Relationships Between Organizational Justice and

Burnout at the Work-Unit Level

Carolina Moliner
University Miguel Hernandez
Vicente Martnez-Tur
University of Valencia
Jose M. Peiro
University of Valencia and Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Economicas
Jose Ramos
University of Valencia
Russell Cropanzano
University of Arizona

Relationships between organizational justice and well-being are traditionally

investigated at the individual level. This article extends previous efforts by
testing such relationships at the work-unit level. Three corridors of influence
were examined. First, the level (work units average scores) of justice is
related to the level of burnout. Second, justice climate strength (level of
agreement among work-unit members) moderates the predictability of the
level of burnout. Third, justice strength is related to burnout strength. The
authors interviewed 324 contact employees from 108 work units in 59 service
organizations. Findings showed the predominance of interactional justice
over distributive and procedural justice in all 3 corridors.
Keywords: burnout, justice climate, strength, well-being

Carolina Moliner, Department of Health Psychology, University Miguel Hernandez,

Elche, Spain; Vicente Martnez-Tur and Jose Ramos, Department of Social Psychology,
University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain; Jose M. Peiro, Department of Social Psychology,
University of Valencia, and Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Economicas, Valencia,
Spain; Russell Cropanzano, Department of Management and Policy, University of Arizona.
We are grateful for the financial support (Grant BSO2002-04483-C03-01) of the Spanish
Agency of Science and Technology. Research work was also sponsored by the Generalidad
Valenciana, Spain (I D I groups, 03/195).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jose M. Peiro, Universidad
de Valencia and Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Economicas, Departamento de Psicologa Social, Facultad de Psicologa, Av. Blasco Ibanez, 21, 46010, Valencia, Spain. E-mail:
jose.m.peiro@uv.es
99
International Journal of Stress Management
2005, Vol. 12, No. 2, 99 116

Copyright 2005 by the Educational Publishing Foundation

1072-5245/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1072-5245.12.2.99

100

Moliner et al.

Organizational justice has emerged as a new psychosocial predictor of

health at work (Brotheridge, 2003). Evidence suggests that employees who
perceive organizational injustice experience negative feelings and mental
distress (e.g., Elovainio, Kivimaki, & Vahtera, 2002). As is true in many
areas of the organizational sciences, research on both organizational justice
and employee well-being has generally been conducted at the individual level
of analysis. This is true despite the fact that other levels of analysis have
received increasing attention from scholars concerned with workplace behavior (see Bliese & Jex, 2002). Organizations structures are changing, and
more individuals are working in team-based environments (Cropanzano &
Schminke, 2001). To some degree, work-unit members share organizational
justice perceptions, as well as the consequences derived from perceived
justice. Nevertheless, only a few recent studies have begun to turn their
attention toward a higher level of analysis (e.g., Liao & Rupp, in press;
Simons & Roberson, 2003). A potential consequence of organizational justice, well-being at work, has also begun to be studied at a higher organizational level than the individual (e.g., Bakker, Schaufeli, Sixma, & Bosveld,
2001; Bliese & Halverson, 1998; Peiro, 2001).
Despite these exceptions, we know of no empirical studies that have
investigated the relationships between organizational justice and well-being
at work using organizational levels beyond the individual. This is an important omission because, as we shall see, there are important reasons why
higher level organizational justice should impact well-being at work. Given
this situation, the present investigation transfers the study of the relationship
between organizational justice and well-being to the work-unit level. We
focused on burnout as a critical measure of well-being at work (Maslach,
Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001; Tummers, Landeweerd, & van Merode, 2002).
Furthermore, in our study we considered contact employees, defined as those
who provided services in organizations. These contact employees are typically underpaid and undertrained (Bitner, Booms, & Tetreault, 1990), and,
therefore, they are sensitive to situations of injustice (Masterson, 2001). In
addition, contact employees should display positive emotional labor characterized by special attention to the customer. This interactional situation often
implies high emotional requirements that influence workers well-being
(Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002).

BACKGROUND

In the following sections, we briefly review the concepts of organizational justice and burnout at the work-unit level. We then propose three
corridors of influence from organizational justice to burnout at the work-unit
level.

Justice Climate and Burnout

101

Organizational Justice at the Work-Unit Level: Justice Climate

Justice scholars have found that workers seem to evaluate the fairness of
at least three classes of events: the outcomes they receive from the organization (distributive justice), the formal policies or processes by which those
outcomes are allocated (procedural justice), and the interpersonal treatment
they receive (interactional justice; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Although these dimensions of justice have been mainly conceptualized at the
individual level, there are also reasons to expect that members of a group or
work unit share to some degree their perceptions of organizational justice.
Organizations involve various levels of nested relationships, with different
groups existing in a single organization. Because shared information and
organizational experiences arise out of common interactions, group members
probably share justice perceptions about their organization and their own
supervisor (Schminke, Ambrose, & Cropanzano, 2000; Schminke, Cropanzano, & Rupp, 2002). Some authors (Liao & Rupp, in press; Naumann &
Bennett, 2000) have defined these shared perceptions of justice as justice
climate. Although justice perceptions have their origin at the individual level,
they may form a shared cognition or climate if members perceptions
converge.
Although the existence of shared perceptions of organizational justice or
justice climate is well-recognized, few researchers have begun to examine its
effects (for exceptions, see Naumann & Bennett, 2000; Simons & Roberson,
2003). Naumann and Bennett (2000) introduced the concept of group-level
procedural justice. These authors found high levels of consensus among
individuals who worked in the same team. These shared perceptions, in turn,
predicted individual helping behaviors. In addition, Simons and Roberson
(2003) observed significant effects of aggregated justice perceptions on
employee turnover intentions and customer satisfaction. The present investigation extends these efforts by exploring the relationships between justice
climate and burnout at the work-unit level.

Burnout at the Work-Unit Level

Burnout is conceptualized as involving feelings of being extended beyond ones resources (a syndrome of emotional exhaustion), a distant attitude
toward the jobwhich is marked by the treatment of clients as objects rather
than people (cynicism)and the development of negative attitudes and
feelings of incompetence regarding ones professional role (lack of efficacy;
Maslach & Jackson, 1986). Traditionally, burnout has been analyzed at an
individual level, with some exceptions (see Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter,
2001). The consideration of alternative levels beyond the individual (e.g.,

102

Moliner et al.

group, organization) offers a richer portrait of burnout at work. As Edelwich

and Brodsky (1980) put it,
If burnout only affected individuals in isolation, it would be far less important and
far less devastating in its impact than it is. Burnout in human services agencies is like
an infection in hospitals: it gets around. It spreads from clients to staff, from one staff
member to another, and from staff back to clients. Perhaps it ought to be called staff
infection. (p. 25)

Recently, Bakker et al. (2001) provided support for the existence of the
burnout contagion process among general practitioners in a hospital. There is
also evidence for burnout contagion in private personal relationships (Westman & Etzion, 1995). This evidence strongly suggests that burnout experiences can be shared among employees.

Three Corridors of Influence

Research examining the relationship between organizational justice and

employee health suggests that fairness informs employees about their positive or negative positions within the organization. It is assumed that employees who perceive themselves as subjected to unjust outcomes or procedures
may experience strain or stress (e.g., Elovainio et al., 2002). There is also
specific evidence relating organizational justice to burnout at the individual
level (Cropanzano, Goldman, & Benson, 2005). Buunk and Schaufeli (1993)
found that when one senses unfairness (understood by the authors as inequity), burnout is likely to result. Similarly, Brotheridge (2003) observed that
perceptions of distributive and procedural justice decreased workers emotional exhaustion. Although the three dimensions of organizational justice are
potentially related to burnout, research generally has supported the predominance of procedural and interactional justice over distributive justice in
explaining individual reactions to justice (Schminke et al., 2000). The results
obtained by Brotheridge (2003) also confirm this general trend. She found
that the relative impact of procedural justice on emotional exhaustion was
greater than that of distributive justice.
As far as we know, relationships between justice and burnout have never
been examined before at the work-unit level. In an effort to determine
whether the relationships established at the individual level can be generalized, we considered the relationship among these constructs at the work-unit
level. Work units subjected to unjust outcomes or procedures, as well as work
units where the supervisors mistreat subordinates, may show higher levels of
burnout. Thus, the first corridor of influence we tested in this study refers to
the relationships between the levels of justice and burnout. To this end, we
proposed the following hypothesis.

Justice Climate and Burnout

103

Hypothesis 1: At the work-unit level, the level of organizational justice

is negatively related to the level of burnout experiences.
The second corridor of influence proposed relates to the moderating role
of justice climate strength. This concept refers to the degree to which justice
perceptions are shared by a group or collective. When considering higher
levels of analysis, researchers aggregate individual-level data to obtain higher
level constructs (e.g., work units). Because within-unit agreement is used as
a measure of the degree of emergence of higher level constructs, work units
can also be characterized by the strength with which a phenomenon has
emerged as a meaningful unit characteristic (Gonzalez-Roma, Peiro, &
Tordera, 2002). Work units differ from one another in the strength of the
agreement. The same perception of justice level can be expressed with
different strengths of agreement. For example, two work units could have
similar levels of justice perceptions. For one of the work units, this specific
level of justice could be associated with high agreement among the members
of the work unit (high justice climate strength), whereas the other work unit
could show low agreement (low justice climate strength). Also, in two work
units with similar justice climate strength or agreement, one of them could
perceive high levels of justice, whereas the other could report low levels of
organizational justice.
In the investigation of climate in organizations, climate strength has
played a moderating role in the relationship between units average climate
and aggregated affective responses. On the basis of the concept of situational
strength, which refers to the degree of ambiguity present in the context,
Gonzalez-Roma et al. (2002) suggested that strong climates (high agreement)
lead to consistent affective responses, increasing the predictability of units
average responses. Similarly, we propose that justice climate strength affects
the predictability of units average burnout. Because organizational justice is
a critical event in worker responses and interpretations of social reality, high
justice climate strength in work units leads to consistent burnout experiences
among members, increasing the predictability of units average burnout. In
contrast, when justice climate strength is low, the variability of responses of
work-unit members increases, hindering the predictability of burnout from a
work-unit level perspective. It is expected that relationships between justice
and burnout will be stronger for work units with high justice climate strength
than for work units with low justice climate strength. In other words, the
same level of justice perceptions expressed with higher agreement will lead
to stronger relationships to burnout than if there is a low justice climate
strength situation. Thus, we hypothesized the following.
Hypothesis 2: At the work-unit level, justice climate strength moderates
the relationship between the level of justice and the level of burnout. The

104

Moliner et al.

relationship between organizational justice and burnout is stronger for

high justice climate strength than for low justice climate strength.
Finally, the third corridor of influence refers to the formation of shared
burnout in work units (burnout strength). Aggregated perceptions of psychological well-being at work have been considered in previous studies (Bliese
& Halverson, 1998; Bliese & Jex, 2002). However, little is known about the
factors that explain the formation of shared perceptions of well-being among
work-unit members. Although groups differ from one another with regard to
the variability their members show in the interpretation of organizational life,
a primary function of groups is to help group members create consensus
about social reality (Bliese & Halverson, 1998). When individuals interpret
events similarly, the variability of responses decreases (Ostroff & Bowen,
2000). As we discussed, a mechanism of burnout contagion is communication exchange and interaction among work-unit members. When they develop a shared perception of organizational justice, it is probable that they
will respond with similar levels of burnout. On the basis of this rationale, we
proposed the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3: The greater the strength of justice climate, the greater the
strength of burnout.

METHOD
Research Setting and Participants

To test our hypotheses, we collected data as part of a field study from a

sample of contact employees in 59 hotels in Spain. Of the hotels, 28.4% held
a four-star rating, whereas 71.6% were rated as three-star. Two specific types
of work units were considered: receptionists and waiters. For receptionists,
the average age was 33.1 years (SD 9.75). About 48.5% of the contact
employees were men. Position tenure ranged from a few months to 32.6
years, with an average of about 5 years (SD 8.45). Also, 39.4% were
permanent workers. For waiters, the average age was 34.9 years (SD
11.06). About 50.9% of the contact employees were men. Position tenure
ranged from a few months to 35 years, with an average of about 2.9 years
(SD 8.85). Finally, 38.3% were permanent workers. All the employees
completed the survey administered by a researcher on company time and
without the presence of managerial personnel. Three workers from each work
unit were interviewed. These service organizations usually have small work
units. Therefore, in most cases, by including three workers, we had the
complete work unit. In each work unit, employees worked at the same level

Justice Climate and Burnout

105

on the organizational hierarchy, they performed similar tasks, they had the
same supervisor, and they interacted with each other during their daily work.
The initial sample consisted of 118 work units, but usable surveys were
obtained from 108 (91.5%). Thus, the final number of employees was 324.

Measures

Organizational Justice
To assess organizational justice, we used recent measures (Moliner,
Martnez-Tur, Peiro, Ramos, & Cropanzano, 2004), based on the concepts of
distributive, procedural, and interactional justice (Schminke et al., 2000).
Distributive Justice was measured by using four items that assessed the
degree to which rewards received by employees were perceived to be related
to their performance inputs. A sample item was the following: The rewards
I receive here are fair. Three items measuring Procedural Justice assessed
the structural aspects of the procedures used. One of the items was Procedures used in this company to evaluate my work are fair. Finally, Interactional Justice was measured by four items using a scale that assessed the
quality of the interpersonal treatment received from the supervisor and the
adequate explanation of decision procedures. A sample item was My supervisor offers adequate justification for decisions made about my job.
Respondents rated the items on 7-point Likert-type scales, anchored by
strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7). Higher scores indicated greater
levels of justice perceptions. Alpha coefficients were satisfactory in all cases
(.96, .88, and .86 for distributive, procedural, and interactional justice,
respectively). To evaluate the structure of justice measures, we ran a confirmatory factor analysis. The results for the three-factor model of justice
revealed an adequate overall fit (comparative fit index, goodness-of-fit index,
normed fixed index, and nonnormed fit index .90; root mean square error
of approximation .09).
To explore the existence of justice climate at the work-unit level in the
organizations, we aggregated individual perceptions of justice (Naumann &
Bennett, 2000). Individual perceptions had to show sufficient within-unit
agreement and between-units differentiation. To test within-unit agreement,
we computed an average deviation index based on the deviation from the
item mean (ADM index) for each justice dimension (Burke, Finkelstein, &
Dusig, 1999). To observe between-unit differentiation, we ran the interclass
correlation coefficient (ICC[1]; see Gonzalez-Roma et al., 2002). The ADM
values obtained presented the following means: distributive justice, .98
(SD .57); procedural justice, .92 (SD .54); and interactional justice, .83
(SD .54). The ICC[1]s obtained for each dimension were .35, .29, and .32

106

Moliner et al.

for distributive, procedural, and interactional justice, respectively. We carried

out a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to ascertain whether there was
statistically significant between-units discrimination in the organizational
justice dimensions. The results showed significant differences for distributive
justice, F(110, 331) 2.58, p .01; procedural justice, F(110, 331) 2.2,
p .01; and interactional justice, F(110, 331) 2.39, p .01. The results
for significant within-unit agreement and between-unit differentiation supported the aggregation of unit members justice scores to the work-unit level.

Burnout
To measure burnout, we used the revised version (see Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002) of the Maslach Burnout InventoryGeneral Survey (MBIGS; Schaufeli, Leiter, Maslach, & Jackson,
1996), adapting the wording to the hotel organizational context. The instrument consisted of 15 items classified into three scales: Emotional Exhaustion
(5 items; e.g., At the end of the day I feel tired), Cynicism (4 items; e.g.,
I have become less enthusiastic about my work), and Lack of Efficacy (6
items; e.g., I can effectively solve the problems that arise in my work). All
the items were scored on a 7-point frequency rating scale ranging from 0
(never) to 6 (always). The efficacy measure was reversed. Thus, high scores
on Exhaustion, Cynicism, and Lack of Efficacy were indicative of high levels
of burnout. The alpha values were satisfactory (exhaustion .87, cynicism .87, and efficacy .75). To evaluate the structure of the burnout
measures, we ran a confirmatory factor analysis. The results for the threefactor model of burnout revealed a generally acceptable overall fit with
values close to .90 for the indices comparative fit index, goodness-of-fit
index, normed fit index, nonnormed fit index, and the root mean square error
of approximation .089. We performed the ADM index for each work unit.
The mean ADM were 1.00 (SD .41) for exhaustion, .73 (SD .57) for
cynicism, and .59 (SD .35) for lack of efficacy. The ICC[1]s obtained for
each dimension were .35, .19, and .19 for exhaustion, cynicism, and lack of
efficacy, respectively. The ANOVAs indicated significant differences for
exhaustion, F(110, 331) 2.65, p .01; cynicism, F(110, 331) 2.04, p
.01; and lack of efficacy, F(110, 331) 1.72, p .01. The levels of
within-unit agreement and between-unit differentiation in the work units
were sufficient to aggregate unit members burnout scores to the work-unit
level, thus sustaining the validity of this measure. Nevertheless, it is notable
that the exhaustion dimension, compared with the other two dimensions of
burnout, presented a higher variability between groups (see ICC values and
ANOVAs). The central dimension of burnout, exhaustion, seems to be the
one most capable of reflecting differentiation between work units.

Justice Climate and Burnout

107

Justice Strength
The justice strength variable was operationalized as the degree of withinwork-unit agreement on justice perceptions. Within-work-unit agreement
was measured by means of the average deviation index (ADM index). Because this index is a direct measure of within-work-unit variability, we
multiplied the values provided by the ADM index for each organizational
justice dimension by 1, so that higher scores represented higher withinwork-unit agreement. An identical procedure was used by Gonzalez-Roma et
al. (2002) to operationalize climate strength.

Burnout Strength
Burnout strength was operationalized as the degree of within-work-unit
agreement in burnout perceptions, following procedures identical to those
used with respect to justice climate strength.

RESULTS
Analyses

To test Hypotheses 1 and 2, we performed hierarchical moderated

multiple regression analyses. Our sample was drawn from hotels with different star ratings. Furthermore, employees pertained to different types of
work units: receptionists versus waiters. Thus, differences in burnout might
be attributable to these factors. To control for their impact on burnout, we
designed regression models to include a first step that contained two control
dummy variables: type of work unit (receptionists vs. waiters) and hotel star
rating (three vs. four). Next, the main effects of the levels of justice (units
average scores) were included in the second step, followed by the direct
effects of justice climate strength for the three dimensions of justice. Finally,
in the fourth step, we introduced the three interaction terms (see Table 2). A
regression analysis was run for each dimension of burnout. Hypothesis 3 was
also tested by calculating hierarchical regression analyses, including the same
control variables in the first step and the three justice climate strength
measures (Distributive, Procedural, and Interactional) in the second (see
Table 3). Again, a regression analysis was run for each measure of burnout
strength.
Mean ratings, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations of the measures are presented in Table 1. The three dimensions of justice were negatively and significantly correlated with the three dimensions of burnout. Also,

Distributive S
Procedural S
Interactional S
Distributive L
Procedural L
Interactional L
Exhaustion S
Cynicism S
L of efficacy S
Exhaustion L
Cynicism L
Low of efficacy L

0.57
0.54
0.54
1.35
1.14
1.06
0.41
0.57
0.35
1.15
0.97
0.55

0.98
0.92
0.83
3.84
4.49
5.47
1.00
0.73
0.59
2.42
1.22
0.75

.44**
.16
.06
.04
.04
.21*
.04
.02
.14
.06
.02

.42**
.19*
.16
.15
.23*
.29*
.12
.03
.11
.03

.30*
.43**
.62**
.29*
.28*
.23*
.20*
.24*
.11

.78**
.41**
.16
.39**
.27*
.35**
.42**
.23*

.66**
.06
.35**
.30*
.42**
.51**
.29*

.09

.32*
.45**
.24*
.09
.46** .21*
.57** .16
.29*
.02

.43**
.40**
.66**
.38**

Table 1. Work-Unit Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Correlations

SD

Note. S strength (agreement averages); L level (units averages).

*p .05. **p .01.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

Variable

.12
.33**
.80**

.66**
.28*

10

.41**

11

12

108
Moliner et al.

Justice Climate and Burnout

109

Table 2. Hierarchical Regressions for the Prediction of the Levels of Shared Burnout
Exhaustion
Predictor
Step 1
Control variables
Step 2
Levels of distributive justice
Levels of procedural justice
Levels of interactional justice
Step 3
Strength of distributive justice
Strength of procedural justice
Strength of interactional justice
Step 4
Levels of DJ Strength DJ
Levels of PJ Strength PJ
Levels of IJ Strength IJ

R2

R2

.01
.37*
.24
.84**
.20
.11
.06
.26
.19
.38*

Lack of
efficacy

Cynicism

.00

.27

.17
.03
.61**

.31

.08
.20
.36

.35

.07
.11
.11

R2
.00

.39

.11
.06
.13

.11

.42

.02
.04
.15

.11

.43

.17
.07
.01

.15

Note. B coefficients are the unstandardized regression coefficients from the significant final
stage of the regression analysis. DJ distributive justice; PJ procedural justice; IJ
interactional justice.
*p .05. **p .01.

some significant and positive correlations were found between justice climate
strength and burnout strength. It is especially remarkable that interactional
justice strength was significantly correlated with all three dimensions of
burnout strength. Indeed, interactional justice seemed to be a better predictor
than the other two types of fairness. This is a potentially important finding,
explored in more detail later.

First Corridor: Levels of Organizational Justice and Burnout

Hypothesis 1 postulated a negative relationship between the level of
justice (work units average) and the level of burnout (work units average).
Table 3. Hierarchical Regressions for the Prediction of Shared Burnout Strength
Exhaustion
Predictor
Step 1
Control variables
Step 2
Strength of distributive justice
Strength of procedural justice
Strength of interactional justice

R2

Cynicism
B

.08
.10
.04
.19*

.13

R2

Lack of
efficacy
B

.11
.07
.26*
.22*

.14

R2
.03

.02
.01
.16*

.07

Note. B coefficients are the unstandardized regression coefficients from the significant final
stage of the regression analysis.
*p .05.

110

Moliner et al.

The results related to this hypothesis, along with those for Hypothesis 2, are
displayed in Table 2. In general, the inclusion of direct effects of levels of
justice significantly contributed to exhaustion, F(3, 103) 12.19, p .01;
cynicism, F(3, 103) 21.39, p .01; and lack of efficacy, F(3, 103) 3.88,
p .05, beyond the control variables. Nevertheless, the findings partially
supported Hypothesis 1. Step 2 of the regression outputs showed a predominant role of interactional justice in predicting burnout. In fact, there were
strong and significant links from interactional justice to exhaustion and
cynicism, indicating that justice perceptions were negatively associated with
these dimensions of burnout. Only one other relationship, relating distributive
justice to exhaustion, was also significant. No significant relationships were
found with regard to procedural justice. Thus, the level of justice seemed to
matter in our sample, but, more specifically, only the level of interactional
justice.

Second Corridor: The Role of Justice Climate Strength

Hypothesis 2 indicated that justice strength (degree of the agreement of
justice perceptions among work-unit members) moderates the relationships
between level of justice perceptions and level of burnout. The results of the
hierarchical regression analyses reinforced the predominance of interactional
justice (Step 4, Table 2). The strength of this justice dimension moderated the
relationship between the level of interactional justice and the level of the
central dimension of burnout: exhaustion, F(3, 97) 4.74, p .05. To better
understand the interaction effect, we plotted it (see Figure 1). The relationship between the levels of interactional justice and the levels of exhaustion
was stronger for high interactional justice strength than for low interactional
justice strength. No significant interactions were found with respect to
distributive and procedural justice.

Third Corridor: The Formation of Shared Burnout Experiences

Finally, Hypothesis 3 suggests a positive relationship between justice
climate and shared burnout strength. Again, as shown in Table 3, interactional justice showed more predictive power than distributive and procedural.
Interactional justice strength significantly contributed to strength of exhaustion, F(3, 103) 6.03, p .05; cynicism, F(3, 103) 4.12, p .05; and
lack of efficacy, F(3, 103) 5.33, p .05, beyond the control variables and
distributive and procedural justice strength. Regression models showed that
interactional justice strength had significant and positive relationships with

Justice Climate and Burnout

111

Figure 1. Interaction between interactional justice (IJ) and interactional justice strength in
predicting exhaustion.

all three measures of burnout strength. Only one additional relationship,

linking procedural justice strength to cynicism strength, was also significant.

DISCUSSION

This study tested three corridors of influence from organizational justice

to burnout at the work-unit level. First, we studied the relationship between
the level of justice and the level of burnout. Second, we examined the extent
to which this relationship was moderated by justice climate strength. Third,
we explored the relationship between justice climate strength and burnout
strength.
Most previous research has concentrated on the individual level of
analysis, with some recent exceptions (e.g., Simons & Roberson, 2003). Our
transfer to the work-unit level (first corridor of influence) offered a primary
role to the interactional justice dimension, showing strong relationships with
two of the three dimensions of burnout (exhaustion and cynicism). When
members of work units perceive as a group that their supervisor treats them
appropriately, levels of burnout experienced at work-unit levels are reduced.

112

Moliner et al.

The other two dimensions of organizational justice (distributive and procedural) were more secondary.
Some correspondences were demonstrated in the translation from the
individual level to the work-unit level, but there was also some dissimilarity.
At the individual level, research generally suggests the relative importance of
procedural and interactional justice over distributive justice (e.g., Schminke
et al., 2000). Moreover, Brotheridge (2003) found that perceptions of procedural justice were particularly important in predicting emotional exhaustion, whereas distributive justice was secondary. Our results, in contrast,
pointed to the predominant role of interactional justice at the work-unit level,
whereas procedural justice was not significantly related to burnout.
The study of the second corridor of influence reinforced the importance
of interactional justice. Our results supported the moderating role of interactional justice strength in the relationships between the level of interactional
justice and the level of burnout. Similar to other research areas, such as
work-unit climate (e.g., Gonzalez-Roma et al., 2002), the concept of justice
climate strength helps to illuminate the relationship between organizational justice and burnout at a level higher than the individual. In fact,
interactional justice strength amplified the predictability of work-unit
exhaustion.
With our results supporting the third corridor of influence, the value of
justice climate strength as a scientific construct was reaffirmed. The results
showed the importance of the degree of agreement in justice perceptions
(justice climate strength) in predicting the degree of agreement in burnout
experiences (burnout strength). This was especially confirmed, once again,
with regard to the interactional facet of organizational justice: When the
work-unit members experienced agreement in their perceptions of interactional justice, a convergence in burnout experiences was more likely to
arise. This finding is congruent with the idea that similarity in the
interpretation of organizational events leads to similarity in responses
(Ostroff & Bowen, 2000). The present investigation suggests that interactional justice is a critical event employees use to develop shared
burnout responses. This contribution is valuable because little is known
about the formation of well-being at work as an emerging phenomenon
beyond the individual level.
Among the three corridors of influence described above, the predominance of interactional justice in the explanation of burnout, especially for
exhaustion, was unexpectedly strong. In general, when the level and the
strength of interactional justice are simultaneously high, a healthy work unit
as a whole is achievable. The findings for procedural and distributive justice
at the work-unit level were less promising in this particular sample. This
result is important and certainly merits more research. At this point, we can
only speculate on why interactional justice proved to be such an important
predictor. There are different possible explanations.

Justice Climate and Burnout

113

A speculative explanation stems from the peculiarities of the interactional facet of organizational justice. Interactional justice focuses on interpersonal aspects, such as sensitivity to and respect for the employee. It refers
more directly to the immediate environment and experiences that people have
at their workplaces. It is the quality of the relationship with the supervisor
that promotes positive or negative burnout experiences among the members
of the work unit and determines the strength of these experiences. These
findings are consistent with previous studies that have pointed to social
support as one of the most important factors in explaining burnout (e.g.,
Pines, 1983). In addition, House (1981) suggested that the supervisor is the
principal source of social support at work. Similarly, our results indicated that
employees evaluations of supervisor behaviors were critical in understanding well-being at the work-unit level. It is also possible that, because the
concept of interactional justice reflects the more emotional and interpersonal
component of justice, it could be more related to the central emotional facet
of burnout (exhaustion). The emotional nature of exhaustion could explain
the recurrent significant relationships between this dimension of burnout and
interactional justice. Another possibility, and one not necessarily inconsistent
with the previous ones, has to do with the potential clarity of interactional
justice. As Folger and Cropanzano (1998) have suggested, distributive
and procedural justice judgments may simply be more complex. They
require more information (e.g., the outcomes of referent others, knowledge of accuracy, and so on). Interactional justice judgments, on the other
hand, tend to be more straightforward. One can detect impolite or discourteous treatment directly, for example. Given this, it might be that ease
of processing and greater confidence strengthens the impact of interactional (in)justice.
Our findings are especially important for those organizations that are
structured into work units. Being aware of the causes of well-being among
work-unit members is an important issue, so that managers and supervisors
can implement better coping strategies. Our results suggest that interventions
should be focused not only on the individual but also on the work unit as a
wholefor example, in terms of collective coping strategies (see, Lansisalmi, Peiro, & Kivimaki, 2000; Peiro, 2001). The notable importance of
interactional justice implies a straightforward intervention. Evidence presented by Skarlicki and Latham (1997) suggests that supervisory training
could promote fairer interpersonal treatment of work-unit members, helping to improve employee well-being at work and the strength of this
experience. If well-being is a valuable organizational outcome, supervision should not only be directed toward increasing performance but also
toward an adequate treatment of subordinates in terms of courtesy and
respect.

114

Moliner et al.

LIMITATIONS

Several limitations of this study demand caution in interpreting the

results. First, common method variance artifacts are possible when data are
collected from a single source, as was the case in the present study. Although
we cannot definitively rule out the impact of common method variance, it is
noteworthy that mono-method bias can be a less egregious threat when
collective constructs are used (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
2003). In studies like the one presented here, the unit-level variables were
composite scores obtained from more than one individual. As was discussed
earlier, individuals showed a good deal of agreement in their perceptions.
Consequently, it seems unlikely that method variance could completely
account for our findings. Nevertheless, investigation of the relationship
between organizational justice and burnout would be enriched if other
measures complementary to self-reports were to be used in the future (e.g.,
physiological measures of stress).
A second concern has to do with the cross-sectional nature of our data.
When all of the measures are taken at the same time, causal inferences
become more tenuous. Researchers are urged to use longitudinal designs in
order to improve the understanding of these collective processes. This point
is especially critical with regard to the gradual development of shared
burnout experiences. That having been said, we emphasize that our findings
are consistent with previous research on the relationship between organizational justice and health, including results from studies that were conducted
longitudinally (for a review, see Cropanzano, Goldman, & Benson, 2005).
In addition, all data were obtained from the Spanish hospitality industry.
As a result, we should not assume that the observed relationships can be
generalized to other settings. The research presented here suggests the
usefulness of exploring the relationship between organizational justice and
burnout in other types of work units, industries, and cultures. Of course, this
is not to say that the present findings are unimportant. The hospitality
industry is important for its own sake, as it employs thousands of workers.
Moreover, the two occupations examined here, receptionists and waiters,
exist in other industries (e.g., food services) as well, and this similarity should
help buttress external validity.
Future research could also consider factors that potentially influence
justice climate and burnout at the work-unit level. For example, emotional
contagion may lead to shared burnout. Also, and given the critical role played
by interactional justice, the effect of the quality of relationships between
supervisors and their subordinates (e.g., leader member exchange) could be
analyzed in order to improve the understanding of justice climate and its
impact on burnout. Finally, the consideration of the members communica-

Justice Climate and Burnout

115

tion exchange and social interaction can be powerful factors in explaining the
intensity and strength of justice and burnout at the work-unit level.

REFERENCES
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W., Sixma, H. J., & Bosveld, W. (2001). Burnout contagion among
general practitioners. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 8298.
Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. M., & Tetreault, M. S. (1990). The service encounter: Diagnosing
favorable and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54, 71 85.
Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. R. (1998). Group consensus and psychological well-being: A
large field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 563580.
Bliese, P. D., & Jex, S. M. (2002). Incorporating a multilevel perspective into occupations
stress research: Theoretical, methodological, and practical implications. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 265276.
Brotheridge, C. M. (2003). The role of fairness in mediating the effects of voice and justification on stress and other outcomes in a climate of organizational change. International
Journal of Stress Management, 10, 253268.
Brotheridge, C. M., & Grandey, A. A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two
perspectives of people work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 1739.
Burke, N. J., Finkelstein, L. M., & Dusig, M. S. (1999). On average deviation indices for
estimating interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 49 68.
Buunk, B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1993). Professional burnout: A perspective from social
comparison theory. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Mareck (Eds.), Professional
burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 53 69). New York: Hemisphere.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278 321.
Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Benson, L. (2005). Organizational justice. In J. Barling, K.
Kelloway, & M. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Cropanzano, R., & Schminke, M. (2001). Using social justice to build effective work groups.
In M. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp. 143173).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Edelwich, J., & Brodsky, A. (1980). Burnout: Stages of disillusionment in the helping
professions. New York: Human Sciences Press.
Elovainio, M., Kivimaki, M., & Vahtera, J. (2002). Organizational justice: Evidence of a new
psychosocial predictor of health. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 105108.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gonzalez-Roma, V., Peiro, J. M., & Tordera, N. (2002). An examination of the antecedents and
moderator influences of climate strength. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 465 473.
House, J. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Lansisalmi, H., Peiro, J. M., & Kivimaki, M. (2000). Collective stress and coping in the context
of organizational culture. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9,
527559.
Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. (in press). The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work
outcomes: A cross-level multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. (1986). Maslach Burnout Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 397 422.

116

Moliner et al.

Masterson, S. S. (2001). A trickle-down model of organizational justice: Relating employees

and customers perceptions of and reactions to fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 594 604.
Moliner, C., Martnez-Tur, V., Peiro, J. M., Ramos, J., & Cropanzano, R. (2004, April).
Organizational justice and extra-role customer service. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.
Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. (2000). A case for procedural justice climate: Development and
test of a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 881 889.
Ostroff, C., & Bowen, D. E. (2000). Moving HR to a higher level: HR practices and
organizational effectiveness. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,
research, and methods in organizations (pp. 211266). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Peiro, J. M. (2001). Stressed teams in organizations: A multilevel approach to the study of
stress in work-units. In C. Weilkert, E. Torkelson, & J. Pryce (Eds.), Occupational health
psychology, Europe 2001 (pp. 9 13). Nottingham, United Kingdom: Institute of Work,
Health, & Organizations.
Pines, A. M. (1983). Burnout and the buffering effects of social support. In B. A. Farber (Ed.),
Stress and burnout in the human service professions (pp. 155174). New York: Pergamon
Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
bias in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879 903.
Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). Maslach Burnout
InventoryGeneral Survey. In C. Maslach, S. E., Jackson, & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), The
Maslach Burnout InventoryTest manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 7192.
Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). The effect of organizational
structure on perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
294 304.
Schminke, M., Cropanzano, R., & Rupp, D. E. (2002). Organization structure and fairness
perceptions: The moderating effects of organizational level. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 89, 881905.
Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: The effects of
aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 432 443.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1997). Leadership training in organizational justice to
increase citizenship behavior within a labor union. Personnel Psychology, 50, 617 634.
Tummers, G. E. R., Landeweerd, J. A., & van Merode, G. G. (2002). Work organization, work
characteristics, and their psychological effects on nurses in the Netherlands. International
Journal of Stress Management, 9, 183206.
Westman, M., & Etzion, D. (1995). Crossover of stress, strain and resources from one spouse
to another. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 169 181.