are encouraging because they suggest that providing explanations to applicants during the employment process is cheap, fast, and effective at improving job applicants’ reactions. 

Truxillo, D.M., Bodner, M., Bertolino, T.N., Bauer, T.N., & Yonce, C.A. (2009).  Effects of explanations on applicant reactions: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(4), 346-361.

Who is holding the glass ceiling in place?

Topic: Compensation, Organizational Justice, Motivation, Rewards
Publication: Journal of Human Resources
Article: Who is holding the glass ceiling in place? 
Author: N. Fortin
Featured by: Benjamin Granger

Many 21^st century women still earn less than their male counterparts.  However, this injustice may not be due fully to chauvinists and stereotypes.  In her article, The Gender Wage Gap among Young Adults in the United States: The Importance of Money versus People, Nicole Fortin investigates influences that women themselves exhibit which may contribute to their smaller paychecks.  As women more often choose to volunteer with organizations that are altruistic in nature, and tend to place more importance on workplace success rather than rolling in the dough, it is easy to follow Fortin’s argument that such noncognitive factors inevitably influence the gender wage gap. 

Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972 and the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988/94, Fortin explores the possible impacts on the gender pay gap by examining four noncognitive functions:

·     The importance of money and work
·     The importance of people and family
·     Self-esteem
·     Locus of control (the extent to which a person feels they- rather than their environment        have control over their own success). 

In addition to human capital and cognitive factors, Fortin argues that these noncognitive qualities significantly influence the discrepancy in wages among men and women.  

Fortin finds that lower locus of control and higher importance of people and family tend to widen the gender wage gap, while higher self-esteem and importance of money and work tend to lead to more equitable wages for workers in their early thirties.  Although the research shows that the differences due to these noncognitive factors are largely insignificant over time, the importance of work and money should not be overlooked, as it plays the largest role of the four noncognitive factors.

Fortin, N. (2008, Fall2008). The Gender Wage Gap among Young Adults in the United States. Journal of Human Resources, 43(4), 884-918. Retrieved March 14, 2009, from Advanced Placement Source database.

Identifying the Roots of Sexual Harassment

Topic: Organizational Justice, Sexual Harassment, Workplace Deviance 
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology 
Article: Organization justice and men’s likelihood to sexually harass: The moderating role of sexism and personality. 
Author: F. Krings, S. Facchin
Featured by: Benjamin Granger

Researchers Krings and Facchin (2009) set out to uncover the reasons why men engage in sexual harassment at work.  The authors hypothesized that certain personality traits make some men more likely to engage in sexual harassment, but that sexual harassment might also depend on certain organizational factors. 

Krings and Facchin found that men reported being more likely to engage in sexual harassment when they perceived low interactional justice (feel that they are not treated fairly by their supervisors).  Overall, this finding suggests that sexual harassment is more likely following unfair interpersonal treatment.

However, as expected by the authors, individual personality factors also played an important role in the sexual harassment process.  Specifically, perceptions of low interactional justice were more strongly related to sexual harassment when men were low in agreeableness (not very oriented toward interpersonal relationships) and high in hostile sexism (general antipathy toward women).

Important note: To measure sexual harassment, Krings and Facchin utilized the Likelihood of Sexual Harassment (LSH) scale, which specifically measures the likelihood of engaging in certain behaviors, not the actual occurrence of sexual harassment.

So what can we take from this research?  Although organizations often have minimal control over the personality factors of its employees (unless the organization specifically selects employees based on the personality factors of interest), organizations CAN more readily affect their employees’ perceptions of interactional justice.  Generally, when employees feel that they are treated unfairly, they are more likely to subsequently “get back” (engage in deviant behaviors, including sexual harassment) at the organization or organizational members to “even the score.”  By placing a heavy focus on fairness, organizations can nip deviant behaviors such as sexual harassment in the bud.  

Krings, F. & Facchin, S. (2009). Organization justice and men’s likelihood to sexually harass:  The moderating role of sexism and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 501-510.

Fair is Fair

Topic: Organizational Justice
Publication: Journal of Management
Article: Perceptions of discrimination: A multiple needs model perspective.   
Blogger: James Grand

I know the saying goes “Life isn’t always fair – sometimes you’re the bug and sometimes you’re the windshield.”  But in truth, things aren’t usually that black and white (or life and death, if you will).

One theory of organizational justice (fairness) that has begun to grow in prominence within the research literature in recent years is that of Cropanzano et al.’s (2001) multiple needs model of justice.  In short, the multiple needs perspective states that every human being has three needs that contribute to the experience of justice:  economic needs (e.g., “I’m paid fairly for my share of the work”), interpersonal needs (“My manager treats my ideas with respect”) and moral needs (“My company takes the ethical high road”).  Thus, according to the theory, a sense of unfairness is likely to arise if any one or more of these needs goes unfulfilled or is transgressed.

While perhaps intuitively sensible, one of the major problems with the multiple needs theory is precisely that it has largely remained a theory—there has been little empirical data to support the claim that negative actions in the environment can violate these needs, and that failures to meet these needs lead to meaningful outcomes for organizations and their employees.  Heeding this very call, Goldman and colleagues (2008) attempted to test these hypotheses using a sample of nearly 6000 American workers across a variety of occupational titles.  In their study, Goldman et al. attempted to test a sequential model in which 1) employees’ levels of perceived discrimination were negatively linked to each of the three justice needs (economic, interpersonal, and moral); 2) each need was predicted to positively affect job satisfaction and organizational commitment; and 3) job satisfaction and commitment would be negatively related to turnover intentions.

Honk if you Perceive Injustice!

Topic: Organizational Justice
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology 
Article: Third party support for strike action. 
Blogger: Rob Stilson

Strikes have been assessed from the point of view of the two parties involved, but rarely if ever has a third-party perspective been considered.  In this article which contains two studies, Kelloway, Francis, Catano, and Dupré (2008) did just that. The first study concerns a teacher’s union ready to strike and the second study involves an actual strike among public employees.

The authors break down the predictors of third-party support as follows 1)Perceived injustice-do they feel the workers are being treated unfairly? 2) Identification-are they pro union? 3)  Perceived instrumentality-if they involve themselves in supporting the strike, will this help contribute to change?

In the first study, a grade school teachers union had entered into a 7-day mediation period with the government to try to avert a strike.  During this period questionnaires were given to university staff and students and their friends and family when possible.  The strike was averted and that is when data collection ended.  The questionnaire comprised scales of strike support, union attitudes, personal impact, and procedural and distributive justice.

The results indicated third-party support for strikes was predicted by perceptions of distributive, but not procedural justice.  Also females, older individuals, and pro-union people were more likely to be supportive of strikes.

Due to the potential non-representativeness (mainly students), the authors performed another study that took place during an actual strike with a more representative sample. 

C’mon, you can trust me!

Topic: Organizational Justice, Job Performance, Trust
Publication: Journal of Management

Article: The Relationship between being perceived as trustworthy and performance

Blogger: Larry Martinez

OK, so most of the research done on trustworthiness in the workplace has focused on whether or not you think that your coworkers and leaders are trustworthy and the related implications (if you don’t trust your boss you’ll be less likely to perform well for him or her).  But what about the other side of the coin?  Dirks and Skarlicki wanted to know how being perceived as trustworthy effects job performance – the idea being that if your coworkers think you are trustworthy, they’ll be more likely to offer you resources.  Well, that’s exactly what they found, but they broke it down into a bit more detail.  Consider the following two facets of trustworthiness:

Capability: Do you have the ability to provide resources?

Integrity: Will you be fair and honest (specifically, will you return the favor if someone helps you out)?

The authors found that the interaction of those two variables predicted job performance.  That is, if your coworkers perceive you to be capable and fair, they’ll see you as being trustworthy and thus offer resources to you.  Those resources, which you most likely couldn’t have gotten on your own, help you do your own job better.  This relationship only held for employees who were considered to have both high integrity and high capability; the performance of employees with lower integrity scores did not change, regardless of how high their ‘capable’ ratings were. 

So, in an organization, leaders can focus on the potential performance benefits for being trustworthy (capable and fair/honest).  Training programs would have to focus on both capability and integrity, since one or the other doesn’t have as strong of a stand-alone effect.

Reference

Fostering Fairness in the Workplace: Why it’s so worth it!

Topic: Citizenship Behavior, Organizational Justice 
Publication: Journal of Organizational Behavior
Article: Meta-analytic tests of relationships between organizational justice and citizenship behavior: Testing agent-system and shared-variance models.     
Blogger: Benjamin Granger

Leaders are recognizing that organizations, employees, and customers benefit from non-required cooperative behaviors that go on in the workplace.  These behaviors are referred to as organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs).  Because OCBs are highly valued in organizational settings, business researchers and practitioners are interested in uncovering the causes of these behaviors.

Researchers Fassina, Jones, and Uggerslev (2008) were particularly interested in how employee perceptions of justice (fairness) relate to OCBs.  More specifically, the authors were interested in how different types of justice related to OCBs that are directed toward the organization versus to other individuals in the organization.  Fassina et al. specified three distinct types of justice: (1) procedural justice (the extent to which employees feel organizational practices are fair), (2) distributive justice (the extent to which employees feel organizational outcomes are fair), and (3) interactional justice (the extent to which employees feel they are treated fairly by organizational leaders).

So, based on the findings of Fassina et al.’s meta-analysis, what conclusions can be drawn to help organizations increase the occurrence of OCBs in the workplace?

1) When employees feel that their organizational leaders are treating them fairly (high interactional justice) they are more likely to engage in helpful behaviors targeted toward other individuals and work groups within the organization (e.g., helping coworkers with job-related tasks).  In other words, if a person feels he/she is being treated fairly by an individual (leader), he/she is more likely to be helpful to other individuals,.

2). When employees feel that organizational practices are fair and just (high procedural justice) they are more likely to engage in helpful behaviors aimed at the organization (e.g., going beyond expectations to cooperate with organizational policies).  In other words, if a person feels he/she is being treated fairly by the organization, he/she is more likely to be helpful to the organization. 

Importantly, Fassina et al.’s findings suggest that interactional justice and procedural justice are better predictors of OCBs than distributive justice. This is an important finding because it suggests that when employees receive unfavorable outcomes in the workplace (e.g., demotion, poor performance appraisal), they will not necessarily discontinue engaging in positive workplace behaviors like OCBs.  In fact, if the employees feel that their supervisors are treating them with respect and the procedures by which organizations make decisions are fair (even if outcomes are unfavorable), then they should still engage in OCBs.

The great news is that managers and organizations have the power to influence their employees’ perceptions of justice.  Although negative outcomes in the workplace are inevitable, organizational leaders can affect the ways in which decisions are made and how employees are treated.  If organizations are successful in treating employees fairly and arriving at outcomes (positive or negative) by means which are considered fair by employees, then they will likely increase the occurrence of OCBs in the workplace.  So what exactly can managers do?  By giving employees explanations as to why decisions were made or how outcomes were decided upon, employees are likely to perceive high levels of interactional justice.

    Fassina, N. E., Jones, D. A., & Uggerslev, K. L. (2008). Meta-analytic tests of relationships between organizational justice and citizenship behavior: Testing agent-system and shared-variance models. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 805-828.

Fairness Is In The Eye of The Beholder

Topic: Organizational Justice
Publication: The Journal of Applied Psychology (2008)
Article: Event justice perceptions and employees' reactions: Perceptions of social entity justice as a moderator.
Author: J. Choi
Reviewed by: Katie O'Brien

In a land of milk and honey, the copier would never break, we'd never have to work weekends, and work would always be fair.  Well, since we aren't eating ambrosia, we as employees sometimes have to deal with mightily unfair events at work and sometimes we even have to deliver this unfairness.  New research in the Journal of Applied Psychology by Jaepil Choi has looked into possible moderators that could soften the blow.  He found that, indeed, if your employees feel that they work at a "fair" organization, one or two fairness-related slip-ups won't make that much of a difference.  In fact, a generalized fairness perception can keep employees from getting angry and acting out negatively, because they see a slip-up or two as an isolated event and not indicative of the organization itself.  People seem to view their company as a single entity rather than a series of events, which is good for supervisors because one bad event won't kill employee morale.

The take home message: if fairness perception is high, this ship won't sink from just one little iceberg.  Anchors away!

Choi, J. (2008). Event justice perceptions and employees' reactions: Perceptions of social entity justice as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 513-528.a