Procedural justice , interactional justice , and task performance : The mediating role of intrinsic motivation

This manuscript reports the results of two studies, one in the laboratory and one in the field, both of which examined intrinsic motivation as a mediator of the relationship between justice and task performance. Using fairness theory, we argued that procedural justice and interpersonal justice would have significant, independent effects on intrinsic motivation. In general, the results showed that procedural justice predicted both self-reported and free-choice based measures of intrinsic motivation. Procedural justice also predicted task performance, a relationship that was partially mediated by intrinsic motivation. In contrast, interpersonal justice was not significantly related to either intrinsic motivation or task performance. We discuss the implications of these results for the continued integration of the justice and motivation literatures. Published by Elsevier Inc. Research in organizational justice, a literature focused on the experience of fairness in organizations and other task-focused environments (Greenberg, 1987), has increased significantly over the past decade (see Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005, for a narrative review). One reason for that increase is that perceptions of fair treatment have been linked to a number of beneficial employee behaviors (Conlon, Meyer, & Nowakowski, 2005). For example, meta-analytic reviews have yielded a moderately strong positive relationship between procedural justice, the perceived fairness of decision-making processes (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975), and task performance (CohenCharash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). That relationship suggests that taking steps to make decision-making more fair may actually improve individuals’ fulfillment of task duties. Despite the practical importance of the procedural justice–task performance relationship, justice scholars have devoted surprisingly little attention to the theoretical mechanisms that could explain such results (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Scott, 2005). Indeed, scholars have spent much more time providing a conceptual rationale for the relationships between justice and other beneficial behaviors, such as organizational citizenship behaviors, rule compliance, cooperation, and deference to authority (Lind, 2001; Moorman & Byrne, 2005; Tyler & Blader, 2000; Tyler & Lind, 1992). Part of that disparity in theoretical attention might be explained by the fact that earlier reviews of the justice literature were somewhat pessimistic about the ability of justice to influence task performance (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Nevertheless, without understanding the mediators that underlie the justice–task performance relationship, it is impossible to understand why fair treatment can have positive task-related consequences. One potential mediator of the justice–task performance relationship is motivation. Latham and Pinder (2005) defined motivation as a set of energetic forces that initiates task-related behavior and determines its form, direction, intensity, and duration. One might expect that the motivational consequences of justice would be well-understood given that justice concepts are often discussed in narrative reviews of the motivation literature (Kanfer, 1991; Latham & Pinder, 2005). However, that association with the motivation literature is largely due to distributive justice, the perceived fairness of decision outcomes (Adams, 1965; Homans, 1961; Leventhal, 1976), as equity theory is viewed as one of the more venerable motivation theories. With few exceptions (e.g., Bell, Wiechmann, & Ryan, 2006; Colquitt & Chertkoff, 2002), scholars have failed to examine the motivational consequences of other justice dimensions. Indeed, in a recent review, Colquitt and Greenberg (2003) asked ‘‘Why is it that job satisfaction and organizational commitment are popular dependent variables in justice research, but motivation is virtually ignored?” (p. 99). Similarly, Cropanzano 0749-5978/$ see front matter Published by Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.08.001 * Corresponding author. Fax: +1 404 894 1552. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.P. Zapata-Phelan), [email protected] (J.A. Colquitt), [email protected] (B.A. Scott), beth.livingston@ cba.ufl.edu (B. Livingston). 1 Fax: +1 352 392 6020. 2 Fax: +1 517 432 1111. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 108 (2009) 93–105