下载文档原格式
心理科学进展 2012, Vol. 20, No. 11, 1879–1888 Advances in Psychological ScienceDOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2012.018791879“投桃报李”—— 互惠理论的组织行为学研究述评*邹文篪1 田 青1 刘 佳2(1澳门科技大学行政与管理学院, 澳门) (2澳门科技大学通识教育部, 澳门)摘 要 互惠是一种存在于各种社会文化中的人际交往规范。
组织行为学中许多研究都是通过互惠理论来解释变量之间的内部作用机制。
文章回顾并讨论了互惠的涵义, 不同互惠类型的特点及互惠的测量方式。
此外, 还论述了不同类型互惠对社会交换方式产生的影响。
依据现有的互惠研究成果, 分析了互惠发挥影响的内在作用机制是通过：互惠各方的价值观、互惠过程中各方感知到的风险、各方冲突的程度这三种途径来实现的。
最后, 根据现有互惠理论的研究成果提出该领域的未来发展应从研究设计和研究内容两方面进行扩展。
关键词 社会交换; 互惠; 广泛互惠; 平衡互惠; 负面互惠 分类号B849:C911 引言在社会心理学中, 社会交换理论(social exchange theory)是一个解释人与人之间关系质量变化和发展的一个重要理论, 而人与人在交换的过程中遵循的互惠原则(norm of reciprocity)是社会交换持续产生的重要前提(Gouldner,1960; Blau,1964)。
在中西方的文化中都有这种社会交换和互惠原则的体现。
例如：“投我以桃, 报之以李”、“礼尚往来”这些典故都说明了自古以来中国都非常注重人际交往的规范。
在接受他人给予自己利益后回报对方的人际交往规范在西方文化背景下也有类似的表达：“You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours (你帮我搔背话我也会帮你搔背)”。
理论上, 我们用互惠来描述这种人际交往中的现象, Gouldner (1960)认为互惠规范存在于每一个人的社会关系中, 并且这种现象在人类社会的各种文化中普遍存在。
消除不公平感的七种策略引言在现代社会中，不公平感是一个普遍存在的问题。
人们常常感到自己受到了不公正的对待，这可能导致情绪低落、动力下降以及社会关系紧张。
因此，消除不公平感对于个体和整个社会的健康发展至关重要。
本文将介绍七种消除不公平感的策略，帮助个体和组织建立一个公正、和谐的环境。
1. 公开透明建立一个公开透明的制度和流程是消除不公平感的基础。
通过向所有相关方提供信息和决策过程的可见性，可以减少猜测和怀疑，并增强信任。
例如，在组织中实行透明度政策，包括工资结构、晋升机会等方面。
同时，要确保信息的传递是及时、准确和全面的，以避免误解或传闻带来的不公正感。
2. 公正评估为了消除不公平感，评估过程必须具有公正性和客观性。
这意味着评估标准应该清晰明确，并且应用到所有人身上。
避免主观偏见和歧视，确保每个人都有平等的机会和条件参与评估。
此外，还应该建立一个有效的反馈机制，让被评估者了解自己的表现，以便改进和发展。
3. 公平分配资源资源分配是一个容易引发不公平感的领域。
为了消除这种感觉，应该确保资源的分配是公正、透明和可持续的。
例如，在组织中，可以建立一个公正的奖励体系，根据个人贡献和表现来分配资源。
此外，还要确保资源的使用是高效和合理的，避免浪费和不公平竞争。
4. 公开沟通公开沟通是消除不公平感的重要手段之一。
通过及时、坦诚地与员工、同事或其他相关方进行沟通，可以减少误解和猜测，并建立信任关系。
这包括在决策过程中征求意见、解释决策原因以及提供反馈等方面。
同时，还要倾听他人的意见和反馈，并采取积极行动来解决问题。
5. 平等机会为了消除不公平感，必须确保每个人都有平等的机会。
这意味着不应该因为种族、性别、年龄或其他身份特征而给予不同待遇。
为了实现平等机会，可以采取一些措施，如制定公平的招聘政策、提供平等的培训和发展机会，以及建立一个公正的晋升体系。
6. 公正领导领导者在消除不公平感中发挥着关键作用。
他们应该以身作则，表现出公正和诚信的行为，并建立一个公开透明、公正客观的工作环境。
组织公平感文献综述一．组织公平感定义公平自古以来就被作为衡量道德水平和价值观的重要标准，心理学、社会学、哲学和法学等多学科都对公平进行了相关概念的界定和研究。
尤其是，近年来组织行为学和人力资源管理学有关公平的研究。
更是激发了理论界探究的热情。
公平的本质是社会资源的优化配置。
从国家层面来说，资源分配的平衡是促进社会和谐、改善人民生活和稳定市场经济健康发展的重要保障：从组织层面来说，资源分配的公平与否直接影响着员工的工作满意度和积极态度。
进而影响企业绩效和员工离职率。
组织公平感起源于古希腊哲学家苏格拉底和柏拉图提出有关公平的哲学思想。
1965年，SmithE¨将公平引入组织中并针对性地提出了分配公平的相关概念。
紧接着，Thibaut和WalkerE引、Leventhalc3]及Bies和 MoagE·]系统性地扩展了组织公平感的内涵和意义．特别是LeventhalE31程序公平六项标准的提出．为组织公平感的研究进一步开拓了新的思路和方法。
Green． berg Esl认为，组织公平感不仅仅是一种客观的公平状态。
更是组织成员对组织环境(公司相关制度、政策和领导者等)一种主观的心理感知。
二．组织公平理论对绩效的影响企业员工的工作绩效和薪酬管理的关系密切，对企业的发展有着重要的作用，薪酬管理的公平性与否更关系着员工对企业忠诚度的大小，对调动员工的工作积极性也有很到影响。
公平理论为企业工作绩效薪酬管理公平的实现提供了切实可行的思路，在应用中可以大力推广。
一公平理论在工作绩效薪酬管理中的应用类型薪酬管理是企业管理中重要的一个环节，涉及多个方面，包括员工参与、薪酬水平、岗位工资、绩效薪酬、薪酬结构、薪酬沟通等。
因此，在公平理论的实际应用中，要保证工作绩效薪酬管理的公平性，必须统筹兼顾，全面考虑企业员工工作中的各个环节。
( 一) 程序公平企业本身是一个庞大的组织体系，它的运作实际上是一个个程序的编排与执行。
我想成为班长初一英语作文Becoming a class monitor is a goal that many students aspire to achieve. It not only signifies a position of leadership and responsibility, but also allows one to make a positive impact on their classmates and school community. To become the class monitor, one must possess certain qualities such as good communication skills, organizational abilities, and a strong sense of fairness and justice.成为班长是许多学生渴望实现的目标。
这不仅意味着担任领导职务和责任，还可以对同学和学校社区产生积极影响。
要成为班长，一个人必须具备良好的沟通技巧、组织能力，以及强烈的公平正义感。
In order to become the class monitor, one must first gain the trust and respect of their classmates. This can be achieved through being a good listener, offering support and assistance when needed, and being approachable and friendly to all. Building strong relationships with classmates is essential in gaining their support for your candidacy.要成为班长，首先必须获得同学们的信任和尊重。
组织公平文献综述及未来的研究方向林帼儿1 陈子光2 钟建安Ξ3(1香港理工大学管理及市场学系,香港)(2香港城市大学管理学系,香港)(3浙江大学心理学系,杭州,310028)摘 要 文章的主要目的在于回顾组织公平自其产生至今的主要文献,并介绍Col quitt (2001)的组织公平四因素结构(即分配公平、程序公平、人际公平和信息公平)[1]。
文章还讨论了组织公平的工具性和非工具性模型。
最后,文章介绍了组织公平今后的几个研究方向。
关键词:组织公平 分配公平 程序公平 人际公平 信息公平1 引言 关于组织公平对员工工作绩效的影响,学者们进行了大量的研究(C olquitt ,C onlon ,Wess on ,P orter &Ng ,2001)[2]。
以往的研究指出,组织公平同积极的工作态度(McFarlin &Sweeney ,1992;K onovsky &Cropanzano ,1991)[3,4]、组织承诺(K orsgaard ,Schweiger &Sapienza ,1995)[5]、在职意愿(T aylor ,T racy ,Renard ,Harris on &Carroll ,1995;Schaubroeck ,May &Brown,1994)[6,7]、对管理层的信任(K onovsky &Pugh ,1994)[8]、对组织规则的遵从和接受(K im &Mauborgne ,1993)[9]、角色内绩效(in 2role performance )(K onovsky &Cropan 2zano ,1991)[4]和角色外绩效(extra 2role performance )(Moorman ,Blakely &Niehoff ,1998;Farh ,Earley &Lin ,1997;K onovsky&Pugh ,1994)[10,11,8]有正相关,而同反社会行为(anti -s ocial behaviors )有负相关(G reenberg ,1997)[12]。
心理契约视角下新生代员工离职倾向的影响研究Under the perspective of psychological contract to study the influence of the new generation employee‘s turnover intention徐文敬（武汉纺织大学管理学院）摘要：新生代员工的离职倾向已成为当前理论界及实践界研究的热点。
这篇文章基于文献研究提出从心理契约视角来研究新生代员工的离职倾向的关系及影响，以及工作满意度和组织承诺在以上关系中所起的中介作用。
研究以216名新生代员工为研究对象，对问卷调查所获得的数据进行统计分析，结果表明，心理契约对离职倾向有显著的负向影响；工作满意度和组织承诺在其中起部分中介作用；新生代员工的个人背景变量对离职倾向的影响不显著。
关键字：新生代员工；心理契约；工作满意度；组织承诺；离职倾向Abstract:New generation employee's turnover intention has become the current hot topics in the study of theoretical and practical circles. This article based on the literature research to study the relationship and influence of employee turnover intention from the perspective of psychological contract, and job satisfaction and organizational commitment of intermediary role in the above relationship. Study to 216 new staff as the research object, the statistical analysis of data obtained by the questionnaire results show that psychological contract has a significant negative effect on turnover intention; Job satisfaction and organizational commitment in the partial intermediary role; New generation employees' personal background variables had no significant impact on turnover intention.Key Words:New generation employees; Psychological contract;Job satisfaction; Organizational commitment; Turnover intention中图分类号：C93文献标识码：A引言“8 0、9 0后”新生代员工近年来已经逐步进入职场，已经或正在成为企业发展的中坚力量。
组织公正的构思查验与关键事件研究——基于一家铜业集团的实证研究学生姓名毛臻苗班级统计0301 指导教师赵卫亚摘要：组织公正是衡量组织效率的重要指标,它对组织许诺、忠诚度、组织公民行为都有着重要的影响，已经引发了众多学者和管理者的重视。
但是，对组织公正构思中三个维度彼此之间的关系，和对组织周边绩效、任务绩效、满意度的影响却还未进行相关方面的研究。
有鉴于此，本文通过实证研究，从查验组织公正中三个维度动身，继而研究和分析组织公正与周边绩效、任务绩效、满意度之间的相关关系.同时，本次研究也将会分析组织公正对组织效率实际行为的影响，冲破原来组织公正浮于理论的状况，将之运用到实际管应当中。
关键词：组织公正；周边绩效；任务绩效；满意度一、引言在过去的二、三十年,愈来愈多的证据显示组织公正（organizational justice）是影响组织内员工的态度和行为的重要维度:公正感会致使对组织的许诺（commitment）和信赖（trust）（Cobb&Frey，1991）；处于“公正”的组织气氛中的员工会表现出组织公民行为（organizational citizenship behavior，一种在组织和领导不知情的情况下员工自觉从事的有利于组织的行为）（Organ，1988）,而且能更好地解决冲突、踊跃应对组织的变革（Folger&Skarlicki，1999）。
在中国,组织公正理论还鲜为人知,学术界、实业界对其熟悉大体上还停留在1965年Adams 提出的公平理论（equity theory）上。
诚然,Adams的公平理论是现代组织公正理论的奠基石,西方的众多研究无不以此为起点,但近些年该领域的研究硕果累累,无论在外延仍是内涵上都取到了庞大的进展（李绪红，2002）。
从中国的目前的现状看，需要对组织公正进行合理的构思，才能从根本上解决学术界和企业界的对组织公正重要性的熟悉。
关于组织公正构思研究方面，目前的功效主如果将组织公正分为分派公正，程序公正和互动公正三个维度。
组织公平感是团队管理的基石兔子乔伊非常懒惰，他换了很多的工作，但总是很快就辞职，因为他总觉得其他的同事偷懒，自己被委派了太多的工作。
乔伊向好朋友抱怨工作太累后，朋友对乔伊说："我给你介绍一份工作吧，这份工作十分轻松。
"乔伊问道："真的很轻松吗？"朋友说："当然，你做公墓管理员，每天只需要站在那里，保证没有人盗墓就行了。
"于是，乔伊便做了公墓管理员的工作，但是两天后，他又辞职了。
朋友不解地问道："这份工作很轻松啊，你为什么不满意？"乔伊愤愤地说："太不公平了，所有的人都躺着，只有我一个人站着。
"趣评：孔子有言"不患寡而患不均"。
组织成员总是具有一种心理倾向：把其他成员作为参考对象，以此论定自己是否受到了组织的公平对待。
知识链接组织公平感，就是在组织或单位内，人们对与个人利益有关的组织制度、政策和措施的公平感受。
组织中的公平可以划分为两个层面：第一个层面，是组织公平的客观状态，在这个层面上，人们可以通过发展和改善各种组织制度、建立相应的程序和措施来实现组织的公平，不过绝对的、终极的组织公平是很难实现的；第二个层面，是组织公平的主观状态，也就是组织中成员对组织公平的主观感受。
在组织中，如果一个"公平的制度"不被员工所接纳，它依然会对员工的行为产生负面影响，因此，从组织行为学的角度来讲，组织公平的主观层面更为重要。
管理学这样说组织公平感分为如下三个方面。
一、分配公平感，即员工对组织报酬的分配结果是否公平的感受。
美国心理学家亚当斯是公平理论的开创者，他认为，员工的公平感主要来自于对报酬数量的公平性的感受，员工总是将产出（即从组织得到的回报"与自己对组织的投入（包括个人拥有的技能、努力、教育、培训、经验等因素"的比例，与他人的产出/投入比进行对比。
当比例不相等时，就会产生不公平感。
组织公平感的概念、结构和实证研究结果【主题】组织公平感的概念、结构和实证研究结果一、概念解析1. 什么是组织公平感？组织公平感是指员工对组织中资源分配、决策过程和互动关系公正性的认知和评价。
这种认知能力使员工能够感知到对待公平和不公平，从而影响他们对组织的态度、行为和工作绩效。
2. 组织公平感的结构- 分配公平：指员工对组织资源（如薪酬、晋升机会等）分配的公正性评价。
- 过程公平：涉及员工对组织决策过程的公正性认知。
- 互动公平：反映员工对组织管理者和同事间关系的公正性评价。
二、实证研究结果1. 组织公平感与员工工作满意度的关系研究发现，员工对组织公平感的认知与其工作满意度密切相关。
当员工感受到组织公平时，他们的工作满意度较高，对组织产生较强的归属感和忠诚度，从而提高员工的工作绩效。
2. 组织公平感对员工情绪和行为的影响公平感较高的员工更倾向于展现积极的情绪和行为，对工作充满热情，更愿意与团队合作，更具有创新能力。
相反，公平感较低的员工容易产生负面情绪，对工作产生抵触情绪，影响整体工作氛围。
三、个人观点和理解在我看来，组织公平感不仅是组织管理者需要关注的重要因素，也是建立和谐、高效工作环境的基础。
通过公平的资源分配和决策过程，可以提高员工的工作满意度和忠诚度，增强组织的凝聚力和竞争力。
组织需要建立公平的激励机制，强化公平意识，促进公平行为，才能实现组织和员工的共赢。
总结回顾组织公平感是员工对组织内部资源分配、决策过程和互动关系公正性的认知和评价，包括分配公平、过程公平和互动公平。
实证研究表明，组织公平感对员工工作满意度、情绪和行为有着重要影响。
建立公平公正的组织环境对于提高员工的归属感、忠诚度和工作绩效至关重要。
管理者应重视组织公平感，建立公平的激励机制，以促进组织和员工的共同发展。
以上是对组织公平感的一些认知和理解，希望对您有所帮助。
End of Article.组织公平感在现代企业管理中扮演着至关重要的角色，不仅关系到员工的工作满意度和绩效，也直接影响着组织的整体氛围和竞争力。
组织公平感、工作满意度与员工关系绩效作者：李永壮来源：《会计之友》2013年第02期【摘要】文章以酒店业员工为研究对象，通过113名员工随机抽样样本，探讨了组织公平感、工作满意度与关系绩效三者之间的影响机制，特别是工作满意度在组织公平感与关系绩效间的中介作用。
通过层级回归分析结果表明，组织公平中程序公平、分配公平、领导公平、信息公平与关系绩效中的工作投入与人际促进均存在显著的正向影响，即员工的组织公平感越高，其关系绩效也越高；工作满意度在组织公平感与关系绩效之间起到完全中介作用。
【关键词】酒店业；组织公平；工作满意度；关系绩效一、问题提出随着经济全球化、管理国际化以及经营跨国化的发展，酒店业在国民经济中的地位越发凸显，同时酒店服务业的管理方式也逐渐由传统的高度集权制慢慢向现代管理模式转型，组织结构更加趋于规范化和专业化，进而衍生出了如何提高员工绩效管理的系列问题。
据调研，当前酒店大多追求员工的任务绩效，即员工任务完成的结果。
这与目前酒店业要求低人工成本、专业要求规范性弱、管理粗放和员工年轻化、流动性高等因素有密切关系。
重视任务绩效仅仅是完成员工绩效易观测到的一部分，是公司短期绩效的保障。
但从公司战略发展角度来看，员工的关系绩效（Contextual Performance）是目前必须亟待关注的问题，它是任务绩效的支撑与保障。
关系绩效又称周边绩效，是指并非被正式工作规范规定的，但为技术核心提供支持（组织的、社会的、心理的情境）的那些活动，如助人、合作、支持组织目标等。
关系绩效管理的意义在于，它不仅促进了组织与员工的绩效，而且还能有效促进组织的学习，构建和谐友好的企业文化氛围；由于关系绩效与员工本人工作任务具有潜在联系，故许多酒店对此并未引起足够的重视，也基本未对其进行有效考核。
汪新艳、卢威等认为组织公平感对关系绩效具有重要的影响作用。
组织公平感能够满足员工精神激励需求，进而强化其对组织的认同和忠诚，更多地做出有利于组织的周边行为，进而提高关系绩效。
BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH IN ACCOUNTING American Accounting Association Vol.26,No.1DOI:10.2308/bria-50587 2014pp.157–168Trust,Organizational Justice,andWhistleblowing:A Research NoteDeborah L.SeifertIllinois State UniversityWilliam W.StammerjohanLouisiana Tech UniversityRebecca B.MartinMcNeese State UniversityINTRODUCTIONW histleblowing as a means of deterring fraud has gained more acceptance in the last ten years.For example,the Sarbanes Oxley Act of2002requires publicly traded companiesto have a confidential whistleblowing mechanism in place.More recently,during the aftermath of the Madoff scandal,the SEC established a whistleblower hotline.Additionally,the Dodd-Frank Act of2010adds retaliation protections for those individuals reporting fraud to the SEC.Organizations are best served by whistleblowing when fraud is reported internally(Miceli, Near,Rehg,and Van Scotter2012).When fraud is reported internally,a company has the ability to rectify the situation without a loss of reputation.The academic literature is supportive of whistleblowing as improving corporate governance(Bowen,Call,and Rajgopal2010).The literature has also offered suggestions on how to make the internal whistleblowing process more amenable to employees.Seifert,Sweeney,Joireman,and Thornton(2010)suggest that fair processes provided by organizational justice encourage employees to come forward.However, while Seifert et al.(2010)find that improved organizational justice increases the likelihood of whistleblowing,the literature has not fully explored the specific mechanisms connecting these two constructs.We extend thefindings of Seifert et al.(2010)by examining whether trust provides a mechanism connecting organizational justice to the likelihood of whistleblowing.We hypothesize andfind that supervisor trust and organizational trust mediate the relationship between organizational justice and the likelihood of whistleblowing,using some additional data and much of the same data examined in Seifert et al.(2010).We thank Professor Theresa Libby and two anonymous reviewers for their assistance with this manuscript. Theresa Libby,Accepting Editor.Published Online:August2013157The respondents in this study include 226internal auditors who were members of the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA)and 211management accountants who were members of the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA).1Our results demonstrate that both organizational and supervisor trust are key factors linking organizational justice to the likelihood of whistleblowing.Our results are important for organizations trying to improve the probability that wrongdoing will be reported internally.From a practical perspective,our findings indicate that organizations not only need to have fair whistleblowing policies,supervisors,and follow-through,but also need to be trustworthy at the organizational and supervisor levels.For example,organizations seeking to promote internal whistleblowing might publish general information for employees as to the number of incidents reported and general actions taken with regard to those incidents.Such information could serve as a signal that the organization is trustworthy in handling whistleblowing.Additionally,organizations should train and evaluate supervisors on being caring and sympathetic to employees who blow the whistle.This training and evaluation could reassure employees that supervisors are fair and trustworthy with regard to whistleblowing.The remainder of the paper is organized as follows:The second section,which follows,presents the literature review and primary research hypotheses;the third section reports the experimental methods used to test these hypotheses;the results of the study are presented in the fourth section;and the fifth section discusses the implications and limitations.BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENTWhistleblowing and Organizational JusticeWe start with the Near and Miceli (1985,4)definition of whistleblowing:‘‘The disclosure by organization members of illegal,immoral,or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers,to persons or organizations that may be able to effect action.’’A disclosure can be made to others within or outside the organization (Miceli and Near 1992).However,internal whistleblowing is preferred because the employee is able to achieve resolution,and the organization has an opportunity to privately correct ethical violations (Miceli et al.2012;Miceli and Near 1992;Near and Miceli 1985).While ‘‘whistleblowing ’’can be internal or external,the focus of this study is restricted to internal whistleblowing.The decision to blow the whistle is very complex and researchers are still exploring what factors lead individuals to report fraud or other types of wrongdoing (Miceli et al.2012;Birnberg 2009).One factor recently examined in both the management and accounting literature is organizational justice (Miceli et al.2012;Tangirala and Ramanujam 2008;Seifert et al.2010).In the management literature,Miceli et al.(2012)found that when managers correct wrongdoing,i.e.,demonstrate organizational justice,employees feel more supported and the whole whistleblowing process is perceived as more fair.Additionally,Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008)determined that a higher procedural justice climate discouraged employees from remaining silent on critical work issues.In the accounting literature,Seifert et al.(2010)found that organizational justice impacts the likelihood of internal whistleblowing.Specifically,higher levels of procedural,distributive,and interactional justice produced a higher likelihood of internal whistleblowing.Seifert et al.(2010)describe higher levels of procedural justice as the formal organizational whistleblowing policy not differing from its actual implementation.Higher levels of distributive justice are depicted as the 1We would like to thank Seifert et al.(2010)and the members of the IMA and the IIA who participated in that study.158Seifert,Stammerjohan,andMartinBehavioral Research In AccountingVolume 26,Number 1,2014organization taking action to stop a reported wrongdoing;and higher levels of interactional justice are demonstrated as the supervisor being supportive to the employee during a whistleblowing event.While higher levels of organizational justice have been shown to have a positive relationship with whistleblowing,neither the management literature nor the accounting literature has explored the specific mechanisms connecting the two constructs.Recent literature suggests that trust may play a mediating role in the relationship between organizational justice and whistleblowing (Colquitt and Rodell2011).Organizational Justice and TrustThe literature indicates that organizational justice creates trust(Colquitt and Rodell2011; Aryee,Budhwar,and Chen2002;Frazier,Johnson,Gavin,Gooty,and Snow2010;Cropanzano and Rupp2008).Colquitt and Rodell(2011)documented that organizational justice increases benevolence and integrity,and those factors in turn increase trust.Colquitt and Rodell(2011) defined benevolence as concern,caring,and loyalty;and integrity as values,principles,and fairness.Aryee et al.(2002)also found that organizational justice increases trust.Specifically, Aryee et al.(2002)determined that trust in the organization was impacted by procedural, distributive,and interactional justice,and found that the employee outcomes of trust were higher employee job satisfaction,lower turnover intentions,and higher commitment.Frazier et al.(2010)examined the organizational justice and trust relationship in a more detailed manner.Frazier et al.(2010)differentiated between trusts in the proximal authorityfigure (i.e.,supervisor)versus the distal authorityfigure(i.e.,organization).They found that organizational justice affecting trust in the proximal authorityfigure had a greater impact on the ability of employees to focus on work-related tasks,and that this in turn impacted organizational citizenship behaviors directed at both the organization and individuals.Cropanzano and Rupp(2008)stated that trust was surprisingly underestimated in the organizational justice literature,and that it is an important variable for understanding employee work behavior.They determined that trust needs to be examined in a multi-foci context.In other words,organizational trust in general can behave differently than supervisor trust.For example,trust in the supervisor has been shown to have a positive impact on employee voice(Gao,Janssen,and Shi2011).Gao et al.(2011)discovered that trust facilitates risk-taking such as speaking up about workplace issues.They found that the relationship between leader trust and employee voice became more positive as leaders engaged in more empowering leadership activities,such as participative decision making,informing,and coaching.Given that the literature links organizational justice with increased trust(Colquitt and Rodell 2011;Aryee et al.2002;Frazier et al.2010;Cropanzano and Rupp2008),we posit the relationships between organizational justice,trust,and the likelihood of whistleblowing as stated in H1and H2. We examine the roles of organizational and supervisor trust separately,based on the fact that the literature has shown that trust in the supervisor has distinct effects on employee voice(Frazier et al. 2010;Cropanzano and Rupp2008;Gao et al.2011).We cannot predict full versus partial mediation for either organizational trust or supervisor trust because the literature has not developed to the point of providing such specific guidance at this time.H1:Organizational trust mediates the relationship between organizational justice and the likelihood of whistleblowing.H2:Supervisor trust mediates the relationship between organizational justice and the likelihood of whistleblowing.Trust,Organizational Justice,and Whistleblowing:A Research Note159Behavioral Research In Accounting Volume26,Number1,2014METHODDesignThis research employs a 23232factorial between-subjects design.Factorial levels are provided for fair/unfair whistleblowing procedures (procedural justice),fair/unfair outcomes from the whistleblowing process (distributive justice),and fair/unfair interactions with management while reporting wrongdoing (interactional justice).2Separate variables are included for assessing organizational and supervisory trust.The eight combinations of organizational justice conditions and the number of respondents within each condition are presented in Table 1.RespondentsThe experimental materials were administered to volunteer internal auditors and management accountants attending monthly meetings of the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA)or the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA).One thousand three hundred sixty-five internal auditors and 1,311management accountants were invited to participate in the present study.Twenty-six chapters from the IIA and 49chapters of the IMA participated.Of the 2,761instruments sent out,608were returned for a response rate of 22.7percent.This response rate is similar to the 30–32percent rate found in recent research on management accountants accessed through the IMA (Schiffel,Smith,and Schroeder 2011).Of the 608returned,437responses were useable.Ninety-seven responses were dropped due to manipulation check failures,and 74responses were excluded due to job descriptions that did not match those targeted by the study or for missing data.Examples of job descriptions of the excluded respondents included CPA partner,CPA firm owner,CPA firm staff,professor,retired,unemployed,or student.Additional analyses found that neither the exclusions due to manipulation check failures nor those due to job description impacted the results of the study.3DemographicsThe final sample contains 226internal auditors and 211management accountants who have an average (median)age of 43.9(45)years and average (median)years of experience19.9(20).Fifty-two percent of the respondents are female,33.4percent are Certified Public Accountants (CPA),17.2percent are Certified Management Accountants (CMA),and 21.3percent are Certified Internal Auditors (CIA).4ProcedureThe process for obtaining volunteers was as follows.First,all IIA and IMA chapters were identified and contacted through email.Neither the IIA nor the IMA chapters were aware that the other group was being asked to participate,so as to not confound the study.All chapters were offered a small donation to encourage their participation,as recommended by Larson and Chow (2003).A representative (usually an officer)from each participating IIA and IMA chapter then provided information regarding the expected number of attendees at the next regularly scheduled lunch or dinner meeting,and that number of collated instruments was packaged and mailed.2Please see Seifert et al.(2010,709–710)for a more detailed discussion of organizational justice.3As stated in Seifert et al.(2010,711,fn.9)a test of early versus late responders did not indicate response bias to be problematic.4Please see the ‘‘Robustness Check ’’section of this manuscript for a discussion of the appropriateness of combining internal auditors and management accountants for the analysis in this study.160Seifert,Stammerjohan,andMartinBehavioral Research In AccountingVolume 26,Number 1,2014The protocol for the administrating the instrument is as follows.A representative from each participating chapter places the experimental instruments on a table during the meeting and informs the attendees that the instrument is available.The representative does not give any instructions because the instrument is intended to be self-administered.The instructions ask the respondents to complete the instrument and mail it back to the researcher in the self-addressed,stamped envelope.Respondents are asked not to discuss the instrument with others,and not to specifically identify themselves or their employers.InstrumentThe experimental instrument is comprised of vignettes that are presented in the third person to minimize self-report bias (Rest 1986;Ponemon and Gabhart 1990;Arnold and Ponemon 1991).The example of organizational wrongdoing used in the vignettes involves the probable recording of material false revenues by a media company.The wrongdoing is based on an actual fraud committed by Gemstar-TV Guide (SEC 2003).For examples of vignettes,please see Seifert et al.(2010,Appendix,715–716).The vignettes incorporating fair whistleblowing outcomes,procedures,and interactions with management are adapted from the whistleblowing policies and procedures of Procter &Gamble TABLE 1Organizational Trust,Supervisor Trust,and the Likelihood of Whistleblowing byOrganizational Justice ConditionsDependent VariableFair ProcedureUnfair Procedure Mean Std.Dev.Mean Std.Dev.Fair OutcomeFair Interaction Trust in the Organization0.75(0.44)0.49(0.50)Trust in the Supervisor0.88(0.33)0.79(0.41)Likelihood of Whistleblowing6.98(1.54) 6.16(1.62)n 5157Unfair Interaction Trust in the Organization0.65(0.48)0.27(0.45)Trust in the Supervisor0.00(0.00)0.00(0.00)Likelihood of Whistleblowing 6.33(1.54) 4.66(1.58)n 5456Unfair Outcome Fair Interaction Trust in the Organization0.42(0.50)0.09(0.29)Trust in the Supervisor0.83(0.38)0.82(0.38)Likelihood of Whistleblowing5.92(1.40) 5.33(1.76)n 5357Unfair Interaction Trust in the Organization0.20(0.40)0.11(0.32)Trust in the Supervisor0.00(0.00)0.00(0.00)Likelihood of Whistleblowing 4.62(1.70) 3.86(1.58)n6544Variable Definitions:n ¼number of respondents;Trust in the Organization ¼portion of respondents expressing trust in the organization;Trust in the Supervisor ¼portion of respondents expressing trust in the supervisor;andLikelihood of Whistleblowing ¼likelihood of ‘‘Alex ’’whistleblowing measured on a scale of 1to 9,where 1represents‘‘definitely will not,’’5represents a ‘‘likelihood of 50percent,’’and 9represents ‘‘definitely will.’’Trust,Organizational Justice,and Whistleblowing:A Research Note 161Behavioral Research In AccountingVolume 26,Number 1,2014Corporation (Procter &Gamble 2010).Procter &Gamble is an appropriate example because it received a special whistleblowing award in 2004(Procter &Gamble 2004,14).Vignettes incorporating unfair whistleblowing procedures,outcomes,and interactions with management are developed to be the converse of the fair conditions.The dependent variable of interest is the respondents’perceived likelihood of an employee blowing the whistle internally.This variable is operationalized by following each vignette with the question:‘‘In your opinion,what is the likelihood that Alex will report the CFO to others in the company?’’The respondents respond using a nine-point Likert scale anchored on ‘‘definitely will not report ’’and ‘‘definitely will report.’’A mid-point anchor is used for a 50percent likelihood of reporting.Five manipulation check questions are included in the instrument to assess the attentiveness of the respondent to the facts in the vignette.Respondents who fail any of the five manipulation checks are excluded from the analysis.The other variables of interest are trust in the organization and supervisor trust.After reading the vignette and responding to the question concerning the perceived likelihood of whistleblowing,respondents are asked the following questions.‘‘Do you believe that Alex has trust in his company?’’and ‘‘Do you believe that Alex trusts his supervisor?’’Responses to these questions are dichotomous,‘‘yes ’’or ‘‘no.’’Structural Model Estimations and Hypothesis TestsWe estimate the structural path coefficients described in Figure 1using structural equation modeling,and use the test described by Sobel (1982)to assess the significance of the indirect path coefficients.Please see Nouri and Parker (1998),and Preacher and Hayes (2004,2008),for aFIGURE 1Fully Mediated StructuralModelLIK ¼Likelihood of ‘‘Alex ’’whistleblowing measured on a scale of 1to 9,where 1represents ‘‘definitely willnot,’’5represents a ‘‘likelihood of 50percent,’’and 9represents ‘‘definitely will ’’;DJ ¼1when the ‘‘Distributive Justice ’’is present and 0otherwise;PJ ¼1when the ‘‘Procedural Justice ’’is present and 0otherwise;IJ ¼1when the ‘‘Interactional Justice ’’is present and 0otherwise;ST ¼trust in the supervisor–portion of respondents expressing trust in the supervisor;andOT ¼trust in the organization–portion of respondents expressing trust in the organization.162Seifert,Stammerjohan,andMartinBehavioral Research In AccountingVolume 26,Number 1,2014complete description and discussion of the benefits and limitations of estimating the significance of the indirect effects using the Sobel (1982)test.As a test of robustness,we also estimate the path coefficients using the non-parametric boot-strap methods described by Preacher and Hayes (2004,2008)and the conventional parametric method described by Barron and Kenny (1986).All of these untabulated estimations produce patterns of significance similar to the tabulated results.RESULTSSample Means by Organizational Justice ConditionsThe organizational justice conditions,number of respondents per condition,and sample means for the dependent and mediating variables by condition are reported in Table 1.As expected,the likelihood of whistleblowing is the highest in the most favorable condition,fair outcome,fair interaction,and fair procedure (6.98on a scale of 1to 9,where 1represents ‘‘definitely will not,’’5represents a ‘‘likelihood of 50percent,’’and 9represents ‘‘definitely will ’’);and lowest in the most hostile condition,unfair outcome,unfair interaction,and unfair procedure (3.86on the same scale).Also as expected,the percentage of respondents indicating organizational trust declines as the environment for whistleblowing becomes more hostile (75percent in the most favorable condition and only 11percent in the least favorable condition).Interestingly,while not all respondents indicate trust in the supervisor in the fair interaction condition (range from 79percent to 88percent);all of the respondents in the unfair interaction condition indicate a lack of trust in the supervisor.Simple CorrelationsThe simple correlations are presented in Table 2.As expected,the likelihood of whistleblowing is significantly correlated with all three manipulated components of organizational justice (procedural,distributive,and interactive)and with both organizational and supervisor trust.As TABLE 2Simple CorrelationsLIKDJ PJ IJ OT ST LIK1DJ0.2811PJ0.215À0.0631IJ0.324À0.014À0.0591OT0.4330.3450.2310.1181ST 0.356À0.005À0.0310.8410.2151Correlations significant at the p 0.05level are reported in bold.Variable Definitions:LIK ¼likelihood of ‘‘Alex ’’whistleblowing measured on a scale of 1to 9,where 1represents ‘‘definitely will not,’’5represents a ‘‘likelihood of 50percent,’’and 9represents ‘‘definitely will ’’;DJ ¼1when the ‘‘Distributive Justice ’’is present and 0otherwise;PJ ¼1when the ‘‘Procedural Justice ’’is present and 0otherwise;IJ ¼1when the ‘‘Interactional Justice ’’is present and 0otherwise;ST ¼trust in the supervisor–portion of respondents expressing trust in the supervisor;andOT ¼trust in the organization–portion of respondents expressing trust in the organization.Trust,Organizational Justice,and Whistleblowing:A Research Note 163Behavioral Research In AccountingVolume 26,Number 1,2014expected,organizational trust is significantly correlated with all three components of organizational justice while supervisor trust is only significantly correlated with interactive justice.As expected given the research design,the components of organizational justice are uncorrelated.Structural Model ResultsThe estimated direct and indirect effects between the components of organizational justice and likelihood of whistleblowing are reported in Table 3.H1is supported by significant indirect effects running through organizational trust between both procedural justice and distributive justice and the likelihood of whistleblowing (PJ !OT !LIK and DJ !OT !LIK ).H2is supported by a significant indirect effect running through supervisor trust between interactive justice and the likelihood of whistleblowing (IJ !ST !LIK ).Also of note in the justice estimations is the fact that interactive justice further adds to the likelihood of whistleblowing through a significant indirect path that runs from interactive justice through to both supervisor and organizational trust (IJ !ST !OT !LIK ).The significant residual direct path coefficients,reported in Table 3,indicate organizational and supervisor trust only partially mediate the total effect of justice on to the likelihood of whistleblowing.Figure 2offers a graphical presentation of the significant direct path coefficients.TABLE 3Structural Model ResultsCoeff.S.E.t-value p-value Individual Path CoefficientsPJ !OT0.2630.041 6.490.000DJ !OT0.3420.0408.460.000IJ !ST0.8300.02532.690.000ST !OT0.2200.041 5.370.000OT !LIK1.0040.173 5.810.000ST !LIK0.5870.278 2.110.018Residual Direct Path CoefficientsPJ !LIK0.6740.153 4.400.000DJ !LIK0.7580.158 4.810.000IJ !LIK0.6250.271 2.300.011Indirect Path CoefficientsPJ !OT !LIK0.2640.061 4.300.000DJ !OT !LIK0.3430.072 4.800.000IJ !ST !LIK0.4870.231 2.110.018IJ !ST !OT !LIK 0.1830.084 2.190.015Path coefficients significant at the p 0.05level are reported in bold.Variable Definitions:LIK ¼Likelihood of ‘‘Alex ’’whistleblowing measured on a scale of 1to 9,where 1represents ‘‘definitely will not,’’5represents a ‘‘likelihood of 50percent,’’and 9represents ‘‘definitely will ’’;DJ ¼1when the ‘‘Distributive Justice ’’is present and 0otherwise;PJ ¼1when the ‘‘Procedural Justice ’’is present and 0otherwise;IJ ¼1when the ‘‘Interactional Justice ’’is present and 0otherwise;ST ¼trust in the supervisor–portion of respondents expressing trust in the supervisor;andOT ¼trust in the organization–portion of respondents expressing trust in the organization.164Seifert,Stammerjohan,andMartinBehavioral Research In AccountingVolume 26,Number 1,2014The significant residual paths from justice to likelihood of whistleblowing are omitted from Figure 2in the interest of clarity.Structural Model FitThe final model presented in Table 3fully meets the model fit criteria presented by (Hair,Black,Babin,Anderson,and Tatham 2006,753–758),v 2¼5.6,v 2/DF ¼1.9,p-value ¼0.134,GFI ¼0.996,CFI ¼0.997,and RMSEA ¼0.044.The final model includes residual direct effects between the three components of justice (PJ ,DJ ,and IJ )and the likelihood of whistleblowing (LIK )and the removal of three insignificant direct justice-to-trust connections (PJ !ST ,DJ !ST ,and IJ !OT ).These changes significantly improve model fit (p ¼0.000).Robustness CheckAs a means of assessing the robustness of our structural model results and of assessing the appropriateness of combining the internal auditor (IA)and managerial accountant (MA)samples,we examined the effects of four control variables on our hypotheses tests.We examined the effects of whether the respondent was an internal auditor or management accountant,and examined the effects of three demographic variables that produced significant (p 0.05)mean differences between the IA and MA subsamples:whether the respondent had ever reported wrongdoing themselves,whether the respondent had encountered an unreported wrongdoing themselves,and whether the respondent’s company required the reporting of wrongdoing.None of these untabulated tests affected our hypotheses tests or conclusions.FIGURE 2Significant Path CoefficientsIndividual Path Coefficients and(p-values)LIK ¼likelihood of ‘‘Alex ’’whistleblowing measured on a scale of 1to 9,where 1represents ‘‘definitely willnot,’’5represents a ‘‘likelihood of 50percent,’’and 9represents ‘‘definitely will ’’;DJ ¼1when the ‘‘Distributive Justice ’’is present and 0otherwise;PJ ¼1when the ‘‘Procedural Justice ’’is present and 0otherwise;IJ ¼1when the ‘‘Interactional Justice ’’is present and 0otherwise;ST ¼trust in the supervisor–portion of respondents expressing trust in the supervisor;andOT ¼trust in the organization–portion of respondents expressing trust in the organization.Trust,Organizational Justice,and Whistleblowing:A Research Note 165Behavioral Research In AccountingVolume 26,Number 1,2014Likelihood of Whistleblowing as a Function of TrustTable 4presents the likelihood of whistleblowing as a function of trust.The ANOVA results reported in Panel A indicate that 26percent of the squared variation on the likelihood of whistleblowing is explained by the level of trust.The F-statistic indicates that the model is highly significant.Panel B indicates that 184respondents indicated neither trust in the organization nor the supervisor,92only indicated trust in the supervisor,72only indicated trust in the organization,and 89indicated trust in both the supervisor and organization.The three right-hand columns present the difference in means.While the likelihood of whistleblowing is higher for trust in the organization only as compared to trust in the supervisor only,this difference is not significant.All the other differences are significantly different at the p 0.05level,indicating that the likelihood of whistleblowing is higher when the respondent has some level of trust,and is the highest when they indicate trust in both the supervisor and the organization.DISCUSSIONThis study expands our knowledge of the connection between organizational justice and the likelihood of internal whistleblowing by demonstrating that trust in the supervisor and organizationTABLE 4Likelihood of Whistleblowing as a Function of TrustPanel A:ANOV A ResultsR 20.26F-value51.15p-value0.000DF:model3DF:error433DF:total 436Panel B:Difference in MeansTrust n MeanLIKDifferences in Mean LIK Neither Supervisor Organization Neither 184 4.46Supervisor Only 92 5.731.27Organization Only 72 6.191.730.47Both Supervisor and Organization 89 6.802.34 1.070.60Tukey’s individual differences that are significant at the p 0.05level are reported in bold.Variable Definitions:LIK ¼Likelihood of ‘‘Alex ’’whistleblowing measured on a scale of 1to 9,where 1represents ‘‘definitely will not,’’5represents a ‘‘likelihood of 50percent,’’and 9represents ‘‘definitely will ’’;Neither ¼trust neither the supervisor nor the organization (ST ¼0and OT ¼0);Supervisor Only ¼trust the supervisor but not the organization (ST ¼1and OT ¼0);Organization Only ¼trust the organization but not the supervisor (ST ¼0and OT ¼1);andBoth ¼trust both the supervisor and the organization (ST ¼1and OT ¼1).166Seifert,Stammerjohan,andMartinBehavioral Research In AccountingVolume 26,Number 1,2014。
