Sex-based promotion decisions and interactional fairness : Investigating the influence of managerial accounts

D. Ramona Bobocel and Aaron C. Farrell University of Waterloo The purpose of Experiment 1 was to examine the relative effect of 2 types of managerial accounts--a causal account, in which the decision maker minimizes personal responsi- bility, and an ideological account, in which the decision maker assumes responsibility and provides a justification--on White male observers' perceptions of interactional fairness following a sex-based promotion decision. Results showed that, compared with either the causal account or a control condition, men perceived significantly more interactional fairness in the ideological account condition. In Experiment 2, the justification and re- sponsibility dimensions that were intentionally confounded in the ideological account in Experiment 1 were separated. Results showed that providing an adequate justification was both necessary and sufficient to influence perceptions of interactional fairness. Managers are often concerned with their image as a fair leader among employees and other organizational con- stituents (Greenberg, 1990a). However, being perceived as a fair leader is becoming particularly challenging in the workplace in light of dwindling resources. For example, because of economic pressures, managers must more of- ten make resource allocation decisions that have undesir- able consequences for employees (e.g., layoffs and budget cutbacks). In the eyes of some individuals, being per- ceived as fair may also be increasingly difficult because of government-legislated affirmative action (AA) programs designed to create equal employment opportunities for members of designated groups. The purpose of the present set of studies was to examine the influence of managerial accounts on White men's per- ceptions of interactional fairness in the context of an AA D. Ramona Bobocel and Aaron C. Farrell, Department of Psy- chology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Management, Dallas, Texas, August 1994. Experiment 1 is based on Aaron C. Far- rell's undergraduate honor's thesis. This project was funded by the Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada and by Uni- versity of Waterloo-Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Grants 037-7727 and 037-7258. We gratefully acknowledge John Meyer and Sharon Agar for their input on various aspects of the research and Rob Folger, David Kravitz, Richard McCline, and Mark Zanna for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to D. Ramona Bobocel, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G 1. 22 decision.

[1]  J. Crocker,et al.  Attributional Ambiguity of Affirmative Action , 1994 .

[2]  A. Pratkanis,et al.  Affirmative Action as Help: A Review of Recipient Reactions to Preferential Selection and Affirmative Action , 1994 .

[3]  J. Greenberg,et al.  Using socially fair treatment to promote acceptance of a work site smoking ban. , 1994, The Journal of applied psychology.

[4]  M. Heilman,et al.  When Similarity Is a Liability: Effects of Sex-Based Preferential Selection on Reactions to Like-Sex and Different-Sex Others , 1993 .

[5]  K. Leung,et al.  Sympathy and support for industrial actions: a justice analysis. , 1993, The Journal of applied psychology.

[6]  S. Sitkin,et al.  Prescriptions for justice: Using social accounts to legitimate the exercise of professional control , 1993, Social justice research.

[7]  R. Bies,et al.  Social Accounts in Conflict Situations: Using Explanations to Manage Conflict , 1993 .

[8]  F. E. Saal,et al.  Perceptions of promotion fairness and promotion candidates' qualifications. , 1993 .

[9]  Debra L. Shapiro,et al.  The Effects of Explanations on Negative Reactions to Deceit. , 1991 .

[10]  Robert H. Moorman,et al.  Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors : do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship ? , 1991 .

[11]  Thomas F. Reed,et al.  When it is especially important to explain why: Factors affecting the relationship between managers' explanations of a layoff and survivors' reactions to the layoff , 1990 .

[12]  Madeline E. Heilman,et al.  Self-derogating consequences of sex-based preferential selection: The moderating role of initial self-confidence , 1990 .

[13]  J. Greenberg,et al.  Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow , 1990 .

[14]  R. Folger,et al.  Referent Cognitions and Task Decision Autonomy: Beyond Equity Theory , 1989 .

[15]  R. Folger,et al.  Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Reactions to Pay Raise Decisions , 1989 .

[16]  Debra L. Shapiro,et al.  Voice and justification: Their influence on procedural fairness judgments. , 1988 .

[17]  Larry L. Cummings,et al.  Causal Accounts and Managing Organizational Conflict , 1988 .

[18]  Jerald Greenberg,et al.  Cultivating an Image of Justice: Looking Fair on the Job , 1988 .

[19]  Debra L. Shapiro,et al.  Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts , 1987 .

[20]  M. Heilman,et al.  Intentionally Favored, Unintentionally Harmed?: Impact of Sex-Based Preferential Selection on Self-Perceptions and Self-Evaluations , 1987 .

[21]  Christopher L. Martin,et al.  Relative deprivation and referent cognitions: Distributive and procedural justice effects , 1986 .

[22]  Robert Folger,et al.  Relative deprivation and procedural justifications. , 1983 .

[23]  R. H. Willis,et al.  Social Exchange: Advances In Theory And Research , 1981 .

[24]  B. R. Schlenker.  Impression Management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations , 1980 .

[25]  M. Deutsch.  Equity, Equality, and Need: What Determines Which Value Will Be Used as the Basis of Distributive Justice? , 1975 .

[26]  R. Kirk.  Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences , 1970 .

[27]  Roger E. Kirk,et al.  Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). , 1995 .

[28]  Connie J. G. Gersick,et al.  Social Psychology in Organizations: Advances in Theory and Research , 1994 .

[29]  J. Greenberg,et al.  The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. , 1993 .

[30]  Russell Cropanzano,et al.  Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management. , 1993 .

[31]  T. Tyler,et al.  A Relational Model of Authority in Groups , 1992 .

[32]  T. Tyler,et al.  The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice , 1988 .

[33]  R. Bies,et al.  The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. , 1987 .

[34]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion , 1986, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.

[35]  R. Bies.  Interactional justice : communication criteria of fairness , 1986 .

[36]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 1983 .

[37]  G. Leventhal.  What Should Be Done with Equity Theory , 1980 .

[38]  Janet Taylor Spence,et al.  Contemporary topics in social psychology , 1976 .

[39]  James C. McCroskey,et al.  An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication , 1971 .