112

Organizational Justice and Organizational

Citizenship Behavior: A Mediated
Multifoci Model

Joy H. Karriker*
College of Business, East Carolina University, Greenville
Margaret L. Williams
School of Business, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond
This research explores the differential effects of multifoci organizational justice perceptions on
organizational citizenship behavior. Based on data collected from 217 employeesupervisor
dyads, our findings clarify the bi-focal nature of distributive and procedural justice, illuminate
the mono-focus of interpersonal justice, and support the premise that justice investments yield
exponential behavioral responses that are sometimes mediated by the quality of the employee
supervisor relationship.
Keywords: organizational justice; organizational citizenship behavior; social exchange
Contemporary justice research has been rich and diverse. This flourishing literature indi-
cates that, clearly, fairness is important to individuals in everyday life and, particularly, in the
work setting (Ambrose, 2002). One role fairness plays in the workplace involves our incli-
nation to form close relationships at work with those people and organizations that treat us
fairly. Social exchange theory suggests that, in turn, we are likely to perform in ways that
benefit the individuals and organizations with which we are in these positive relationships
(Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). The implication that fairness investments
yield positive and targeted performance outcomes is provocative for practioners. Researchers
This article was accepted under the editorship of Russell Cropanzano.
*Corresponding author: Tel.: 252-328-5693; fax: 252-328-4094
E-mail address: karrikerj@ecu.edu
Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, February 2009 112-135
DOI: 10.1177/0149206307309265
2009 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved.
have also found this model intriguing and, therefore, have identified several areas where
more work is needed to enhance our understanding of the consequences of, and processes
related to, workplace justice. Among them are the effects associated with the sources of jus-
tice (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002), the differential outcomes of justice perceptions based on
justice type (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002),
and, as suggested by the relationship effects mentioned above, the mechanisms (e.g.,
exchange relationships) through which justice perceptions are translated into behaviors
(Colquitt & Greenberg, 2003).
In this effort, we contribute to these research needs by integrating the literatures of orga-
nizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) through an application of
social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). We explore the effects of organizational- and individual-
referenced justice perceptions (i.e., justice foci) on behaviors that are directed at, and ben-
efit, the organization as a whole (OCB-organization, or OCBO; Williams & Anderson, 1991)
and those that benefit the supervisor (OCB-supervisor, or OCBS; Malatesta, 1995).
Furthermore, our model includes mediators that assist our understanding of how each of the
dimensions of justice is translated into each kind of citizenship behavior. Specifically, we
note that workplace justice is instrumental in the development of strong, positive exchange
relationships, as operationalized by trust, organizational commitment, perceived organiza-
tional support (POS), and leadermember exchange (LMX; Coyle-Shapiro & Conway, 2004;
Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Shore et al., 2004). As suggested by Blau, these social
exchange relationships are characterized by feelings of personal obligations, gratitude, and
trust (1964: 94), and individuals act on these feelings to benefit the individual and/or the
organization that is investing in relationships with them. Thus, specifically, and based on
extant literature, we expect that individual perceptions of the trustworthiness of the organi-
zation, organizational commitment, and POS will mediate the relationships between specific
dimensions of organization- and supervisor-referenced justice perceptions and extra-role
behaviors that are intended to benefit the organization (OCBO). We also expect that LMX
(Graen & Scandura, 1987) will mediate the relationships between certain dimensions of
supervisor-referenced justice perceptions and extra-role behaviors that are intended to bene-
fit the supervisor (OCBS) and the organization (OCBO).
Consistent with Blau (1964), Organ (1988) suggested that employees may perceive their
relationships with their organizations in terms of social exchange, thereby prompting
exchange responses to perceptions of fairness. The reciprocal nature of social exchange, sim-
ilar to an economic exchange in which the expenditure and the return are relatively equal,
leads to the expectation that employees will perform in-role tasks in exchange for fair treat-
ment. However, the exponential nature of social exchange (Karriker, Ireland, & Coombs,
2004; Lin, 2001) offers support for the assertion that, given justice inputs or investments, an
employee will perform above and beyond formal job expectations in the fulfillment of his
perceived unspecified obligations (Blau, 1964: 93). The term investments may be under-
stood in terms of the economic market. If an investor purchases a stock, he does not expect
to recoup an equal amount from that outlay. In fact, the investor expects a multiplied return
from his expenditure. In the workplace, an organization that makes an investment in its
employees, perhaps in terms of training, professional development, or in their general health
and welfare, may expect that these employees will experience psychological considerations
leading to their sense of loyalty to the organization. In turn, these employees not only
Karriker, Williams / Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior 113
114 Journal of Management / February 2009
reciprocate by performing contractual tasks, but they also may perform in ways that are
disproportionate to the original investment.
Moorman states that, OCB appears to be a reasonable and likely way in which an
employee can exchange the social rewards brought on by perceptions of fairness (1991: 846).
Thus, an individual who believes he or she has been treated fairly, yet who recognizes an
inequity between his or her inputs and organizational fairness outcomes in relation to others,
will alter his or her extra-role, discretionary behaviors in an effort to reduce this dissonance. In
such a case, he or she would be expected to respond to this fairness with positive, extra-role
behavioral inputs. This relationship between organizational justice and OCB has been explored
and supported in many studies, including Tanskys (1993) findings regarding perceptions of
overall fairness and categories of OCB; Moorman, Niehoff, and Organs (1993) national cable
television company study involving procedural justice and OCB; Bies, Martin, and Brockners
(1993) examination of the perceived fairness of a layoff process and its influence on OCB after
the layoff announcement; and Podsakoff and MacKenzies (1993) summary and discussion of
the effects of fairness on citizenship behaviors. Other research supports the role of social
exchange in facilitating various fairnessOCB relationships (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).
Furthermore, different dimensions of justice may differentially affect the kind of positive,
extra-role behaviors displayed. The beginnings of a justice source model are found in
Greenberg (1993) and in subsequent works (Ambrose & Hess, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001;
Colquitt & Greenberg, 2003) in which organizational justice researchers began to examine
whether the object of the justice judgments (e.g., the supervisor or the organization) pre-
dicted specific outcomes. In particular, these studies addressed the predictive power of the
source of justice. If the justice act originates from an individual, it is classified as agent-
referenced; if the justice act originates from the organization itself, it is called system-
referenced. We examine agent- and system-referenced justice perceptions for their potential
differential effects on attitudes and behaviors (Ambrose & Hess, 2001; Rupp & Cropanzano,
2002). In other words, the focus of the dispensation of justice is integral to the focus of its
outcomes, be they attitudinal and/or behavioral. The following sections will provide more
detail related to the development of the theoretical model shown in Figure 1.
Organizational Justice
As shown in Figure 1, our model begins with perceptions of organizational justice. The
term organizational justice was coined by French (1964) to describe individuals percep-
tions of fairness in organizations. Widely accepted justice dimensions include distributive
justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice. Distributive justice addresses the fair-
ness of outcomes (Greenberg, 1987). Often focused on pay and other forms of compensation
as outcomes, distributive justice also includes examinations of perceptions of fairness with
regard to other outcomes, such as office assignment, promotions, job titles, and the like.
Thibaut and Walker (1975) introduced the concept of procedural justice, which addresses the
processes through which outcome distributions are made. Typically, individuals are asked
how fair the procedures used to determine their outcomes (whether specified or in general)
are, and they make their procedural fairness judgments with regard to their beliefs of how
the systems or procedures should operate.
Karriker, Williams / Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior 115
Bies and Moag described interactional justice as comprising concerns about the fairness
of interpersonal communication (1986: 44), allowing distinction between procedures and
their enactments and including communication as an interactional matter (1986: 46).
However, almost from its introduction, the interactional justice construct has suffered from
lack of clarity (Colquitt et al., 2001; Colquitt & Greenberg, 2003; Greenberg, 1993).
Although some scholars view interactional justice as a single construct, others have proposed
two dimensions of interactional justice (Bies, 1986; Lind & Tyler, 1988). Informational jus-
tice speaks to the fairness of information provided during the procedures and outcome dis-
tributions related to issues such as the accuracy of the information and the timeliness with
which the information was provided. Interpersonal justice addresses the fairness of person-
oriented treatment such as the respect with which one has been treated. Perhaps indicative
of the lack of clarity regarding the interactional justice construct, Cropanzano, Prehar, and
Chen simply refer to interactional justice as usually operationalized as one-to-one transac-
tions between individuals (2002: 329).
Colquitt (2001) developed a 20-item measure and used confirmatory factor analysis to find
support for four distinct dimensions of organizational justice (distributive, procedural, infor-
mational, and interpersonal). Additional empirical findings are mixed. Karriker and Williams
(2003) used Colquitts items combined with other, direct justice items to find support for only
three justice dimensions: distributive, interpersonal, and a combined procedural/informational
Figure 1
Theoretical Model
System-Referenced
Distributive Justice
OCBS
OCBO
LMX
OMX
Agent-Referenced
Procedural Justice
Agent-Referenced
Distributive Justice
Agent-Referenced
Interpersonal Justice
Procedural Justice
H1
H3
H2
H4
H4, H5, H6
H7
H8
H9
H10
H11
H12, H13
H10, H11, H12
H5
H6
H13
System-Referenced
dimension. Karriker (2006) found support for four dimensions; however the correlation
between procedural and informational justice approached one, suggesting a single construct.
These recent findings are related to Roch and Shanocks (2006) study, in which the
researchers developed a new interactional justice scale based on Bies (2001) reconceptual-
ization of interactional justice as strictly interpersonal. Their results yielded a unidimen-
sional interactional justice measure that was indistinguishable from interpersonal justice but
that was different from informational justice, essentially saying that interactional justice and
interpersonal justice are the same construct, and that informational justice is distinct from
interactional (interpersonal) justice.
The implication of the aforementioned research is this: Informational justice appears to
be distinct from interpersonal justice, yet its relationship with procedural justice is still
unclear. Multifoci justice researchers have combined informational and interpersonal justice
explicitly to form an interactional justice construct (Byrne & Cropanzano, 2000) or have
included informational items in interactional justice measures (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002).
For clarity, our focus in this research is on the three clearly established, distinct justice
dimensions: distributive, procedural, and interpersonal.
Another emphasis of this project is the focus of justice perceptions. Following Bies and
Moag (1986), Tyler and Bies (1990) posited a two-factor, agent-system perspective on jus-
tice (Colquitt et al., 2001; Colquitt & Greenberg, 2003; Greenberg, 1993). Here, the source
of the justice dispensation determines the dimension under which it falls. Justice is viewed
as related either to the system (i.e., organization) or to the agent (i.e., the supervisor, or
person responsible for making the distributions). In this two-factor model, the procedures are
related to the organization itself in the justice recipients perception, and the interpersonal
treatment surrounding these procedures is related to the justice agent, often the recipients
supervisor.
Ambrose and Hess (2001) extended the two-factor model by categorizing the four dimensions
of justice (distributive, procedural, informational, and interpersonal) as either system- or
person-focused. They proposed that procedural and informational justice predict system-
referenced outcomes, and distributive and interpersonal justice predict person-referenced
outcomes. Similarly, other research has classified each source of justice as directly related to
a certain kind of justice (Malatesta & Byrne, 1997; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor,
2000). A limitation of this approach, however, is that justice source and justice content are
confounded in such models (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002).
Byrne (1999) addressed this concern by offering a multifoci justice model, proposing that
interpersonal treatment and formal procedures could stem from both supervisors and orga-
nizations. Specifically, she categorized two kinds of justiceprocedural and interactional
as both system- and supervisor-referenced. This four-factor model was not supported in
Byrnes study, but Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) retested it through a series of confirmatory
factor analyses. They found that the four-factor model fit their data well and was superior to
a single justice factor model and two 2-factor models based on foci and source, respectively.
These findings support the assertion that various types of justice may, indeed, be classified
as multifoci; yet Rupp and Cropanzano did not address the possible multifoci nature of dis-
tributive justice, nor did they test a purely interpersonal, rather than interactional, multifoci
construct.
116 Journal of Management / February 2009
Rupp and Cropanzanos (2002) results demonstrated cross-foci effects with regard to
interactional justice. Jones, Fassina, and Uggerslev refer to such findings as indicative of an
agent dominance model (2006: 1). Unlike the agent-system model, in which the justice
source strictly dictates the target of the justice outcome, the agent-dominance model pro-
poses that interactional justice is the strongest predictor of unique variance in both OCBI and
OCBO. We infer a proxy phenomenon, where the agent is more proximal to the employee
than is the organization, and he or she is the only interpersonal link with the organization as
a whole. The organization can publish and enforce procedures and can determine outcomes,
but, for interpersonal justice inputs, the supervisor, literally, is the face of the organization.
Thus, the employee perceives the supervisors interactional (in this study, interpersonal) jus-
tice inputs as representative of, and integral to, his or her interpersonal relationship with
the system. As shown in Figure 1, our theoretical model extends this line of research by
addressing the source(s) of the distributive, procedural, and interpersonal dimensions of
organizational justice and their corresponding behavioral outcomes. Figure 1 includes
system- and agent-referenced procedural and distributive justice, and interpersonal justice,
which is expected to exhibit cross-foci, or agent-dominance, effects.
OCB
As shown in Figure 1, the outcomes in our model are aspects of OCB. The dramatic
increase in research attention to OCB in past decades has produced a number of refinements
to the definition and application of the construct (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach,
2000). One such refinement is a focus on the beneficiary, or target, of OCB. Williams and
Anderson (1991) demonstrated support for a three-factor model of performance, emphasizing
two broad categories of OCB (in addition to in-role behavior). Behaviors that target the indi-
vidual are called OCBI (individual), and behaviors that target the organization as a whole are
called OCBO (organization). This conceptualization includes no dysfunctional behaviors, and
it poses no constraints on the rewards issue, such that it is entirely consistent with the social
exchange premise that an individual will respond to positive fairness perceptions with posi-
tive extra-role behaviors that are targeted toward the justice referent. Justice researchers have
modified the OCBI construct in terms of the particular individual who is the target of the
OCB, the supervisor. Malatesta (1995) refers to this specific form of OCBI as OCBS.
The Current Study
Exactly how justice perceptions are translated into OCB is a provocative topic in the eyes
of justice scholars, and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) provides a theoretical basis for
this process. The relationships that develop because of justice inputs have the effect of mov-
ing the exchanges from a transactional, quid pro quo status to exchanges based on mutual
fulfillment of unspecified obligations (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). In this
study, we focus on two sets of mediators: those between system-referenced justice and
OCBO and agent-referenced justice and OCBS.
Karriker, Williams / Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior 117
OrganizationMember Exchange (OMX)
In their review of the justice literature, Colquitt and Greenberg (2003) suggest mediators between
justice and behavioral outcomes, naming organizational commitment and organizational trust
among them. Consistently, Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) note the mediating roles of organiza-
tional trust, organizational commitment, POS, and LMX as operationalizations of exchange rela-
tionships. Yet previous social exchange research has not examined these separate constructs within
a single study. We suggest that LMX represents social exchange between an employee and his or
her supervisor (or agent) and that organizational trust, organizational commitment, and POS repre-
sent social exchange between an employee and his or her organization. Of note is Masterson et al.s
(2000) operationalization of POS as representative of the quality of the employeeorganization rela-
tionship, much like LMX measures the quality of the employeesupervisor relationship (Graen &
Scandura, 1987). In contrast, Liao and Rupp (2005) conceptualize organizational commitment as
the system-related counterpart of LMX, and we assert that organizational trust might also be so con-
strued. Our contention is that POS is only part of the exchange equation, in that it measures
employee perceptions of the organizations devotion to them, but does not include employee devo-
tion to the organization, as do organizational trust and organizational commitment. We examine
these three system-related constructs for their relative roles as indicators of an overall organizational
social exchange construct, which we will term organization-member exchange, or OMX.
The constructs that we will examine as potential indicators of OMX include organizational
trust, organizational commitment, and POS. Trust is a psychological state that provides a
representation of how individuals understand their relationship with another party in situa-
tions that involve risk or vulnerability (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001: 456). Konovsky and Pugh
(1994) found support for trust as a mediator between procedural justice and OCB, using trust
in an individual, ones supervisor, as proxy for trust in an organization. Recently, Greenberg
and Wiethoff suggested that justice researchers need to understand more about the relation-
ships between trust and justice perceptions: Further exploration of the link between trust-
based expectations and justice perceptions promises to enhance our understanding of when
and how people are willing to respond in accordance with their perceptions of justice or injus-
tice (2001: 284). Because it facilitates ones interpretations of past justice allocations and
assessments of future justice phenomena and maintains the individuals focus on the organi-
zation as a whole, we expect that organizational trust represents an aspect of OMX.
Organizational commitment represents a global, systemic reaction that people have to
the company for which they work (Colquitt et al., 2001: 429). Although many studies have
addressed organizational commitment as affect (e.g., identification), its cognitive component
is also germane to the current research because of the role of cognition in OCBO (Organ &
Konovsky, 1989; Williams & Anderson, 1991). Lowe and Vodanovich (1995) and Greenberg
(1994) found a strong relationship between distributive justice and global organizational
commitment; Masterson et al. (2000) found procedural justice to be a stronger predictor of
global organizational commitment than was interactional justice. Colquitt et al. (2001) sug-
gest that these findings support the agent-system model discussed in the current work. Yet the
agent-dominance approach would dictate a relationship between interpersonal justice and
both organizational commitment and OCBO. We suggest that organizational commitment
represents an additional component of OMX, helping to maintain the individuals cognitive
118 Journal of Management / February 2009
Karriker, Williams / Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior 119
focus on the organization as he or she reacts behaviorally to justice perceptions, thus medi-
ating the relationships between system-referenced distributive and procedural justice and
OCBO, and between interpersonal justice and OCBO.
POS is a general perception concerning the extent to which the organization values
[employees] general contributions and cares for their well-being (Eisenberger, Fasolo, &
David-LaMastro, 1990: 51). Podsakoff et al. (2000) provided meta-analytic support for the
POSOCB relationship, citing findings by Settoon, Bennett, and Liden (1996) and Wayne,
Shore, and Liden (1997). Further, setting precedent for the current study, Masterson et al.
(2000) found support for the mediating role of POS in the procedural justiceOCBO rela-
tionship. In the context of a social exchange relationship between the employee and the orga-
nization, an employees perception of fairness in their organization-determined outcomes, and
the procedures used by the organization to specify those outcomes, results in the employees
positive evaluation of the value placed by the organization on their contributions and their
welfare and, in turn, the employees system-referenced performance of citizenship behaviors.
POS is expected to serve as the final component of OMX, maintaining the focus of the indi-
vidual on the organization and mediating the relationships between system-referenced dis-
tributive and procedural justice and OCBO and between interpersonal justice and OCBO.
Rupp and Cropanzanos (2002) four-factor model did not address the possibility of dis-
tributive justice as a multifoci construct and, particularly, as one having system-referenced
outcomes. We extend their work by proposing that distributive justice is a multifoci construct.
More specifically, we hypothesize a positive relationship between system-referenced distrib-
utive justice and OCBO. (For ease of reference, our hypotheses are labeled in Figure 1.)
Hypothesis 1: System-referenced distributive justice is positively related to OCBO.
With respect to procedural justice, Masterson et al. (2000) characterized procedural jus-
tice as system-focused (Ambrose & Hess, 2001) and found a relationship between system-
referenced procedural justice and OCBO. We attempt to replicate their finding here.
Hypothesis 2: System-referenced procedural justice is positively related to OCBO.
Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) found a positive, mediated relationship between interac-
tional justice and OCBO. By focusing on the more clearly defined interpersonal justice con-
struct, we attempt to explore the potential for agent-dominance effects in our model, as
would be indicated by a positive relationship between interpersonal justice and OCBO.
Hypothesis 3: Interpersonal justice is positively related to OCBO.
In addition, we propose that employee reactions to system-referenced distributive and
system-referenced procedural justice and interpersonal justice are targeted at the organiza-
tion, as OCBO, through the mediator OMX, represented by trust, commitment, and POS.
Hypothesis 4: OMX mediates the relationship between system-referenced distributive justice and
OCBO.
Hypothesis 5: OMX mediates the relationship between system-referenced procedural justice and
OCBO.
Hypothesis 6: OMX mediates the relationship between interpersonal justice and OCBO.
LMX
One facet of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) addresses the relationship between the
employee and the supervisor. Graen, Novak, and Sommerkamp (1982) referred to the
dynamic inherent in this dyadic relationship as LMX, ushering in a myriad of studies based
on the tenet that either member of the dyad invests in the other and in their relationship in
an effort to reap both tangible and social rewards. Graen and Scandura (1987) posited that
LMX reflects the quality of the supervisoremployee relationship. More specifically, LMX
suggests that the supervisor cultivates his or her relationship with each of his or her employ-
ees, in a series of dyadic exchange relationships designed to enhance both the in-role per-
formance of the employee and to benefit the supervisor him- or herself, as well as the
broader organization the supervisor represents. Following empirical findings by Settoon
et al. (1996) and Wayne et al. (1997), Masterson et al. further explored the assertion that
high-quality LMX relationships lead employees to engage in behaviors that are directly
related to their supervisors, such as in-role behavior and organizational citizenship behav-
iors (2000: 740). They found that LMX mediated the relationships between interactional
justice and both job satisfaction and supervisor-focused citizenship behaviors, OCBS.
Researchers have also suggested that the supervisor acts as proxy for the organization in
terms of interpersonal exchanges. This suggestion is related to what Jones et al. term the agent-
dominance model (2006: 1), in which cross-foci effects of interpersonal justice and supervi-
sory social exchange, or LMX, would be evident. Consistent with such a model, Rupp and
Cropanzano (2002) found that supervisory social exchange partially mediated the relationship
between interactional justice and OCBS and, with regard to cross-foci effects, that supervisory
social exchange fully mediated the relationship between interactional justice and OCBO.
In an effort to explore the possible multifoci nature of distributive justice in a multivari-
ate model, we include an examination of the proposed positive relationship between agent-
referenced distributive justice and agent-focused outcomes, or OCBS.
Hypothesis 7: Agent-referenced distributive justice is positively related to OCBS.
Masterson et al. (2000) examined organization or system-referenced procedural justice,
yet we found no published articles that examined relationships between agent-referenced
procedural justice and behavioral outcomes. Therefore, we explore the relationship between
agent-referenced procedural justice and OCBS.
Hypothesis 8: Agent-referenced procedural justice is positively related to OCBS.
The relationship between interactional justice and OCBS has been established in other
studies (Malatesta & Byrne, 1997; Masterson et al., 2000); however, these studies were
120 Journal of Management / February 2009
not multifoci in nature. Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) found a positive, partially mediated
relationship between interactional justice and OCBS in their multifoci study, yet none of
these studies tested the more clearly defined interpersonal justice construct as it relates to
OCBS. Here, based on the relationship between interactional justice and OCBS, we expect
to find a positive relationship between interpersonal justice and OCBS.
Hypothesis 9: Interpersonal justice is positively related to OCBS.
By including the agent-focused aspect of both distributive and procedural justice dimen-
sions, as well as the bi-focal, agent-dominance aspect of interpersonal justice and interpersonal
social exchange, our model sets forth the expectation that LMX will mediate the relationships
between each agent-focused justice dimension and agent-focused extra-role behaviors
(OCBS). In addition, it seeks to replicate Rupp and Cropanzanos (2002) cross-foci results,
proposing that LMX will mediate the relationship between interpersonal justice and OCBO.
Hypothesis 10: LMX mediates the relationship between agent-referenced distributive justice and
OCBS.
Hypothesis 11: LMX mediates the relationship between agent-referenced procedural justice and
OCBS.
Hypothesis 12: LMX mediates the relationship between interpersonal justice and OCBS.
Hypothesis 13: LMX mediates the relationship between interpersonal justice and OCBO.
Colquitt and Greenberg (2003) proposed that future organizational justice research should
include, among other things, a stronger integration of organizational justice within the field of
organizational behavior. Our research contributes to that goal by addressing and differentiat-
ing the behavioral outcomes of organizational justice, driven by social exchanges. In so doing,
it may increase our understanding of the role and importance of justice in organizations.
Moreover, the potential contribution of this work is enhanced by its multifoci perspective on
justice, as well as its employment of mediators in an effort to more fully explicate not only
the relationships between multifoci justice and behavioral outcomes but also to examine how
these social exchange influences operate. The attention to multifoci justice in the context of
the three clear dimensions of justice is also an innovative approach and one that offers the
promise of a more comprehensive and explanatory model than has previously been presented.
Method
Participants
Data were collected from 536 working adults in the United States using two main sources.
First, with permission of their instructors, working business students from five large univer-
sities were approached in person or via e-mail and asked to respond to employee-oriented
questions. Second, employees of two large organizations in the Eastern United States were
offered the opportunity to participate. In addition, the first author recruited participants from
several smaller organizations and individual employees, based on personal contacts.
Karriker, Williams / Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior 121
122 Journal of Management / February 2009
Consenting participants completed either paper and pencil or online surveys and were asked
to provide their work supervisors names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses,
and consent to contact them. The supervisors, for whom contact information and consent to
contact were provided, were sent an e-mail including a link to an electronic survey.
This effort yielded three samples. Sample 1 (N = 319) is composed of employees who
completed questionnaires but either did not provide consent for their supervisors to be sent
a questionnaire (n = 105) or whose supervisors did not complete a questionnaire (n = 214).
This sample was used for exploratory factor analysis of the justice measures. Samples 2 and
3 consist of the 217 employees who completed questionnaires and their 217 supervisors who
completed behavioral ratings of their employees, respectively. The employee data from this
sample were used for confirmatory factor analysis of the justice measures. In addition, the
supervisor-provided ratings of the dependent variables were merged with the employee-
provided ratings of the justice dimensions and mediators to form 217 dyads for testing the
hypothesized relationships.
Demographics for each sample are shown in Table 1. A comparison of Samples 1 and 2
shows that the group of employees whose supervisors did not respond (either because no
contact information was provided for the supervisor or because the supervisor who was con-
tacted did not respondSample 1) differed from the group of employees whose supervisors
did respond (Sample 2). As a whole, employees in Sample 2 are older, have more work expe-
rience and a higher level of education, and are more likely to work as managers or profes-
sionals than employees in Sample 1. Also, there is a higher proportion of women in Sample
2. As would be expected, the supervisors who provided performance ratings for employees
(Sample 3) tended to be older and have more work experience and education than the
employees they rated.
Measures
Each employee completed scales measuring agent- and system-referenced distributive
and procedural justice and interpersonal justice, as well as organizational trust, organiza-
tional commitment, POS, and LMX. The supervisors rated their respective subordinates on
OCBO and OCBS. Items were assessed on a 5-point Likert-type scale from (1) strongly dis-
agree to (5) strongly agree unless indicated otherwise.
We followed the examples given in Byrne and Cropanzano (2000), which are consistent
with procedures followed by Masterson, Moye, and Bartol (2003) to assess agent- and system-
referenced distributive and procedural justice. We created scales for each of the four dimen-
sions using the distributive and procedural justice items from Colquitt (2001). Each item was
categorized as either agent- or system-focused, and, where needed, changed to reflect a jus-
tice source. Next, an item with the other focus was written for each source-focused item, to
incorporate both justice sources in each justice scale. For example, Colquitts My outcome
is justified, given my performance became both My outcomes that are controlled by my
supervisor are justified, given my performance and My outcomes that are controlled by my
organization are justified, given my performance. We used Colquitts four interpersonal jus-
tice items to assess interpersonal justice.
Karriker, Williams / Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior 123
Employees rated their level of organizational trust using Robinsons (1996) 7-item scale,
reflective of Gabarro and Athos (1976) dimensions of trust. We excluded one reverse-coded
item that specifically addressed fairness: I dont think my employer treats me fairly.
Employees rated their global organizational commitment by responding to Mowday, Steers,
and Porters (1979) 9-item scale. Employees reported POS using items from Eisenberger,
Huntington, Hutchinson, and Sowa (1986). We selected three items from those with the six
highest loadings in the original scale development study, not including any reverse-coded
items: The organization strongly considers my goals and values; Help is available from the
Table 1
Demographics of Samples
Sample 1: Employees Sample 2: Employees
Whose Supervisor Did Whose Supervisor
Not Complete a Completed a Sample 3:
Questionnaire Questionnaire Supervisors
(N = 319) (N = 217) (N = 217)
Ethnic background
Asian 9.8 5.1 2.4
Black/African American 14.8 15.8 8.5
White/Caucasian 68.8 73.0 84.0
Hispanic 2.2 4.7 2.8
Other 4.4 1.4 2.4
Age
25 or less 64.6 40.5 4.2
26 to 30 16.6 15.8 7.5
31 to 35 9.2 12.1 17.3
36 to 40 3.2 10.2 19.2
Over 40 6.4 21.4 51.9
Gender
Female 47.9 56.7 39.9
Work experience
Less than 1 year 3.5 0.9 0
1 to 4 years 30.6 19.6 2.3
5 to 7 years 35.0 27.1 5.6
8 to 10 years 12.1 13.6 5.1
More than 10 years 18.8 38.8 87.0
Education
High school graduate 1.3 1.4 4.7
Some college 68.4 47.9 17.3
College graduate 15.0 21.6 36.0
Some graduate work 10.9 17.8 11.7
Graduate degree 4.5 11.3 30.4
Job type
Sales 14.7 8.5
Service 40.7 25.0
Clerical 10.6 14.6
Production 5.1 5.2
Managerial/professional 28.8 46.7 100
124 Journal of Management / February 2009
organization when I have a problem; The organization is willing to extend itself in order to
help me perform my job to the best of my ability (Eisenberger et al., 1986: 502). Employees
rated the quality of their relationships with their supervisors (LMX) with an 8-item scale from
Wakabayashi, Graen, and Uhl-Bien (1990), which was used by Cropanzano et al. (2002) in
justice research. Several response scales are used in this LMX measure (in addition to the
strongly disagree/strongly agree format): (1) not at all, (5) a great deal; (1) rarely, (5) very
often; (1) none, (5) very high; and (1) extremely ineffective, (5) extremely effective.
We used Williams and Andersons (1991) 6-item OCBO scale plus one (reverse-coded)
item similar to Williams and Andersons telephone-use item written to reflect personal
Internet use on the job (Great deal of time spent with personal Internet searches and com-
munications) for a total of 7 items addressing OCBO. (An example item is attendance at
work is above the norm.) We used Malatestas (1995) 5-item OCBS scale, derived from
Williams and Anderson, to measure OCBS. (An example item is passes along work-related
information to you.)
Results
Measurement Evaluation
Because we modified the items from Colquitts (2001) justice scale to represent either
agent- or system-referenced distributive and procedural justice, we conducted exploratory
factor analysis of the distributive and procedural justice items for each justice focus. We fac-
tor analyzed data from Sample 1 using principal axis factoring with a direct oblimin (i.e.,
oblique) rotation using SPSS 13.0 (SPSS, 2005). For agent-referenced justice, three eigen-
values greater than 1.0 were obtained. The four distributive justice items loaded together, but
the procedural justice items were split between two factors. The results for system-referenced
justice were similar in that the distributive justice items loaded on a single factor, but the pro-
cedural justice items loaded on two separate factors. A comparison of the results for agent-
referenced and system-referenced procedural justice indicated that the same grouping of
items occurred in each case. We chose to retain the grouping that included the larger number
of items (four). The items we used for agent-referenced procedural justice are: My super-
visors procedures have been applied consistently; My supervisors procedures have been
free of bias; My supervisors procedures have been based on accurate information; and
My supervisors procedures have upheld ethical and moral standards. The items for sys-
tem-referenced procedural justice are: My organizations procedures have been applied
consistently; My organizations procedures have been free of bias; My organizations
procedures have been based on accurate information; and My organizations procedures
have upheld ethical and moral standards.
We used Sample 2 to examine the dimensionality of the justice measures using confir-
matory factor analysis in LISREL 8.52 (Jreskog & Srbom, 2002). A 5-factor model fit the
data well (Comparative Fit Index [CFI; Bentler, 1990] = .98, Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation [RMSEA; Steiger, 1990] = .07,
2
= 324.62, df = 160). Two agent-referenced
justice factors were supported based on significant loadings of 6 items on two factors: dis-
tributive and procedural. A 2-factor model of system-referenced justice was supported based
Karriker, Williams / Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior 125
on significant loadings of all 8 items on two factors: distributive and procedural justice. All
four interpersonal justice items loaded significantly on that factor. Support for the unidi-
mensionality of organizational trust, organizational commitment, POS, and LMX was found
through confirmatory factor analyses as well.
We conducted an exploratory factor analysis of the items used to measure OCBO and
OCBS using the data provided by the 217 supervisors. A 2-factor model of OCB such as the
one we propose has been validated in previous work. We chose to use exploratory instead of
confirmatory factor analysis because our OCBO and OCBS items came from different
sources and also because we added a new item to the measure. Exploratory factor analysis
allows each item to load on either factor (or both) which provides more information about
the scale at the item level than does confirmatory factor analysis. We again used principal
axis factoring with a direct oblimin (i.e., oblique) rotation using SPSS 13.0. Two eigenval-
ues greater than 1.0 (5.15, 1.58) that accounted for 56.14% of the variance were obtained.
The five OCBS items loaded cleanly on the first factor. Six of the seven OCBO items loaded
cleanly on the second factor. One item, adheres to informal rules devised to maintain order
had approximately equal loadings on the two factors (.34, .32), so we excluded this item
from our OCBO scale, yielding a 6-item scale for OCBO.
We developed scales for each of the 11 variables by taking the mean of all items retained
during the factor analyses. Scale intercorrelations, means, standard deviations, and reliabili-
ties may be found in Table 2.
Structural Model Specification and Hypothesis Evaluation
We examined the structural equation model that included the hypothesized paths shown
in Figure 1 using LISREL 8.52 (Jreskog & Srbom, 2002). We used a single indicator
approach for all latent variables except OMX for which the multiple indicators were organi-
zational trust, organizational commitment, and POS. We allowed correlated residuals among
the endogenous variables. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation and Comparative
Fit Index for this model were .08 and .98, respectively (
2
= 69.44, df = 25), indicating a
good fit to the data.
Because previous research has suggested that some relationships between justice and
OCB are fully mediated by constructs representing social exchange (Rupp & Cropanzano,
2002), we examined a second structural equation model in which the relationships between
justice and OCB were fully mediated by either OMX or LMX. This model restricted the six
direct paths from justice dimensions to OCB, shown in Figure 1, to 0, and, thus, provides a
test of the null hypothesis that, as a set, these six paths are equal to 0. This model yielded a

2
of 93.88 (df = 31). The
2
difference between this model and our original model is 24.44.
This value exceeds the critical
2
value of 12.59 (p < .05) for a difference of 6 degrees of
freedom. Thus, the null hypothesis that, as a set, the six paths from justice dimensions to
OCB were equal to 0 was rejected (i.e., at least one of these paths is likely to be significant),
and our original, partially mediated model shown in Figure 1 was supported.
We used the results from the partially mediated structural model (shown in Figure 1)
to examine the viability of organizational trust, organizational commitment, and POS as
T
a
b
l
e

2
M
e
a
n
s
,
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d

C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

S
c
a
l
e
d

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
M
S
D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
.

S
y
s
t
e
m
-
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
v
e

j
u
s
t
i
c
e
3
.
2
8
1
.
0
7
(
.
9
2
)
2
.

S
y
s
t
e
m
-
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
a
l

j
u
s
t
i
c
e
3
.
5
2
0
.
9
4
.
6
0
*
*
(
.
8
9
)
3
.

A
g
e
n
t
-
i
n
t
e
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

j
u
s
t
i
c
e
4
.
3
8
0
.
7
7
.
1
8
*
*
.
3
0
*
*
(
.
9
2
)
4
.

A
g
e
n
t
-
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
v
e

j
u
s
t
i
c
e
3
.
7
8
0
.
9
0
.
5
2
*
*
.
3
8
*
*
.
5
7
*
*
(
.
9
5
)
5
.

A
g
e
n
t
-
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
a
l

j
u
s
t
i
c
e
3
.
8
7
0
.
8
5
.
3
4
*
*
.
5
2
*
*
.
6
5
*
*
.
6
4
*
*
(
.
9
1
)
6
.

O
C
B
O
4
.
2
2
0
.
6
5
.
1
3
.
0
6
.
3
0
*
*
.
2
1
*
*
.
2
5
*
*
(
.
8
3
)
7
.

O
C
B
S
4
.
0
7
0
.
6
2
.
1
4
*
.
0
9
.
2
0
*
*
.
3
3
*
*
.
3
0
*
*
.
5
2
*
*
(
.
8
1
)
8
.

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
3
.
5
5
0
.
8
5
.
6
0
*
*
.
5
7
*
*
.
3
9
*
*
.
5
1
*
*
.
4
6
*
*
.
1
6
*
*
.
1
6
*
(
.
9
3
)
9
.

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

t
r
u
s
t
3
.
7
0
0
.
8
8
.
6
4
*
*
.
7
5
*
*
.
3
6
*
*
.
4
2
*
*
.
4
3
*
*
.
1
2
.
1
2
.
7
1
*
*
(
.
8
6
)
1
0
.

P
O
S
3
.
4
2
0
.
9
2
.
6
8
*
*
.
6
8
*
*
.
3
6
*
*
.
4
6
*
*
.
4
6
*
*
.
0
8
.
1
6
*
.
7
9
*
*
.
7
5
*
*
(
.
9
0
)
1
1
.

L
M
X
3
.
8
5
0
.
7
7
.
2
6
*
*
.
3
2
*
*
.
5
9
*
*
.
5
9
*
*
.
6
9
*
*
.
1
9
*
*
.
4
0
*
*
.
4
8
*
*
.
3
3
*
*
.
4
7
*
*
(
.
9
0
)
N
o
t
e
:
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

a
l
p
h
a

s
h
o
w
n

o
n

d
i
a
g
o
n
a
l
.

N

=
2
1
7
.
*
p
<
.
0
5
.
*
*
p
<
.
0
1
.
126
Karriker, Williams / Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior 127
indicators of OMX and to test our hypotheses. First, our decision to use organizational trust,
organizational commitment, and POS as indicators of a single latent variable is supported by
the correlations among the indicators (see Table 2): .71 between organizational trust and
organizational commitment, .75 between organizational trust and POS, and .79 between
organizational commitment and POS. The squared multiple correlations from the LISREL
output for organizational trust, organizational commitment, and POS were .74, .71, and .83,
respectively. These values are interpreted as the percentage of variance in the indicator (e.g.,
organizational trust) that is accounted for by the OMX latent variable, and they represent the
reliability of each scale as an indicator of OMX. We also calculated the reliability of the
OMX composite to be .90. Thus, the OMX latent variable is reliable and each of its indica-
tors is strongly associated with the latent variable.
Figure 2 shows the significant completely standardized path coefficients from the par-
tially mediated structural equation model. The first three hypotheses relate to direct rela-
tionships between organizational justice and OCBO. Hypotheses 1 and 2, that
system-referenced distributive justice and system-referenced procedural justice are posi-
tively related to OCBO, were not supported. Hypothesis 3, that interpersonal justice is
positively related to OCBO, was supported ( = .34, p < .001). For our hypotheses of medi-
ation to be supported, both the path from the justice dimension to the mediator and the
path from the mediator to OCB must be significant. The three paths from system-referenced
distributive justice, system-referenced procedural justice, and interpersonal justice to
Figure 2
Significant Completely Standardized Path Coefficients
From the Partially Mediated Model
System-Referenced
Distributive Justice
OCBS
OCBO
LMX
OMX
Agent-Referenced
Procedural Justice
Agent-Referenced
Distributive Justice
Interpersonal Justice
System-Referenced
Procedural Justice
.48***
.19**
.54***
.21*
.51***
.20***
.01
.34***
-.07
.42***
.13
For simplicity, nonsignificant direct paths between justice dimensions and OCB are excluded.
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
128 Journal of Management / February 2009
OMX were significant; however, OMX was not significantly related to OCBO. Therefore,
Hypotheses 4 through 6, that OMX mediates the relationships between the justice dimen-
sions and OCBO, were not supported (see Figure 2).
Hypothesis 7, that agent-referenced distributive justice is positively related to OCBS was
supported ( = .21, p < .05); however, Hypotheses 8 and 9, that agent-referenced procedural
justice and interpersonal justice would be positively related to OCBS, were not supported.
The final set of hypotheses concerned LMX as a mediator between justice dimensions and
OCBS and OCBO. Hypothesis 10 was supported: LMX mediated the relationship between
agent-referenced distributive justice and OCBS (
distributive justice LMX
= .19, p < .01 and
LMX
OCBS
= .51, p < .001). Hypothesis 11, that LMX mediates the relationship between agent-
referenced procedural justice and OCBS, was also supported (
procedural justice LMX
= .54, p < .001
and
LMX OCBS
= .51, p < .001). Hypotheses 12 and 13 were not supported. Interpersonal jus-
tice was not significantly related to LMX, so LMX did not mediate the relationship between
interpersonal justice and either OCBS (Hypothesis 12) or OCBO (Hypothesis 13).
Discussion
Applying social exchange theory, this research explored further the possible differential
effects of multifoci organizational justice perceptions (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002) on OCB.
This work also examined the mechanisms through which particular justice perceptions are
translated into OCBs (Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998), and attempted to delineate
whether behavioral outcomes are targeted at the supervisor (OCBS) or at the organization as
a whole (OCBO; Williams & Anderson, 1991). The multifoci perspective on justice and the
employment of mediators offered the potential of explicating more fully the relationships
between multifoci justice and behavioral outcomes, as well as examining how these influ-
ences operate. We were most careful in our study to give attention to the current state of
justice measurement, deciding that the cleanest model would include only the most well-
established dimensions and measures. The relationships in the final model, therefore, are not
only distinguished by construct clarity, but are also consistent with a multifoci approach.
Rather than an agent-system model, we found support for an agent-dominance pattern
based on the cross-foci influence of interpersonal justice on OMX and OCBO. These find-
ings served to clarify further the bi-focal nature of distributive and procedural justice, while
illuminating the potential mono-focus of interpersonal justice and the possible proxy effect
of the supervisor in implementing procedures. The social exchange foundation of LMX was
evident as this variable mediated two agent-referenced justiceperformance relationships
and supported the premise of this research that justice inputs and investments yield both rec-
iprocal and exponential behavioral responses, largely because of, and through, the
employees perceptions of the quality of his or her relationship with the supervisor.
Multidimensional Justice Foci and OCB Dimensions
The hypotheses relating justice source to behavioral outcomes, that is, those proposing
that system-referenced justice perceptions have an impact on OCBO and those proposing
that agent (supervisor)-referenced justice perceptions have significant relationships with
Karriker, Williams / Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior 129
OCBS, received mixed support. Specifically, system-referenced distributive and procedural
justice were not significantly related to OCBO, yet agent-referenced distributive justice had
a significant direct relationship with OCBS, and agent-referenced distributive and procedural
justice had significant indirect relationships with OCBS. In addition, interpersonal justice
was directly related to OCBO. Taken together, these results lead us to conclude that the
supervisor serves as proxy for the organization in the eyes of the employee. These results are,
indeed, consistent with an agent-dominance model, in which interactional justice is expected
to predict both OCBS and OCBO. Here, our focus on interpersonal justice, rather than an
interactional construct that includes both interpersonal justice and informational justice,
helps us see that the agent is the face of the organization to the employee. Removing the
influence of informational justice on the interactional justice measure may have been the
basis for revealing this agent-dominance phenomenon in our study.
Second, by crossing three justice types with both referents (with the exception of interper-
sonal justice) and allowing the nonconfounded dimensions to emerge, the current research pro-
vided information about the differential behavioral outcomes of the five justice dimensions.
Although Byrne and Cropanzano (2000) found support for relationships between system-
referenced interactional justice and OCBO and between agent-referenced procedural justice
and OCBS, their findings regarding multifoci distributive justice were inconclusive.
Furthermore, Byrne (1999) and Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) did not test for a multifoci dis-
tributive justice construct, and Rupp and Cropanzano dropped multifoci procedural justice
from their model tests. The current research offers an extension of the previous work, as it
hypothesized OCBO as the system-referenced outcome for each system-referenced percep-
tion and interpersonal justice and OCBS as the agent-referenced outcome for each agent-
referenced perception and interpersonal justice. Our findings support the multifoci nature of
distributive justice, in addition to providing evidence to support positive direct and indirect
relationships between agent-referenced distributive justice and OCBS and between agent-
referenced procedural justice and OCBS. These results may indicate that employees ascribe the
fairness of organizational procedures and outcomes to their supervisors who implement them
and respond to benefit the supervisor when their procedures and outcomes are fair. Thus, the
differential behavioral outcomes related to multifoci justice dimensions that were demonstrated
in this model offer us a more detailed description of the nuanced justice perceptionbehavioral
outcome relationship than has previously been presented.
We contend that the cross-foci, agent-dominance results in our study are entirely consis-
tent with the theoretical premise of this research, as based in social exchange theory. The
idea that social exchange processes both facilitate and encourage behaviors that reciprocate
and/or yield enhanced behavioral responses to social inputs and investments has been
applied both to individuals and to organizations. The underlying premise of social exchange
is that the organization can enter into an exchange relationship with an individual, the
employee, wherein the employee perceives his or her relationship with the organization as
one of a series of exchanges. Our research essentially juxtaposed the idea that an individual
would not serve as proxy for the organization, consistent with the agent-system model, with
the assertion that a person in a formal organizational role may, indeed, be capable of repre-
senting, or acting as, the organization in the eyes of the perceivers, consistent with the agent-
dominance model. Thus, it would have been reasonable to expect that interpersonal justice
would have effects that, because of this proxy relationship, are focused on the organization.
130 Journal of Management / February 2009
In fact, the responses of employees to perceptions of interpersonal justice appear to be exhib-
ited through behaviors that help the organization in general rather than helping behavior tar-
geted toward the supervisor. Perhaps, then, one implication of these results is that, whereas
distributive and procedural justice constructs may be distinguished by their respective referents
and are, therefore, bi-focal variables, interpersonal justice is more of a monocle. That is, it
sits over one eye, or point of reference, but serves to inform and instigate behavioral
responses on behalf of the other referent. That other eye, or point of reference, has no lens,
so that all of the input regarding interpersonal justice comes in through this singular, agent-
referenced construct. On a day-to-day basis, the employees experience with the supervisor
is more salient, more proximal than is the employees experience with the broader organiza-
tion. The behavioral outcomes, however, are directed not at the first referent, but, by proxy,
they target the other, which, in this case, is the organization itself. With this clarification,
future research regarding multifoci justice constructs may benefit from the omission of a
specific referent for interpersonal justice.
Mediation
In addition to examining the differential impacts of multifoci, multidimensional justice
judgments on OCBO and OCBS, this research addressed the possible mediating roles of cer-
tain constructs that were hypothesized to maintain the individuals focus on the justice
source and, thereby, to facilitate these differential effects. First, we examined the role of sev-
eral constructs that have been included in previous research to represent what we refer to as
OMX. Organizational trust, organizational commitment, and POS were not only strongly
related to each other but also served as clear and balanced indicators of OMX. Taken
together these constructs capture not only the support employees receive from the organiza-
tion but also the psychological returns provided to the organization by employees in terms
of trust and loyalty. Some researchers have wondered where the exchange in LMX is
(Rousseau, 1998). The inclusion of both POS and organizational trust and commitment in
OMX elucidates this exchange process. Although OMX did not mediate justiceOCB rela-
tionships, our conceptualization of social exchange between employee and organization has
relevance for future social exchange research.
With respect to mediation, we found support for LMX as a mediator of justiceOCB relation-
ships, specifically the agent-referenced distributive and agent-referenced procedural justiceOCBS
relationships. Thus, the quality of the employees relationship with his or her supervisor
serves to facilitate the employees extra-role behaviors that are targeted at the justice source,
the supervisor. By practical extension, an organization might expect that extra-role behaviors
targeted at the supervisor will also benefit the organization.
OMX did not have a significant relationship with OCBO in this sample, so it did not serve
as a mediator. One interpretation of this result is related to the Konovsky and Pugh (1994)
research that set the precedent for the mediating role of trust in justiceperformance relation-
ships using the supervisor as proxy for the organization, rather than directly addressing the
individuals level of trust in the organization itself. Perhaps the aforementioned relative
strength of the interpersonal factor has some bearing here, in that, when the supervisor is the
face of the organization, the employee trusts the supervisor-as-organization and acts to benefit
Karriker, Williams / Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior 131
the organization through his or her supervisor (i.e., OCBS). In this sample, agent-referenced
interpersonal justice was positively related to both OMX and OCBO, leading us to consider
whether the proxy phenomenon may have confounded the nature of the exchange relationship.
These findings are interesting in light of Liao and Rupps (2005) recent explorations of cross-
foci justice effects, and, again, are consistent with an agent-dominance approach.
Limitations
One limitation of this research lies with its design. Even though extant research supports the
unidirectional progression of justice judgments to outcomes, the possibility of recursive rela-
tionships still exists. It is reasonable to expect, for example, that the quality of an employees
relationship with his or her supervisor has a great deal of bearing on his or her justice percep-
tions. Furthermore, positive reinforcement, rewards, or satisfaction an employee may receive
as a result of performing in-role and extra-role tasks may impact both the LMX relationship
and justice perceptions. As prior cross-sectional studies have done, however, this research
examined the relationships of justice perceptions and behavioral outcomes as if they were
causal and unidirectional. Furthermore, examination of these relationships may benefit from a
longitudinal approach in which their possible recursive natures may become evident. Another
limitation of this study involves the use of employeesupervisor dyads. This approach serves
to introduce performance and behavioral data from a relatively objective source, the supervi-
sor, rather than relying on self-reports, which may be biased. However, we did not collect data
regarding the reason(s) why an employee did not share his or her supervisors contact infor-
mation, why an employee who shared this information requested that their supervisor not be
contacted, or why a contacted supervisor did not respond to the survey. The latter reason may
be impossible to obtain, simply because a nonresponding supervisor is, by definition, not one
to provide such information. With the exception of employees who choose not to participate at
all, however, employees could be asked for their reasoning in prohibiting contact with their
supervisors. Because we did not have this data, we could not determine if there were specific
intergroup differences that covaried systematically with other constructs of interest.
We note, however, that any differences in willingness to allow contact with the supervisor are
likely because of the fact that individuals who have advanced within their organizations, and
who have more experience and more education, are likely to have more stable relationships with
their supervisors. This possibility leads us to suspect a restriction of range issue with regard to
our outcome variables, OCBO and OCBS, as employees were more likely to provide permis-
sion for their supervisors to be contacted if they had good relationships with their supervisors.
Also, the supervisors may be more likely to respond to the OCB questionnaire if they can offer
positive ratings of their employees. We do not have data to determine whether a high quality
employeesupervisor relationship has a suppressing effect on perceptions and salience of the
employeeorganization relationship, as might be inferred from the proxy phenomenon dis-
cussed in this work. If this is the case, the respondents would be expected to rate their relation-
ships with their supervisors (i.e., LMX) highly, perhaps to the neglect of the OMX relationship,
thus inhibiting what was expected to be a significant relationship between OMX and OCBO.
Another limitation of this research is the absence of a system-referenced interpersonal
justice measure. By deliberately assessing system-referenced interpersonal justice and
agent-referenced interpersonal justice, researchers could remove any bias toward viewing
132 Journal of Management / February 2009
interpersonal justice as a mono-focus construct. Comparing items using supervisor and
some other interpersonal referent might prove interesting in future research.
Future Research
Future research should continue to examine the justice construct empirically, paying care-
ful attention to issues of justice source, justice type, and their interactions. The fact that jus-
tice researchers have used various dimensional models to study the antecedents and
consequences of fairness perceptions, even in relatively recent efforts, highlights the need for
additional empirical research to establish a fixed and durable representation of the justice
construct. Specifically, future research may benefit from inclusion of a system-referenced
interpersonal construct when the agent-referenced construct is applied, so that each of the
justice dimensions has a focal counterpart.
Once this measurement feat is accomplished, further attention to mediators and moderators of
justiceoutcome relationships should be explored. In particular, our conceptualization of the system-
related counterpart of LMX, OMX, could be examined empirically to determine the extent to which
it represents the construct of relationship quality regarding the organization-member exchange.
Other outcome variables, including those representing performance, should be considered.
These performance variables might include individual-, team-, and organization-level outcomes.
Managerial Implications
The impact of interpersonal justice on both OMX and OCBO indicates the strength of
interpersonal fairness in predicting outcomes. Certainly, interpersonal justice is the most
social factor in this social exchange based model. Perhaps, interpersonal justice simply out-
performs other forms and sources of justice because of these obvious social inputs into the
employeesupervisor relationship versus the more mechanistic inputs of organizational pro-
cedures and outcome distributions. The implication for practitioners is that fair interpersonal
treatment leads to perceptions of high quality relationships with the organization and also to
extra-role behaviors that benefit the organization directly. In addition, when the supervisor
makes procedural and outcome fairness investments in his or her relationship with the
employees, these relationships are enhanced, leading to employee behaviors that benefit the
supervisor. We assert that, as a matter of practice, extra-role behaviors that benefit the super-
visor eventually benefit the organization as a whole, and managers would do well to note that,
when an organizations culture is characterized by high-quality supervisoremployee rela-
tionships, the ramifications for overall productivity and performance are impressive.
References
Ambrose, M. 2002. Contemporary justice research: A new look at familiar questions. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 89: 803-812.
Ambrose, M. L., & Hess, R. L., Jr. 2001. Individuals responses to fairness: A consideration of management and
marketing models. Paper presented at the International Roundtable on Innovations in Organizational Justice
Research, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Bentler, P. M. 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 238-246.
Karriker, Williams / Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior 133
Bies, R. J. 1986. Identifying principles of interactional justice: The case of corporate recruiting. In R. J. Bies
(Chair), Moving beyond equity theory: New directions in research on justice in organizations. Symposium con-
ducted at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL.
Bies, R. J. 2001. Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.),
Advances in organizational justice: 89-118. San Francisco: Stanford University Press.
Bies, R. J., Martin, C. L., & Brockner, J. 1993. Just laid off, but still a good citizen? Only if the process is fair.
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. 6: 227-238.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. 1986. Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H.
Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on Negotiations in Organizations: 43-55. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.
Byrne, Z. S. 1999. How do procedural and interactional justice influence multiple levels of organizational out-
comes? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Atlanta, GA.
Byrne, Z. S., & Cropanzano, R. 2000. To which source do I attribute this fairness? Differential effects of multifoci
justice on organizational work behaviors. Paper presented at the 15th annual conference of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
Colquitt, J. A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86: 386-400.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. 2001. Justice at the millennium: A
meta-analysis of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 425-445.
Colquitt, J. A., & Greenberg, J. 2003. Organizational justice: A fair assessment of the state of the literature. In
J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (2nd ed.): 165-210). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., & Conway, N. 2004. The employment relationship through the lens of social exchange
theory. In J. Coyle-Shapiro, L. M. Shore, M. S. Taylor, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), The employment relationship:
Examining psychological and contextual perspectives: 5-28. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of
Management, 31: 874-900.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. 2002. Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from
interactional justice. Group & Organization Management, 27: 324-351.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. 2001. The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12: 450-469.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & David-LaMastro, V. 1990. Perceived organizational support and employee diligence,
commitment and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 51-59.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71: 500-507.
French, W. 1964. The personnel management process: Human resources administration. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gabarro, J. J., & Athos, J. 1976. Interpersonal relations and communications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Graen, G. B., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. 1982. The effects of leadermember exchange and job design on pro-
ductivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
30: 109-131.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. 1987. Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings and B. Staw
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: 175-208. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Greenberg, J. 1987. A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12: 9-22.
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: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Greenberg, J. 1994. Using socially fair treatment to promote acceptance of a work site smoking ban. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79: 288-297.
Greenberg, J., & Wiethoff, C. 2001. Organizational justice as proaction and reaction: Implications for research and
application. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in Human Resource
Management: 271-302. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jones, D. A., Fassina, N. E., & Uggerslev, K. L. 2006. Meta-analytic tests of justice and OCB: Agent-system, agent-
dominance, and shared-variance models. In K. M. Weaver (Ed.), Best paper proceedings of the sixty-sixth
annual meeting of the Academy of Management. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management.
134 Journal of Management / February 2009
Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. 2002. LISREL 8.52. Chicago: Scientific Software.
Karriker, J. H. 2006, August. Organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.
Karriker, J. H., Ireland, R. D., & Coombs, J. E. 2004, April. Human resources strategy and entrepreneurial firm
performance: A causal model of the resource based view. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.
Karriker, J. H., & Williams, M. L. 2003, April. Understanding direct and indirect perspectives on organizational
justice. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Orlando, FL.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. 1994. Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal,
37: 656-669.
Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. 2005. The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: A cross-level
multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 242-256.
Lin, N. 2001. Social capital. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
Lowe, R. H., & Vodanovich, S. J. 1995. A field study of distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satis-
faction and organizational commitment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10: 99-114.
Malatesta, R. M. 1995. Understanding the dynamics of organizational and supervisory commitment using a social
exchange framework. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, MI.
Malatesta, R. M., & Byrne, Z. S. 1997. The impact of formal and interactional procedures on organizational outcomes.
Paper presented at the 12th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
St. Louis, MO.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. 2000. Integrating justice and social exchange: The
differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43:
738-748.
Masterson, S. S., Moye, N. A., & Bartol, K. M. 2003. Social exchange and justice: Further examining the source
of justice. Paper presented at the 18th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Moorman, R. H. 1991. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do
fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 845-855.
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. 1998. Does perceived organizational support mediate the rela-
tionship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal,
41: 351-357.
Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. 1993. Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship
behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural justice. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6: 209-225.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. 1979. The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 14: 224-247.
Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. A. 1989. Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 157-164.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 1993. Citizenship behavior and fairness in organizations: Issues and direc-
tions for future research. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6: 257-269.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A
critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of
Management, 26: 513-539.
Robinson, S. L. 1996. Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41:
574-599.
Roch, S. G., & Shanock, L. R. 2006. Organizational justice in an exchange framework: Clarifying organizational
justice distinctions. Journal of Management, 32: 299-322.
Rousseau, D. M. 1998. LMX meets the psychological contract: Looking inside the black box of leadermember
exchange. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches: Vol. 2, 149-154.
Stamford, CT: JAI.
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. 2002. The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting work-
place outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
89: 925-946.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. 1996. Social exchange in organizations: The differential effects of per-
ceived organizational support and leadermember exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 219-227.
Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Taylor, M. S., Coyle-Shapiro, J., Liden, R. C., & McLean-Parks, J. 2004. The
employeeorganization relationship: A timely concept in a period of transition. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.),
Research in personnel and human resources management: 1-113. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
SPSS, Inc. (2005). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. v 13.0. Chicago, IL: Author.
Steiger, J. H. 1990. Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 25: 173-180.
Tansky, J. W. 1993. Justice and organizational citizenship behavior: What is the relationship? Employee Responsibilities
and Rights Journal, 6: 195-207.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. 1975. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. 1990. Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In Carroll,
J. S. (Ed.), Applied social psychology in organizational settings: 77-98. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wakabayashi, M., Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1990. Generalizability of the hidden investment hypothesis among
line managers in five leading Japanese corporations. Human Relations, 43: 1099-116.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. 1997. Perceived organizational support and leadermember exchange:
A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 82-111.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organi-
zational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17: 601-617.
Biographical Notes
Joy H. Karriker earned her PhD degree at Virginia Commonwealth University. She is an assistant professor of
management at East Carolina University. Her research interests include organizational justice, social exchange,
antecedents of firm performance, and human resource strategy.
Margaret L. (Peg) Williams earned her PhD degree at Indiana University. She is an associate professor of management
at Virginia Commonwealth University. Her current research interests include organizational justice, compensation, and
work life issues.
Karriker, Williams / Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior 135