When the leader interacts fairly. The effects of the interactional fairness and the moderating role of the Need for Cognitive Closure

Author/s Antonio Pierro, Clara Amato, Gennaro Pica
Publishing Year 2015 Issue 2014/2
Language Italian Pages 13 P. 81-93 File size 71 KB
DOI 10.3280/PSC2014-002007
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The present research examines the moderating role of need for closure on the relationship between interactional fairness and the leadership effectiveness. Need for closure, reflecting a desire to reduce uncertainty, is proposed here to lead people to rely more strongly on fairness when making judgments about the leader. Because interactional fairness has been found to reduce uncertainty (Van den Bos e Lind, 2002), it has been hypothesized that leadership effectiveness was contingent on interactional fairness especially for employees with a higher motivation toward closure. Results confirmed the hypothesis: the relationship between interactional fairness and leadership effectiveness is stronger for high-need for closure (vs. low need for closure) employees.

Keywords: Leadership interactional fairness, leader-follower relationship, need for closure, uncertainty reduction, effectiveness of leadership.

  1. Barling J. and Phillips M. (1993). Interactional, formal, and distributive justice in the workplace: an exploratory study. Journal of Psychology, 127: 649-656. DOI: 10.1080/00223980.1993.991490
  2. Bies R.J. and Moag J.F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In: R.J. Lewicki, B.H. Sheppard and M.H. Bazerman, editors, Research on negotiations in organizations. Vol. 1: pp. 43-55. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  3. Brayfield, A.H. and Rothe H.F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35: 307-311. DOI: 10.1037/h0055617.Brown,S.P.andLeigh,T.W.(1996).Anewlookatpsychologicalclimateanditsrelationshiptojobinvolvement,effort,andperformance.JournalofAppliedPsychology,81:358-368.DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.358
  4. Cicero, L., Pierro, A. and van Knippenberg, D. (2007). Leader group prototypicality and job satisfaction: The moderating role of job stress and team identification. Group Dynamics, 11: 165-175. DOI: 10.1037/1089-2699.11.3.165
  5. Cicero, L., Pierro, A. and van Knippenberg, D. (2010). Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of role ambiguity. British Journal of Management, 21:411-421. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00648.
  6. Colquitt J.A., Scott B.A., Judge T.A. and Shaw J.C. (2006). Justice and personality: Using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100: 110-127. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.09.00
  7. Colquitt J.A., Scott B.A., Rodell J.B., Long D.M., Zapata CP, Conlon D.E. and Wesson M.J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 199-236. DOI: 10.1037/a003175
  8. Gellatly I.R. (1995). Individual and group determinants of employee absenteeism: test of a causal model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16: 469-485. DOI: 10.1002/job.403016050
  9. Giacomantonio M., Pierro A. and Kruglanski A.W. (2011). Leaders’ fairness and followers’ conflict handling style: The moderating role of need for cognitive closure. International Journal of Conflict Management, 22: 358-372. DOI: 10.1108/1044406111117136
  10. Greenberg J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  11. Heuer L., Blumenthal E., Douglas A. and Weinblatt T. (1999). A deservingness approach to respect as a relationally based fairness judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25: 1279-1292. DOI: 10.1177/014616729925800
  12. Hiller N.J., De Church L.A., Murase T. and Doty D. (2011). Searching for outcomes of leadership: A 25-year review. Journal of Management, 37: 1137-1177. DOI: 10.1177/0149206310393520
  13. Janson A., Levy L., Sitkin S.B. and Lind E.A. (2008). Fairness and other leadership heuristics: A four-nation study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17: 251-272. DOI: 10.1080/13594320701746510
  14. Konovsky M.A. and Cropanzano R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of applied psychology, 76: 698-707. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.69
  15. Korsgaard M.A., Schweiger D.M. and Sapienza H.J. (1995). The role of procedural justice in building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 60-84. DOI: 10.2307/25672
  16. Kruglanski A.W. (1980). Lay epistemologic, its process and content: Another look at attribution theory. Psychological Review, 87: 70-87. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.87.1.70
  17. Kruglanski A.W. (1990). Motivations for judging and knowing: Implications for social attributions. In: E.T. Higgins and R.M. Sorrentino, editors, Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior. Vol. 2: pp. 335-368. New York: Guilford Press.
  18. Kruglanski A.W., Atash M.N., De Grada E., Mannetti L., Pierro A. and Webster D.M. (1997). Psychological theory testing versus psychometric nay-saying: Comment on the Neuberg et al’s (1997) critique of the Need for Closure Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73: 1005-1016. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.100
  19. Kruglanski A.W. and Webster D.M. (1996). Motivated Closing of the Mind: «Seizing » and «freezing». Psychological Review, 103: 263-283. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.26
  20. Lind E.A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In: J.S. Greenberg and R. Cropanzano, editors, Advances in organizational justice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press: pp. 56-88.
  21. Lind E.A. and Van den Bos K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in organizational behavior, 24: 181-223. DOI: 10.1016/S0191-3085(02)24006-X
  22. Niehoff B.P. and Moorman R.H. (1993). Justice as a mediator in the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 527-556. DOI: 10.2307/256591
  23. Pierro A., Cicero L., Bonaiuto M., van Knippenberg D. and Kruglanski A.W. (2005). Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of need for cognitive closure. Leadership Quarterly, 16: 503-516. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.002
  24. Pierro A., Giacomantonio M., Kruglanski A.W. and van Knippenberg D. (2014). Follower need for cognitive closure as moderator of the effectiveness of leader procedural fairness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23: 582-595. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2013.781269
  25. Pierro A. and Kruglanski A.W. (2005). Revised need for cognitive closure scale (Unpublished manuscript). Università di Roma, “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy.
  26. Skarlicki D.P., Folger R. and Tesluk P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 100-108. DOI: 10.2307/25687
  27. Taylor M.S., Tracy K.B., Renard M.K., Harrison J.K. and Carroll S.J. (1995). Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 495-523. DOI: 10.2307/239379
  28. Tyler T.R. and Lind E.A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In: M.P. Zanna, editor, Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 25: pp. 115-191. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  29. van den Bos K. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Assessing the information to which people are reacting has a pivotal role in understanding organizational justice. In: S. Gilliland, D. Steiner and D. Skarlicki, editors, Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice. Greenwich, CT: Information
  30. Age Publishing: pp. 63-84. van den Bos K. and Lind E.A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. Advances in experimental social psychology, 34: 1-60. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80003-
  31. van Knippenberg D. (2011). Embodying who we are: Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 22: 1078-1091. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.00
  32. van Knippenberg D. and De Cremer D. (2008). Leadership and fairness: Taking stock and looking ahead. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17: 173-179. DOI: 10.1080/1359432080191213
  33. van Knippenberg D., De Cremer D. and van Knippenberg B. (2007). Leadership and fairness: The state of the art. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 16: 113-140. DOI: 10.1080/1359432070127583
  34. Walumbwa F.O., Cropanzano R. and Hartnell C.A. (2009). Organizational justice, voluntary learning behavior, and job performance: A test of the mediating effects of identification and leader-member exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 1103-1126. DOI: 10.1002/job.611
  35. Webster D.M. and Kruglanski A.W. (1994). Individual differences in Need for Cognitive Closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67: 1049-1062. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.104

Antonio Pierro, Clara Amato, Gennaro Pica, Quando il leader interagisce in maniera equa. Gli effetti dell’equità interazionale e il ruolo moderatore del bisogno di chiusura cognitiva in "PSICOLOGIA DI COMUNITA’" 2/2014, pp 81-93, DOI: 10.3280/PSC2014-002007