Priesemuth - The Impact of Overall Justice Climate

Group & Organization
Management
http://gom.sagepub.com/
Bad Behavior in Groups: The Impact of Overall Justice Climate and

Functional Dependence on Counterproductive Work Behavior in
Work Units
Manuela Priesemuth, Anke Arnaud and Marshall Schminke
Group & Organization Management 2013 38: 230
DOI: 10.1177/1059601113479399
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/38/2/230
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Group & Organization Management can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://gom.sagepub.com/content/38/2/230.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Mar 14, 2013
What is This?
Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitu on May 22, 2014
479399
research-article2013
GOM38210.1177/1059601113479399Group & Organization ManagementPriesemuth et al.
Group & Organization Management

38(2) 230257
Bad Behavior in The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
Groups: The Impact sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1059601113479399
of Overall Justice gom.sagepub.com
Climate and Functional

Dependence on
Counterproductive Work
Behavior in Work Units
Manuela Priesemuth1, Anke Arnaud2,

and Marshall Schminke3
Abstract
Recent research shows the powerful impact of counterproductive behavior
in teams. This study explores how team characteristics combine to influence
bad behavior in groups. It builds upon recent work in organizational justice
by exploring the relationship between overall justice climate and work
groups deviant and political behavior. Findings suggest that the structure
of the work itself, in the form of functional dependence, moderates this
relationship. Specifically, it is argued that the relationship between injustice
climate and deviant and political behavior will be strongest when functional
dependence between employees is low. Results from a sample of 539
employees and 113 supervisors in 113 work units support the hypotheses.
Keywords
overall justice climate, functional dependence, political behavior,
interpersonal deviance, self-serving behaviors
1WilfridLaurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada
2Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, USA
3University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
Corresponding author:
Manuela Priesemuth, School of Business & Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75
University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON N2L 3C5, Canada.
Email: mpriesemuth@wlu.ca
Priesemuth et al. 231
Research points to the considerable costs organizations incur due to employee

misbehavior (e.g., Tepper, 2007). Thus, scholars increasingly seek to under-
stand its causes. For example, individual differences such as personality traits
(Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007), work attitudes (Dalal, 2005), justice orienta-
tion (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001) and moral philosophy (Henle,
Giacalone, & Jurkiewicz, 2005) have been shown to be related to counterpro-
ductive work behaviors. More recently, scholars have turned their attention
from the individual predictors of misbehavior to contextual factors, such as
the relationship an individual holds with the organization (Thau, Crossley,
Bennett, & Sczesny, 2007) and the characteristics of the group and organiza-
tion itself that may trigger or increase bad behavior (Enns & Rotundo, 2012;
OBoyle, Forsyth, & OBoyle, 2011).
This article seeks to explain employee misbehavior in work units by
extending research on contextual rather than personal antecedents. We draw
upon and extend current scholarship in the organizational justice literature by
exploring how collective perceptions of fairness (and unfairness) influence
negative behavior in groups. In particular, our focus is on how collective
perceptions of overall justice (overall justice climate) shape negative group
behaviors. Second, we explore the extent to which the nature of the work
itselfin this case the functional dependence that exists between work unit
membersmay act to strengthen or weaken the impact an unfair climate
exerts on counterproductive work behaviors.
Counterproductive work behavior (CPWB) is a general description for
deliberate actions aimed at causing harm to the organization or its members
(OBoyle et al., 2011). This article focuses on two types of counterproductive
work group behaviors. The first is interpersonal deviance, which encom-
passes deviant acts intentionally directed at another individual, such as vio-
lence, gossip, or threats aimed at coworkers (Bennett & Robinson, 2000;
Berry et al., 2007). The second counterproductive behavior is self-serving
political behavior, defined as manipulative social influence efforts aimed at
self-serving outcomes (Kacmar & Carlson, 1997). Research shows that both
types of behavior harm other people, compromise important group processes,
and violate organizational and social norms as well as group expectations of
proper conduct (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Kacmar, Bozeman, Carlson, &
Anthony, 1999).
Scholarship on the emergence of CPWBs in work units is scarce. (For an
exception, see Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, and Salvador (2009),
who showed ethical leadership as an antecedent of deviant behavior in work
groups.) Therefore, one goal of this study is to understand more clearly how
counterproductive behavior emerges in work teams. We do so by drawing
232 Group & Organization Management 38(2)
upon and extending recent work in the organizational justice literature.

Following Cropanzano, Li, and Benson (2011), it is proposed that group-
level perceptions of unfairness will be related to interpersonal deviance and
political behavior in work groups.
It is further argued that this relationship between justice climate and group
misbehavior is moderated by the work structure of the group. Research has
demonstrated the effects of different structural components, such as central-
ization and formalization (Ambrose & Schminke, 2003; Schminke,
Cropanzano, & Rupp, 2002), or team characteristics (Andrews, Kacmar,
Blakely, & Bucklew, 2008) on the relationship between fairness perceptions
and outcomes.
Although research has shed light on how aspects of organizational struc-
ture may moderate the influence of justice perceptions, it has yet to examine
how the structure of the work itself will influence the relationship between
justice perceptions and employee behaviors. Here, we predict the relationship
between overall justice climate and work group misbehavior will be stronger
when the job performance of one worker does not directly depend on the
contribution of another, a condition known as low functional dependence
(Morris & Steers, 1980).
Overall, this study extends previous research in three distinct ways. First,
this article contributes to the understanding of counterproductive behavior in
teams by extending the search for antecedents to include the context in which
work is performed (in this case, the fairness of the work setting). Second, it
adds to the literature on organizational justice by extending the overall justice
construct (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009) to the climate level and exploring
the impact of justice climate on counterproductive work group behaviors.
Finally, this study examines how characteristics of the work itself, in the form
of functional dependence, may influence the impact overall justice climate
has on interpersonal deviance and political behavior of the work group.
The article is organized to provide an overview of the construct of overall
justice first, before combining theoretical foundations from the organiza-
tional justice, teams, and work interdependence literatures to develop the
hypotheses.
Overall Justice
Research on organizational justice has shown that distinct facets of justice,
such as procedural, distributive, or interactional justice, influence employee
behavior and outcomes (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001).
However, recent work on organizational justice seems to suggest that
employee behavior and attitudes may be better examined by assessing per-

ceptions of overall justice instead of facet-specific justice dimensions
(Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005; Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Colquitt & Shaw,
2005; Greenberg, 2001).
Scholars present several reasons for whyand whenthe use of overall
justice might be more appropriate. For example, researchers have argued that
simply studying facet-specific justice dimensions may present limitations for
researchers and lead to a fragmented literature (Holtz & Harold, 2009)
because (a) the power of justice perceptions to explain organizational out-
comes varies depending on the type of justice examined, (b) the influence of
justice types on employee attitudes has been shown to be person, context, and
time specific (Cojuharenco, Patient, & Bashshur, 2011; Colquitt, Scott,
Judge, & Shaw, 2006; Schminke, Ambrose, & Noel, 1997; Scott & Colquitt,
2007), and (c) the different justice dimensions may not capture how individu-
als actually form justice perceptions in the workplace (Ambrose & Schminke,
2009; Colquitt & Shaw, 2005).
The latter reason is theoretically grounded in fairness heuristics theory
(Lind, 2001), which argues that individuals use cognitive shortcuts when pro-
cessing information and forming justice judgments. That is, employees expe-
rience fair procedures regarding bonus pay or promotion and this information
is, in turn, used by the individual to craft global fairness perceptions of the
overall work environment. This theory suggests that people form overall jus-
tice perceptions regarding their work environment to reduce uncertainty and
increase understanding of a situation and workplace instead of forming facet-
specific judgments about procedural or distributive justice.
Research also points to the superior predictive validity of overall justice
(Beugre & Baron, 2001; Jones & Martens, 2009; Kim & Leung, 2007). For
example, Ambrose and Schminke (2009) conducted two studies, which
demonstrate that overall justice perceptions fully mediate the relationship
between distributive, procedural, and interactional justice and employee
behavior. This finding indicates that overall justice is the most proximal fac-
tor to outcomes when exploring the relationship between justice judgments
and behavior. Moreover, research has shown that overall justice predicts
employee behavior and attitudes above and beyond the specific facets of
justice and beyond a composite measure composed of justice facets
(Ambrose & Schminke, 2006; Jones & Martens, 2009). In all, previous theo-
retical as well as empirical research suggests that individuals do form over-
all justice perceptions when exposed to different justice cues in the
workplace, and that these overall justice perceptions influence employee
behavior in organizations.
Overall (In)Justice Climate and Group Behavior

In addition to an interest in overall justice, scholars have placed an emphasis
on group-level perceptions of fairness (i.e., justice climate) and its influence
on employee attitudes and behaviors, including job satisfaction, commit-
ment, performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors (Ehrhart, 2004;
Liao & Rupp, 2005; Mossholder, Bennett, & Martin, 1998; Naumann &
Bennett, 2000; Simons & Roberson, 2003; Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke,
2010). Li and Cropanzano (2009) define justice climate as the degree to
which workplace fairness is perceived by a work unit. That is, employees
form shared perceptions about the extent of fair treatment exhibited toward
them in the work unit (Ehrhart, 2004).
Within the justice climate literature, only a few studies have investigated
the relationship between justice climate and negative workplace behaviors.
However, this evidence suggests that unfair climates prompt negative out-
comes, such that employees are likely to engage in behaviors that no longer
promote the performance and desired outcomes of the group (Dietz, Robinson,
Folger, Baron, & Schultz, 2003; Enns & Rotundo, 2012). This study will
further extend this line of research by showing that justice climates may
impact counterproductive work behaviors at the group level.
To explain the effects of justice at the work unit level on employee out-
comes, scholars have primarily drawn on social learning theory (Bandura,
1977) or social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978).
These theories indicate that employees observe and learn (un)fair behavior
from others or interpret fairness-related cues in their environment that prompt
corresponding future behavior. Moreover, researchers draw on the group
value or group engagement models (Tyler, 1989; Tyler & Blader, 2000,
2001), which propose that when a work group is treated fairly, employees
develop pride for the group as well as feelings of self-worth and self-esteem.
Developing positive feelings toward the group increases members identifi-
cation with the team and results in positive group-oriented behavior.
More recent work on group-level justice phenomena proposes that certain
group processes provide the link between justice climate and employee
behavior. Cropanzano and colleagues (2011) suggest that justice climate
influences task and interpersonal teamwork processes. Drawing on Hoegl
and Gemuendens (2001) taxonomy of team processes, Cropanzano et al.
argue that a fair climate positively impacts the quality of several work unit
processes, including communication, coordination, contribution, cohesion,
effort, and support. These positive group processes, in turn, prompt people to
engage in group-oriented behaviors. For example, a fair climate provides an
environment in which employees are comfortable speaking up and sharing

ideas, strengthening communication and collaboration among members
(Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen, 2007; Chen,
Sharma, Edinger, Shapiro, & Farh, 2011; Detert & Burris, 2007; Kirkman &
Rosen, 1999). Conversely, group-level perceptions of unfairness may
decrease employees engagement in these group processes and, therefore,
foster behavior that is more self-serving in nature. Research has shown that
unfair treatment of a work group prompts members to withdraw from the
group (Blader & Tyler, 2009; Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003), decreasing team
states such as cohesion and attachment. Subsequently, the lack of cohesion,
communication, interaction, and dependence may initiate group members
engagement in negative behaviors, such as deviant and self-serving behaviors
to harm members of the group.
Interdependence theory (De Cremer & Van Vugt, 1999; Kelley & Thibaut,
1978) provides further rationale for this relationship. The theory suggests that
when work teams experience less interaction and interdependence, a trans-
formation of motivation takes place. This shift in motivation puts group
goals and accomplishments in the background, whereas self-serving and
competitively oriented individual goals are strengthened. Research demon-
strates support for the assertion that a lack of positive group processes influ-
ences deviant and self-serving behavior (Andrews et al., 2008; Kidwell &
Valentine, 2009; Scott & Judge, 2009). For example, Thau et al. (2007)
showed that group cohesion mediates the relationship between trust and anti-
social behavior of employees.
In sum, drawing on the groups and justice literature, we argue that group-
level perceptions of unfairness influence work groups deviant and self-serving
behaviors. Specifically, perceptions of injustice have been shown to nega-
tively impact group processes such that members display lower levels of
communication, effort, collaboration, and cohesion (Blader & Tyler, 2009;
Cropanzano et al., 2011). The limited engagement in group processes
increases individuals self-serving and deviant work behavior within the
work unit. This discussion leads to the first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Group-level perceptions of overall injustice will be posi-

tively related to deviant and political behavior within the work unit.
The Moderating Effect of Functional Dependence

The justice literature recognizes the importance of contextual variables to the
emergence and impact of justice perceptions (Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano,
Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001; Jones & Martens, 2009; Lind & Tyler, 1988).
Specifically, the structure and design of the organizational environment play

an important role in understanding fairness perceptions (Schminke, Ambrose,
& Cropanzano, 2000). These earlier findings warrant the investigation of fur-
ther structural variables that affect the impact of justice perceptions in organi-
zations. Some research has demonstrated the importance of structural
components and group dynamics on justice perceptions and employee behav-
ior (Andrews et al., 2008; Schminke et al., 2000). This current article aims to
extend this focus on contextual and structural components by studying how
the structure of the work itselfin the form of functional dependencemay
enhance or mitigate the influence of group-level justice perceptions on group
member behaviors.
Functional dependence refers to the interdependence between work group
members when performing tasks, such that the success of one employee
depends directly on the contribution of another (Morris & Steers, 1980). It
describes the degree to which individuals must rely on interaction partners to
accomplish tasks and the degree to which ones work outcome is influenced
by others (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). Functional dependence of work
groups has been shown to impact a variety of group processes. For example,
dependence influences individuals interactions with one another (Rusbult &
Buunk, 1993; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003), coordination and communication
patterns (Stewart & Barrick, 2000), members group identification and attach-
ment (De Cremer & Van Vugt, 1999), and exchange relationships and trust
(Morris & Moberg, 1994; Stewart & Barrick, 2000). Interdependence theory
(Kelley & Thibaut, 1978) suggests such dependence is an essential part in
determining how individuals interact in work settings, the type of relation-
ships they will develop, and the behavior (cooperative vs. self-serving) they
will display. When members work goals and outcomes are interdependent,
team interactions will further increase and motivation shifts toward objec-
tives of the greater group or work unit, while neglecting the pursuit of indi-
vidual goals (De Cremer & Van Vugt, 1999; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). Thus,
highly functional interdependent groups place an even greater focus on team
processes, such as communication, support, cohesion, and collaboration,
which promotes behaviors that benefit the group. Conversely, under condi-
tions of low functional dependence, employees are able to perform tasks
independently of others and without the help of fellow workers (Aub,
Rousseau, Mama, & Morin, 2009), thereby deemphasizing team processes
and interactions.
In all, characteristics of a low functional dependence setting and the result-
ing lack of team interaction and even greater self-focused motivation set the
stage for enhancing the relationship between perceptions of injustice and
deviant and self-serving behaviors in the work unit. As outlined before, an
unfair climate may prompt individuals in groups to misbehave. Low func-

tional dependence presents a condition in which members have even fewer
group interactions and are further encouraged to engage in self-serving
behaviors. Therefore, in work units characterized by low levels of functional
dependence, employees possess not only less attachment, communication,
and coordination but also experience greater self-interest, which may pro-
mote behaviors aimed at aiding the self, even at the expense of others. This
rationale suggests the following interaction effect:
Hypothesis 2: Functional dependence will moderate the relationships

between overall injustice climate and deviant and political behavior in
work units such that the relationships will be stronger under conditions
of low functional dependence.
Method
The authors surveyed employees of work units in a variety of organizations
in the southeast United States. Organizations ranged in size from six to
100,000 employees with an average of 31,171 employees. These organiza-
tions also ranged in size from a single work unit to 1,000 work units.
Participants included employees from a wide variety of organizations and
industries. These organizations contained work units characterized by low
functional dependence (such as grocery stores), moderate functional depen-
dence (such as insurance agencies and retail services), and high functional
dependence (such as hospitals). Overall, the sample represents a diverse
group of organizations across multiple industries, with both U.S. and interna-
tional roots.
To collect the data, a contact person in each participating work unit was
identified to hand-deliver survey packets to at least five employees and the
supervisor of that unit. Depending on the availability and size of the work
unit and organization, work units received seven or eight surveys, including
the supervisors.
Contact persons were asked to distribute surveys randomly to work unit
members. Respondents were assured of the confidentiality of their responses.
To reinforce this point, participants were able to complete the surveys on
their own time and in a location of their choice (including away from the
organizational setting). Furthermore, they were able to mail their responses
directly to the research team.
The research team contacted approximately 220 work units. In all, 128
work units from 116 organizations agreed to participate and received the
surveys. From these work units, usable data were obtained from 113 work
units across 101 organizations, resulting in a unit-level response rate of 51%
with a total of 652 responses (average 5.77 surveys per work unit). Of these,
539 were employees and 113 supervisors. The employee sample was 49.1%
male. Respondents had an average age of 29.03 years (SD = 10.49) and an
average of 2.56 years (SD = 3.41) of experience with their department and
3.18 years (SD = 4.17) of experience in their organization. The supervisor
sample was 55% male, had an average age of 36.93 (SD = 10.67) and an aver-
age of 5.91 years (SD = 7.54) of experience in the department and 8.63 years
(SD = 8.85) of experience in the organization overall.
The sample included a variety of organizations ranging from small entre-
preneurial firms to large corporations. This procedure resulted in a large
range of work unit sizes, which varied from five to six people per work unit
to hundreds of people per unit. The mean for the size of a work unit was 36
employees, although this number may not accurately reflect the central ten-
dency in work unit size because of the presence of a few very large units. A
better sense of the typical unit size in the sample may be reflected by the
modal work unit size of six employees or the median unit size of 13 employ-
ees. Overall, about half of the total employees in the work units were repre-
sented in the sample (46%) and provided ratings about the variables of
interest. (However, due to the variation in work unit size, the percentage of
responses per work unit ranged from 100% for smaller work units to less than
1% for the very largest unit.)
Employees and supervisors in each department worked in the same physi-
cal work environment and interacted on a consistent basis. The employees
rated statements about overall justice climate, functional dependence, general
political behavior, and work unit size (control variable). The supervisor sur-
veys assessed the level of workplace deviance in the entire work unit they
managed.
Measures
Unless otherwise specified, all scales and items in the surveys were intro-
duced to the participant with the following wording: Remember, were most
interested in how things work in your specific work unit/department. Please
indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement. This
introductory sentence was provided to ensure participants were clear on the
appropriate referent for all items. That is, because some items referred more
broadly to employees, others, or fellow workers, participants were
instructed to think about employees in their own work unit when responding
to questions. This introductory statement and clarification of ones work unit

as a referent was provided to maintain consistency between the studys theory
and definitions (which focused on the work unit) and the established mea-
sures utilized in this study (some of which did not provide an explicit work
unit focus).
Overall (In)Justice Climate. Overall justice climate was assessed with ratings
provided by employees from the work unit. Consistent with other research in
justice and teams, we employ a referent-shift consensus model to describe
overall justice climate (Chen et al., 2007; Colquitt, Noe, & Jackson, 2002;
Cropanzano et al., 2011; Naumann & Bennett, 2000; Seibert, Silver, & Ran-
dolph, 2004; Spell & Arnold, 2007). A referent shift refers to a modification
in the target of a survey item (i.e., who is referenced in the item) prior to
assessing agreement among individuals and aggregating the data to the group
level (Chan, 1998). The referent of these items is therefore shifted away from
employee perceptions of his or her own experiences, focusing instead on per-
ceptions of others experiences in the work unit (Ehrhart, 2004). Performing
a referent shift creates a new construct that is conceptually distinct from the
original individual-level construct. That is, overall justice ratings with a ref-
erent shift reflect a psychological collective climate that, when aggregated to
the group level, forms an organizational-level construct (organizational col-
lective climate). Chan argues that this referent shift practice should be used
when researchers are interested in how an individual believes others are
treated or perceive the work environment, rather than how the individual
completing the survey item perceives these things. Klein and Kozlowski
(2000) state this referent shift model is most appropriate in these cases
because it best reflects the conceptual underpinning of group-level constructs
like climate.
In all, we measured overall justice climate with the three referent-shift
items ( = .70) contained in the 6-item overall justice scale developed by
Ambrose and Schminke (2009). Employees were asked to rate the extent to
which they agreed with statements that dealt with how fairly the organization
treats its employees. The items read as follows: Usually, the way things
work in this organization are not fair, For the most part, this organization
treats its employees fairly (reverse coded), and Most of the people who
work here would say they are often treated unfairly, using a 5-point response
format (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).
Scholars have previously used three out of the six overall justice items to
assess justice perceptions. First, Ambrose and Schminke (2009) showed in
supplementary analyses that utilizing three items (three personal vs. three
general experience items) resulted in the same pattern of results as when

using all six items. Following Ambrose and Schminkes findings, Ambrose
and her colleagues examined individual perceptions of overall justice and
employed three items in which the referent pertained to the individual only,
excluding statements referring to the fair treatment of others in the workplace
(Melkonian, Soenen, & Ambrose, 2010; 2011; Soenen, Melkonian, &
Ambrose, 2012).
To create a measure of overall justice climate, individual ratings were
aggregated to the group level, reflecting the average perception of organiza-
tional justice toward employees in the work unit. That is, scores of overall
fairness were averaged across individual group members and the mean was
used as the reflective group-level score of overall justice. However, prior to
aggregation two things were verified: (a) that there were a sufficient number
of respondents per unit to reflect unit-level perceptions and (b) that agree-
ment among these respondents was sufficient to justify aggregation of the
data to the unit level, as evidenced by multiple indicators of interrater
agreement.
First, previous research indicates that three to five responses from a work
group are sufficient to aggregate measures to the group level (Colquitt et al.,
2002; Newman & Sin, 2009; Richardson & Vandenberg, 2005; Schminke,
Ambrose, & Neubaum, 2005; Schneider, Hanges, Smith, & Salvaggio, 2003;
Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998; Schneider, Salvaggio, & Subirats, 2002;
Tracey & Tews, 2005). The sample was comprised of sets of four to six mem-
bers per unit who responded to these justice items. Therefore, each work unit
sample contains sufficient data to reflect unit-level perceptions.
Second, interrater reliability and agreement within the work unit was
assessed in two ways. Following previous climate research (Liao & Rupp,
2005), agreement was assessed by conducting a one-way ANOVA, which
showed the level of between-group variance was significant for overall jus-
tice climate (p < .001). This result indicates greater between-group variance
compared with within-group variance, suggesting the existence of good inter-
rater reliability.
In addition, within work unit agreement was assessed by computing intra-
class correlation coefficients ((ICC(1), ICC(2)) and rwgs for the measure
(Bartko, 1976; James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). All of
these indices are commonly used to justify aggregation to the group level.
The ICC(1) compares the variance between units to variance within units,
whereas the ICC(2) assesses within-unit variability. To accompany the ICC
statistics, the rwg assesses the overall agreement among group members about
the construct.
All of these indices rely on guidelines, often referred to as cutoff values,

for judgments about whether aggregation is appropriate. Acceptable cutoff
values are somewhat arbitrary and should be interpreted accordingly
(LeBreton & Senter, 2008; Schneider et al., 1998). However, scholars sug-
gest an rwg of .70 (or higher) for acceptable interrater reliability (James et al.,
1984; Nunnally, 1978), and an appropriate value for ICC(2)s is .60 (Glick,
1985; Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993). Many researchers have argued that lower
levels of agreement among raters are also acceptable for aggregation (Liao &
Rupp, 2005; Schneider et al., 1998; Tucker, 2007). For example, LeBreton
and Senter (2008) distinguished between moderate interrater agreement
(.51-.70), strong agreement (.70-.90), and very strong agreement (.91-1.00).
The final indicator of agreement, ICC(1), can be interpreted as an effect
size, ranging from .01 as a small effect to .10 as a medium effect and .25 as a
large effect size (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000; LeBreton & Senter, 2008).
Generally, ICC(1) ranges from 0-.50 with a reported median of .12 (James,
1982; Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993). Evidence suggests a small ICC(1) may
reveal an underlying group effect, such that group membership affects indi-
vidual ratings, and further investigation about the appropriateness of aggre-
gation should be conducted (LeBreton & Senter, 2008).
The ICC and rwg statistics in this study confirm the appropriateness of
aggregating overall justice climate scores. The ICC(1) and ICC(2) for the
justice climate measure were .36 and .69, respectively. Furthermore, the rwg
reflected a score of .75, also showing good within-group agreement (e.g.,
James et al., 1984; LeBreton & Senter, 2008). In all, this evidence suggests
aggregation was appropriate.
Functional Dependence.Functional dependence was assessed using Morris

and Steers (1980) measure. The scale consists of three items (=.78) on a
5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Employees responded
to items such as The kind of job I have requires that I work closely with oth-
ers who have a job similar to mine, The way in which my fellow workers
do their work has very little to do with whether or not I can do my job, and
In order to do my job, I am very much dependent on my fellow workers to
do their jobs, too.
To create a measure of shared perceptions of functional dependence
among employees in a work unit we employed a direct consensus model, in
which individuals report on their own experiences, and these experiences are
aggregated with other unit members perceptions to create a measure of the
collective construct. Thus, similar to other group-oriented constructs (e.g.,
job interdependence, group identity), this measure asks individuals to report
on their own experiences with other members of a work unit. According to

Chan (1998), the direct consensus model represents the most common com-
position model for group-level researchers.
As with the overall justice measure, the one-way analysis of variance sug-
gested good interrater reliability (p < .001). In addition, the intraclass correla-
tion coefficients ICC(1) and ICC(2) for the functional dependence measure
were .19 and .53, respectively, and the rwg was .73. These indices provide
evidence for acceptable agreement among raters. Specifically, the ICC(1) pro-
vides a medium to strong effect size and a higher score than the median
reported score (James, 1982). Moreover, the rwg exceeds the guideline value of
.70. The ICC(2) is slightly lower than that of the overall justice measure.
However, scholars have argued that a value of .50 or above is an acceptable
level of group agreement (LeBreton & Senter, 2008) and provides sufficient
evidence for aggregation of the individual scores. In addition, Schneider et al.
(1998) have argued that values slightly below common cutoff values are not
low enough to prohibit aggregation. This belief carries through the organiza-
tional climate literature, such that group-level perceptions with slightly lower
ICC(1) or ICC(2)s have commonly been aggregated (e.g., Liao & Rupp, 2005;
Schneider et al., 1998; Tucker, 2007). In all, the body of evidence suggests
aggregation of the functional dependence measure was appropriate, as well.
Interpersonal Deviance.Interpersonal deviance was assessed using Bennett

and Robinsons (2000) 7-item ( = .78) scale. Supervisors rated the frequency
with which employees of the work group engaged in deviant behavior toward
one another on a 7-point response format (1 = never, 7 = daily). Scale items
include Said something hurtful to someone at work and Physically threat-
ened someone at work.
When studying counterproductive or aggressive work behavior, one criti-
cism in the literature has been the potential for common method variance. To
counter this methodological concern, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and
Podsakoff (2003) suggested employing other ratings of these employee
behaviors. That is, asking a different set of individuals (in this case, supervi-
sors) to rate outcome variables, whereas employees rate the predictor vari-
ables. Podsakoff and colleagues note this solution eliminates the risk that
social desirability tendencies, mood states, leniency effects, consistency
motifs, or implicit theories on the part of participants will inflate or deflate
observed relationships. Within the workplace deviance literature, research-
ers have turned to supervisor ratings of deviant acts they witness among
their employees (Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, & Marinova, 2012;
Thau et al., 2007).
General Political Behavior. General political behavior was measured using two
items ( = .88) from the Perceptions of Politics Scale developed by Kacmar
and Carlson (1997). Employees rated on a 5-point response format (1 = does
not apply, 5 = applies) statements like People in this department attempt to
bring themselves up by tearing others down. Employee perceptions about
general political behavior in the department were also aggregated to the
group level. As with the other measures, results of the interrater agreement
indices showed that aggregation of this measure was appropriate (LeBreton
& Senter, 2008; Liao & Rupp, 2005; Schneider et al., 1998; Tucker, 2007).
Specifically, a one-way ANOVA suggested greater between-group variance
compared with within group variance (p < .001), suggesting good interrater
reliability. Furthermore, the intraclass correlation coefficients ICC(1) and
ICC(2) were .19 and .55, respectively. The rwg (.54) indicated moderate levels
of agreement (LeBreton & Senter, 2008).
Control Variables.Consistent with other group-level studies focusing on

deviant work behavior (e.g., Mayer et al., 2009), the size of the work unit,
which is reflected by the number of employees in the work unit, was con-
trolled for.
Results
The means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelations among the
key variables are presented in Table 1.
All of the variables reside at the group level, which is consistent with the
theoretical rationale upon which our hypotheses rest (Klein & Kozlowski,
2000). Thus, to test the hypotheses, hierarchical ordinary least squares regres-
sion was utilized. Hypothesis 1 predicted overall injustice climate would be
positively related to interpersonal deviance and general political behavior in
work units. As is appropriate in interpreting regression results, the regression
coefficients of the fully specified model (Step 3) were interpreted when
examining the impact of both the main effect (overall justice climate) and the
interaction term on negative group behaviors (Echambadi, Arroniz, Reinartz,
& Lee, 2006; Echambadi, Campbell, & Agarwal, 2006; Echambadi & Hess,
2007; Stone-Romero & Liakhovitski, 2002). As predicted, results reported in
Table 2 reveal a direct (and positive) relationship between overall injustice
climate and interpersonal deviance ( = .28, p < .01), and a direct (and posi-
tive) relationship between injustice climate and political behavior ( = .19,
p < .05). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Effect sizes for these two
relationships were large at .56 and .64, respectively (Cohen, 1988).
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Correlations.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Work unit size 36.27 109.4 ___
2. Overall injustice climate 2.61 0.65 .12** (.70)
3. Functional dependence 3.49 0.54 .09 .07 (.78)
4. Interpersonal deviance 1.94 0.76 .09* .18** .37** (.78)
5. General political behavior 2.43 0.68 .05 .08 .52** .17** (.88)
Note. N = 113. p .10. * p .05. **p .01. Coefficient reliabilities are reported on
the diagonal.
Table 2. Regression Results.
General political
behavior Interpersonal deviance
Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Hypotheses
Work unit size .00 .00 .00 .00**a .00**a .00**a
Overall injustice climate .01 .19* .13 .28**
Functional dependence .73** .71** .49** .47**
Overall injustice climate x .24** .19*
Functional dependence
R2 .01 .39 .44 .24 .36 .37
R2 .38** .06** .12** .01*
aThe .00 coefficient was rounded to the hundredth and therefore truncated. The actual
regression coefficient for department size reflects .002 (.003 and .002 in Step 1 and Step 2,
respectively), indicating that with every unit increase in department size (adding a person to
the work unit), interpersonal deviance will also rise, yet at a small increment (.002).
Note. N = 113. *p .05. **p .01, (one-tailed).
Hypothesis 2 predicted the relationship between overall injustice climate

and negative outcomes would be stronger under conditions of low functional
dependence. Results in Table 2 reveal the interaction between organizational
injustice and functional dependence is significant in predicting interpersonal
deviance ( = .19, p < .05) and general political behavior ( = .24, p < .01).
Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was supported. Effect sizes for these two relation-
ships were small (f2 = .02, .09, respectively) and effect sizes for the models
overall were large, at .59 and .79, respectively.
3.5
General Political Behavior
Low Functional
2.5 Dependence
High Functional
2 Dependence
1.5
1
Low High
Overall Injustice Climate
Figure 1. Moderating effect of functional dependence on the relationship between

overall injustice climate and general political behavior.
Plots of these interactions, illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2, demon-

strate that the form of the interactions is consistent with Hypothesis 2, such
that the relationships are stronger under conditions of low functional depen-
dence. To further examine the interactions, a simple slopes analysis was con-
ducted (Aiken & West, 1991). Results indicate that the slopes were
significantly different from zero when the work reflected low levels of func-
tional dependence (B = .38, p < .01 for interpersonal deviance and B = .32,
p < .01 for political behavior).
Discussion
The goal of this article was to explore antecedents of counterproductive work
behavior in groups. Recent work points to contextual, rather than personal,
influences on bad behavior in organizations. This article adds to this research
stream by emphasizing emerging work in the organizational justice literature
that points to the constructs of overall justice and justice climate as potent
predictors of employee and organizational outcomes. That is, the construct of
overall justice climate is introduced as an antecedent of counterproductive
group behavior. The view of how contextual factors influence counterproduc-
tive behavior is further extended by considering the nature of the work
itselfin the form of functional dependenceas a moderator of the relation-
ship between overall justice climate and outcomes.
Interpersonal Deviance 3
2.5
Low Functional
2 Dependence
High Functional
Dependence
1.5
1
Low High
Overall Injustice Climate
Figure 2. Moderating effect of functional dependence on the relationship between

overall injustice climate and interpersonal deviance.
Results support the hypotheses. Group-level perceptions of overall fair-

ness (overall fairness climate) exerted a significant direct effect on both
interpersonal deviance and general political behavior in work groups.
Functional dependence (the interdependence between team members when
performing tasks) moderated both of these direct effects such that under
conditions of low functional dependence, the relationship between injustice
climate and work group misbehavior was significantly stronger than under
conditions of high functional dependence. More specifically, when members
of a work unit collectively perceived their work environment to be unfair,
they were more likely to engage in political behavior and interpersonal devi-
ance directed at members of their work unit when the work units functional
dependence was low.
These results represent contributions on several fronts. First, they contribute
to the literature on counterproductive work behavior as a group-level phenom-
enon. The literature has been limited in determining antecedents of negative
employee behavior in work units. This study shows that group-level character-
istics, in the form of overall justice climate and functional dependence, are
important predictors of deviant and political behavior of work groups.
The findings further add to the emerging literature of overall justice and
the application of more general measures of justice that capture employees
holistic justice perceptions. Previous justice research has tended toward
exploring the impact of climates related to specific justice facets (e.g., pro-
cedural, distributive, and interactional justice) on positive and negative
organizational outcomes such as organizational citizenship behavior and

aggression (e.g., Dietz et al., 2003; Liao & Rupp, 2005). However, research
and theory suggest that overall assessments of justice may more accurately
capture the collective justice experiences of team members. They may,
therefore, give us a more accurate understanding of how people perceive the
fair treatment of their work group and how employees in a work group may
react when they perceive the work environment to be unfair (Ambrose &
Schminke, 2009).
Although overall justice has been established as a meaningful construct
with predictive power beyond that offered by individual justice facets, research
investigating how overall justice climate influences work outcomes has been
limited. Previous research demonstrates that the work units perceived fair-
ness affects employees behaviors because the groups fairness judgments
influence important team processes, such as coordination, communication,
and cohesion (Cropanzano et al., 2011). The present research advances this
view by showing that overall justice climate perceptions exert influence on
important behavioral outcomes that affect the performance of the work unit.
Thus, this study not only extends research on overall justice but also justice at
the group level by expanding our knowledge about the effects of overall jus-
tice climate on deviant and political work group behavior.
This work further suggests that these work unit processes may be shaped
by the functional dependence of work unit members. The influence of con-
textual moderators has enjoyed recent attention within the overall justice and
deviance literatures (Duffy, Ganster, Shaw, Johnson, & Pagon, 2006).
Furthermore, structural components have been shown to influence the rela-
tionship between justice perceptions and outcomes (Schminke et al., 2000;
Schminke et al., 2002). We posit that in units where functional dependence is
low, communication, coordination, and support are likely lower than in work
groups where functional dependence is higher and communication, coordina-
tion, and mutual support are encouraged and required for task achievement
and performance. Fewer group interactions further increase self-interested
motivations and may therefore foster negative group behavior.
In all, this work advances understanding of the source of counterproduc-
tive behavior in groups on both theoretical and empirical fronts. But it has
practical implications, as well. The study shows that the context in which
employees work plays a significant role in how group members may act
toward each other and engage with one another. In particular, perceptions
about how their work is organized (i.e., functional dependence) exert a sig-
nificant influence on how employees react to perceived unfairness. The find-
ings suggest that employees in work units with low levels of functional
dependence who experience injustice are more likely to engage in wrongdo-

ing as a result. This relationship describes a potential downside to group or
work environments, which foster greater autonomy in employees task per-
formance and planning. Generally, more flexibility and greater autonomy in
the workplace might appear attractive to employees in many ways and are
often praised for creating positive contributions to worker well-being and
productivity (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). This study shows that this may not
always be the case.
At first glance, the results might suggest that managers consider restruc-
turing work in ways that increase functional dependence. And in some cases,
that response might represent a reasonable and useful response. However,
work structures should be driven by factors beyond the desire and need to
decrease negative, counterproductive, and self-serving behaviors. But in set-
tings in which lower levels of functional interdependence are appropriate,
managers and team leaders may want to facilitate face-to-face interaction
among employees and share individual work assignments and achievements
with the unit. Furthermore, managers could discuss and emphasize how each
individuals contribution adds to the goals of the organization, both indirectly
and directly. Such conversations may help to mitigate some of the potential
downsides of functional independence between workers.
Limitations
All studies have limitations and this one is no exception. First, all data are
cross-sectional. Hence, causality cannot be inferred, due to the fact that the
data were collected at a single point in time. Second, because all data were
collected via surveys, the study may be subject to common method variance
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). Podsakoff et al. (2003) outline remedies for common
method concerns on both procedural and statistical fronts. Procedurally, they
advise obtaining measures of predictor and outcome variables from different
sources. The data used in this study largely reflect this procedure. The predic-
tor variables were all collected from employees, whereas one of the outcome
variables (deviance) was collected from supervisors. Results were similar
between the model in which the dependent variable was collected from
supervisors and the model in which the dependent variable was collected
from employees. This similarity provides additional evidence that common
method variance may not represent a serious threat.
Third, we did not model or measure several of the constructs discussed in
the theory development sections, which describe the processes by which these
effects unfold. For example, the theoretical foundations describe injustice
triggering fewer group interactions and engagement in group processes (e.g.,

Cropanzano et al., 2011). Previous research demonstrates these effects clearly,
but they were not measured in the study. Similarly, although our theorizing
involved the role of self-serving motivations under conditions of low func-
tional dependence, this study did not include measures of employees levels of
motivation. The results of this study are consistent with the theoretical frame-
work and extant research has provided empirical support for the theoretical
perspectives called upon in this article. However, additional research will be
needed to open the black box and determine the precise processes by which
these effects unfold in this context.
Fourth, although the contact person was asked to randomly distribute the
surveys to coworkers, the researchers were unable to track this behavior.
Therefore, the study may be subject to a selection bias such that the contact
may have provided surveys in a nonrandom fashion (e.g., to similar others),
which may impact the level of agreement within groups (Schneider, 1987).
Another concern about the sample may be the issue of representativeness.
Not every member of each work group participated in the data collection. On
average, the sample reflected responses from about half of the employees
represented in the work units surveyed. But a few of the work units had large
numbers of employees, which leads to the question of whether the sample of
four to six employees per department may be an adequate representation of
the entire work group. This shortcoming in the sample limits the ability to
generalize the findings across these departments.
Finally, the sample lacks generalizability across cultures, as participants
from other parts of the world were not part of this data collection effort.
Replication and extension of this research across cultures paves an interest-
ing way for future research.
Future Research
Research on counterproductive behavior in organizations has received con-
siderable attention in recent years. In particular, interest in the contextual
and relational drivers of bad behavior has increased. This research points to
justice-related issues as relevant in those analyses, suggesting additional
work may be warranted on several fronts to understand these phenomena
more fully.
First, more needs to be known about the construct of overall justice cli-
mate and its ability to demonstrate predictive power either in lieu of, or in
addition to, other (facet-specific) types of justice climate. For example,
Ambrose and Schminke (2006) and Jones and Martens (2009) show that at
the individual-level perceptions of overall organizational justice predict out-

comes above and beyond perceptions of specific facet types. But little is
known about whether this finding holds at the climate level, as well, and how
those effects may translate into understanding counterproductive behavior
such as organizational-level deviance.
In addition to examining the predictive validity of overall justice climate
above and beyond justice facets, future research should also focus on other
important outcome variables besides negative work behaviors, including citi-
zenship behavior, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, psychologi-
cal well-being, and so on. Further research in these arenas will help to broaden
the nomological net of the justice climate construct.
Research that continues to emphasize the relevance of context on organiza-
tional-level as well as individual-level outcomes is also encouraged (Johns,
2006). In this study, the contextual variable of functional dependence is intro-
duced to the counterproductive work behavior and justice literatures, and it
demonstrates that characteristics of the work itself matter. However, it would
be nave to think functional dependence represents the only work structure or
group variable with this potential. For example, the reward structure of a work
unit, or relational variables within the group (or between individual members
and the supervisor), may provide fruitful avenues for future studies.
In this study, group-level phenomena are examined. However, it may also
be useful to explore additional individual-level factors that might shape devi-
ant and political reactions to work structure and workplace fairness. Some
individuals may be more or less inclined to engage in deviant or self-serving
behaviors depending on their personality (Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001) or,
as already noted, based on the relationship they hold with their supervisor or
peers (Duffy et al., 2006). All of these areas represent fertile ground for cross-
level theorizing and cross-level analyses in future studies.
Lastly, researchers may be able to correct some of the methodological
limitations noted. Longitudinal designs would allow for stronger inferences
of causality among these constructs. Explicit measurement of theorized
mediation effects would do the same. Further, testing alternative mediation
processes, such as social information processing (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978),
represents a promising avenue, as well.
Conclusion
Overall, this study makes several contributions to the group literature. It adds
to the literature on counterproductive behavior in work groups by expanding
the search for antecedents of bad behavior in teams to include the contextual
factor of work group fairness. It extends the organizational justice literature

by integrating work on justice climate with work on overall justice and
exploring the impact of overall justice climate on counterproductive behavior
in work units. Finally, this research contributes to both literatures by suggest-
ing the nature of the work itself is relevant to understanding the reactions
employees have to unfair conditions.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank the UCF BB&T Program in Business Ethics for its support in per-
forming this research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Ambrose, M. L., & Arnaud, A. (2005). Are procedural justice and distributive jus-
tice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational justice (pp. 59-84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organization structure as a moderator of
the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, POS and super-
visory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 295-305.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2006). The role of overall fairness judgments in
organizational justice research. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009). The role of overall justice judgments
in organizational justice research: A test of mediation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 491-500.
Andrews, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Blakely, G., & Bucklew, N. (2008). Group cohesion
as an enhancement to the justice-affective commitment relationship. Group &
Organization Management, 33, 736-755.
Aub, C., Rousseau, V., Mama, C., & Morin, E. M. (2009). Counterproductive behav-
iors and psychological well-being: The moderating effect of task interdepen-
dence. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 351-361.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning
Press.
Bartko, J. J. (1976). On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients.

Psychological Bulletin, 83, 762-765.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). The development of a measure of workplace
deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349-360.
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organi-
zational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 409-423.
Beugre, C. D., & Baron, R. A. (2001). Perceptions of systematic justice: The effects
of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Social
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement
model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic out-
comes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 445-464.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same context domain
at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 234-246.
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in
work teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 223-267.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel
study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of
Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J. L. (2011). Motivating
and de-motivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leader-
ship and relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 541-547.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations:
A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86,
278-321.
Cojuharenco, I., Patient, D. L., & Bashshur, M. (2011). Seeing the forest or the trees
of organizational justice: Effects of temporal perspective on employee concerns
about unfair treatment at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 116, 17-31.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L.H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001).
Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational
justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.
Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and
consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55, 83-109.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2006). Justice and personal-
ity: Deriving theoretically-based moderators of justice effects. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 110-127.
Colquitt, J. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2005). How should organizational justice be measured?
In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp.
589-619). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues,
fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164-209.
Cropanzano, R., Li, A., & Benson, L., III. (2011). Peer justice and teamwork process.
Group & Organization Management, 36, 567-596.
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational
citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 1241-1255.
De Cremer, D., & Van Vugt, M. (1999). Social identification effects in social dilem-
mas: A transformation of motives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29,
871-893.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the
door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869-884.
Dietz, J., Robinson, S. L., Folger, R., Baron, R. A., & Schulz, M. (2003). The impact
of community violence and an organizations procedural justice climate on
workplace aggression. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 317-326.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J. L., & Pagon, M. (2006). The
social context of undermining at work. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 101, 104-126.
Echambadi, R., & Hess, J. D. (2007). Mean-centering does not alleviate collinear-
ity problems in moderated multiple regression models. Marketing Science, 26,
438-445.
Echambadi, R., Arroniz, I., Reinartz, W., & Lee, J. (2006). Empirical generaliza-
tions from brand extension research: How sure are we? International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 23, 253-261.
Echambadi, R., Campbell, B. A., & Agarwal, R. (2006). Encouraging best practice in
quantitative management research: An incomplete list of opportunities. Journal
of Management Studies, 43, 1801-1820.
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and justice climate as antecedents of unit-level
organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61-94.
Enns, J. R., & Rotundo, M. (2012). When competition turns ugly: Collective injus-
tice, workgroup identification, and counterproductive work behavior. Human
Performance, 25, 26-51.
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychologi-
cal climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10,
601-616.
Greenberg, J. (2001). Setting the justice agenda: Seven unanswered questions about
what, why, and how. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 210-219.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test
of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.
Henle, C. A., Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2005). The role of ethical ideol-
ogy in workplace deviance. Journal of Business Ethics, 56, 219-230.
Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of inno-
vative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization
Science, 12, 435-449.
Holtz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. (2009). Fair today fair tomorrow? A longitudinal investiga-
tion of overall justice perceptions, Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1185-1199.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 67, 219-229.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater
reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69,
85-98.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy
of Management Review, 31, 386-408.
Jones, D. A., & Martens, M. L. (2009). The mediating role of overall fairness and the
moderating role of trust certainty in justicecriteria relationships: The forma-
tion and use of fairness heuristics in the workplace. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 30, 1025-1051.
Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1997). Further validation of the perceptions of
politics scale (POPS): A multi-sample approach. Journal of Management, 23,
627-658.
Kacmar, K. M., Bozeman, D. P., Carlson, D. S., & Anthony, W. P. (1999). An exami-
nation of the perceptions of organizational politics model: Replication and exten-
sion. Human Relations, 52, 383-416.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interde-
pendence. New York, NY: Wiley.
Kidwell, R. E., & Valentine, S. (2009). Positive group context, work attitudes, and
organizational misbehavior: The case of withholding job effort. Journal of
Business Ethics, 86, 15-28.
Kim, T. Y., & Leung, K. (2007). Forming and reacting to overall organizational fair-
ness perception: A cross-cultural comparison. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 104, 83-95.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and con-
sequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58-74.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). Multilevel theory, research and methods
in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and directions. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to twenty questions about interrater
reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815-
852.
Li, A., & Cropanzano, R. (2009). Fairness at the group level: Justice climate and
intraunit justice climate. Journal of Management, 35, 564-599.
Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. (2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orienta-
tion on work outcomes: A cross-level multifoci framework. Journal of Applied
Lind, E. A. (2001). Thinking critically about justice judgments. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 58, 220-226.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New
York, NY: Plenum Press.
Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. J. (2012).
A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65, 325-357.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How
low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational
Melkonian, T., Soenen, G., & Ambrose, M. (2010). The mediating role of antici-
patory overall justice in a change context. Paper presented at the International
Roundtable for Innovations in Organizational Justice, Orlando, FL.
Melkonian, T., Soenen, G., & Ambrose, M. (2011). The role of anticipatory justice
perceptions on employees cooperation in a merger context. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, San Antonio, TX.
Morris, J. H., & Moberg, D. J. (1994). Work organizations as contexts for trust and
betrayal. In T. R. Sarbin, R. M. Carney, & C. Eoyang (Eds.), Espionage: Studies
in trust and betrayal (pp. 219-241). New York, NY: Praeger.
Morris, J. H., & Steers, R. M. (1980). Structural influences on organizational commit-
ment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17, 50-57.
Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). A multilevel analysis of
procedural justice context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 131-141.
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.
Newman, D. A., & Sin, H. (2009). How do missing data bias estimates of within-
group agreement? Sensitivity of SDWG, CVWG, r WG, r WG(J), and ICC to sys-
tematic nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 113-147.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
OBoyle, E. H., Jr., Forsyth, D. R., & OBoyle, A. S. (2011). Bad apples or bad barrels:
An examination of group- and organizational-level effects in the study of counter-
productive work behavior. Group & Organization Management, 36, 39-69.
Ostroff, C., & Schmitt, N. (1993). Configurations of organizational effectiveness and
efficiency. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1345-1361.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and rec-
ommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 879-903.
Richardson, H. A., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2005). Integrating managerial percep-
tions and transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee
involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 1-29.
Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships:
An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10,
175-204.
Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and rela-
tionships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351-375.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job
attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.
Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Cropanzano, R. S. (2000). The effect of orga-
nizational structure on perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of Applied
Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Neubaum, D. O. (2005). The effect of leader
moral development on ethical climate and employee attitudes. Organizational
Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Noel, T. W. (1997). The effect of ethical frame-
works on perceptions of organizational justice. Academy of Management
Journal, 40, 1190-1207.
Schminke, M., Cropanzano, R., & Rupp, D. E. (2002). Organization structure and fair-
ness perceptions: The moderating effects of organizational level. Organizational
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-451.
Schneider, B., Hanges, P., Smith, B., & Salvaggio, A. (2003). Which comes first:
Employee attitudes or organizational financial and market performance? Journal
Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A., & Subirats, E. (2002). Climate strength: A new direction
for climate research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 220-230.
Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and cus-
tomer perceptions of service quality: Test of a causal model. Journal of Applied
Scott, B. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2007). Are organizational justice effects bounded by
individual differences? An examination of equity sensitivity, exchange ideology,
and the Big Five. Group & Organization Management, 32, 290-325.
Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2009). The popularity contest at work: Who wins, why,
and what do they receive? Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 20-33.
Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the
next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance and satisfac-
tion. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 332-349.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater
reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.
Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: The
effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of
Soenen, G., Melkonian, T., & Ambrose, M. (2012). The dynamics of justice judg-
ments during organizational change: The antecedents and consequences of
phase-shifting perceptions. Paper presented at the International Roundtable for
Innovations in Organizational Justice, Nice, France.
Spell, C. S., & Arnold, T. J. (2007). A multi-level analysis of organizational justice
climate, structure, and employee mental health. Journal of Management, 33,
724-751.
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing
the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type.
Academy of Management Journal, 43, 135-148.
Stone-Romero, E. F., & Liakhovitski, D. (2002). Strategies for detecting moderator

variables: A review of conceptual and empirical issues. Research in Personnel
and Human Resources Management, 21, 333-372.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis
and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261-289.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Personality moderators of the
relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates resistance. Journal
Thau, S., Crossley, C., Bennett, R. J., & Sczesny, S. (2007). The relationship between
trust, attachment, and antisocial work behaviors. Human Relations, 60, 1155-1179.
Tracey, J. B., & Tews, M. J. (2005). Construct validity of a general training climate
scale. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 353-374.
Tucker, A. L. (2007). An empirical study of system improvement by frontline employ-
ees in hospital units. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 9,
492-505.
Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group value
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 830-838.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice,
social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2001). Identity and cooperative behavior in groups.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4, 207-226.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model procedural justice,
social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 7, 349-361.
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural
justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship
behavior: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 517-529.
Author Biographies
Manuela Priesemuth is an assistant professor of Organizational Behavior/Human
Resource Management in the School of Business & Economics at Wilfrid Laurier
University. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Central Florida. Her
research interests concern social issues in management including workplace aggres-
sion, behavioral ethics, and organizational justice.
Anke Arnaud is an assistant professor of management at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University. She received her Ph.D. in 2006 from the University of Central Florida.
Her research interests include the ethical climate of organizations, behavioral ethics,
and environmental and social sustainability.
Marshall Schminke is the BB&T Professor of Business Ethics at the University of
Central Florida. He received his Ph.D. from Carnegie Mellon University. His research
explores the interface between individuals and organizations with respect to business
ethics and organizational justice.

Priesemuth - The Impact of Overall Justice Climate

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Priesemuth - The Impact of Overall Justice Climate

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Group & Organization

Bad Behavior in Groups: The Impact of Overall Justice Climate and

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> Version of Record - Mar 14, 2013

Group & Organization Management

Climate and Functional

Manuela Priesemuth1, Anke Arnaud2,

Research points to the considerable costs organizations incur due to employee

upon and extending recent work in the organizational justice literature.

employee behavior and attitudes may be better examined by assessing per-

Overall (In)Justice Climate and Group Behavior

environment in which employees are comfortable speaking up and sharing

Hypothesis 1: Group-level perceptions of overall injustice will be posi-

The Moderating Effect of Functional Dependence

Specifically, the structure and design of the organizational environment play

unfair climate may prompt individuals in groups to misbehave. Low func-

Hypothesis 2: Functional dependence will moderate the relationships

to questions. This introductory statement and clarification of ones work unit

general experience items) resulted in the same pattern of results as when

All of these indices rely on guidelines, often referred to as cutoff values,

Functional Dependence.Functional dependence was assessed using Morris

on their own experiences with other members of a work unit. According to

Interpersonal Deviance.Interpersonal deviance was assessed using Bennett

Control Variables.Consistent with other group-level studies focusing on

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Correlations.

Table 2. Regression Results.

Hypothesis 2 predicted the relationship between overall injustice climate

Figure 1. Moderating effect of functional dependence on the relationship between

Plots of these interactions, illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2, demon-

Figure 2. Moderating effect of functional dependence on the relationship between

Results support the hypotheses. Group-level perceptions of overall fair-

organizational outcomes such as organizational citizenship behavior and

dependence who experience injustice are more likely to engage in wrongdo-

triggering fewer group interactions and engagement in group processes (e.g.,

the individual-level perceptions of overall organizational justice predict out-

factor of work group fairness. It extends the organizational justice literature

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Bartko, J. J. (1976). On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients.

Stone-Romero, E. F., & Liakhovitski, D. (2002). Strategies for detecting moderator

Potrebbero piacerti anche